Does INTERCONTINENTAL GREAT BRANDS LLC have a trademark for Oreo in the "computer and scientific" or telecommunications categories?
If not, then there is no trademark issue. Google isn't selling a food, it's selling an operating system.
If not, then there is no trademark issue. Google isn't selling a food, it's selling an operating system.
It's the same with kit kat, they probably couldn't just use that, either.
But it's a win-win for both parties, I doubt either of them paid.
Maybe money was paid one way or the other. Or not.
What restrictions are you imagining?
If Google had a line in a blog post that said, "It's better than real Oreos", they could likely be sued.
Oreo would not like Google saying either of these things. So Oreo needed to make up legal documents to map out all the things Google is allowed to say about Oreo Android. It seems like an unnecessary legal headache - one for dubious marketing gain.
Same with your other example. That line is clearly humor, and keeps the cookie brand's name in people's minds.
I think you're overthinking all of this.
The logical conclusion is that they have permission, not that one of the largest companies in the world made a legal mistake that the "We Are Not A Lawyer"s on HN can see right through... for (at least) a second time. Keep an eye out for Oreo packages with Android branding material on them, in the style of: http://cdn.redmondpie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/kitkata...
I do find myself curious what the negotiations look like when Google wants to not just use Oreos, but not slather all their material with "Oreos are a registered trademark of blah blah blah", which is pretty unusual.
Android is in itself a loss making project. It makes money as a marketing vehicle for other Google products (and therefore ultimately advertising).