An android variant named xxxdroid and you wonder Google is coming after you for name?
Also I feel author is disingenuous when he says used Droid in Orphesdroid references to automation.
Also I feel author is disingenuous when he says used Droid in Orphesdroid references to automation.
"The brand name Droid is a trademark of Lucasfilm licensed to Verizon Wireless."
Trademarks are one of the few pieces of IP that seem to make sense to me.
They protect consumers by letting the consumer trust a trademark is what they think it is, they aren't overly broad and they aren't automatic.
And there are multiple live trademarks of Taco Tuesday in the US: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4803%3Ai...
In fact, in the field of Restaurant Services, two existing usages dating back to 1979 exist - one held by Taco John's everywhere except New Jersey[1] and one held by a hotel only in NJ[2].
And it looks like they're having a court case to see who truly owns Taco Tuesday®.
But none of those Taco Tuesday trademarks would prevent you from selling an app called Taco Tuesday that has nothing to do with food. Or start a clothing brand called Taco Tuesday. Etc. etc.
[1]: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:iid...
[2]: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:iid...
Up to a point.
It's when people are able to trademark single everyday words that it becomes farcical. I sell designs on several print-on-demand sites and occasionally dip into related forums, etc. As well as the obvious take-downs for people flagrantly violating other's intellectual property, it's fairly common for people to have their designs rejected because some completely innocuous word used in the title or description has been trademarked somewhere by someone. [0]
It's doubly farcical when [as in the Google example] the company owning the trademark in question has actually lifted it themselves from popular culture. [1]
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/AmazonMerch/search?q=trademark&rest...
Thats the reason Google used to discourage people from saying Google it because they were worried they would lose the trademark to the name.
What one can do is apply for a trademark to a common word to be used in a specific well defined context where it’s clear it’s applying to your company.
And once you get a trademark you don’t automatically own it forever. You have to actively use it and defend its use.
Of course, much like anything else in the world, there will be edge cases where the situation is murky and other cases where the outcomes appear outright wrong to most impartial observers. But that’s an artifact of the inherent complexity in trying to balance the various needs as opposed to a problem intrinsic to trademarks themselves.
Someone just happened to have used a trademarked word in a design or its title or description.
I suggest you have a trawl through that reddit link I posted above and read a few of the threads where people have posted examples of this happening to them.
Oh, they do know the law. But they’re betting that you don’t.
The short story is that I’d get a form denial for each attempt to use Future, but without any specified reason. A few months later the national phone company launched a new service which they called The Department of the Future - and it suddenly became clear to me why all my names had been denied.
Still feel some bitterness that such an obvious and generic word could be trade-marked - especially as it was an English word and English wasn’t as widespread in Sweden back then as it is now.
Needless to say (for anyone familiar with Telia) Department of the Future was a business failure.
Why is "face" generic, but "book" is not?
I recall their being other social media sites with "face" in their name before facebook, but can't remember the names.
I think its clear the IP system favours the party who can throw the most money around.
A friend had a few stores selling clothes with a name that was french for something I've forgotten.
Then a large chain started selling and heavily marketing a perfume with the same name. My friend wanted to stop them using the name, but after a few rounds of lawyers he got nowhere because selling clothes and selling a perfume are not overlapping businesses.
Also from what I've understood if you got a trademark, you have to defend it or else risk losing it. So while it often looks like a dick move, they're kinda forced.
Oh, wait... ;)
Patents are a different story, since the idea itself is the value, and different people can come up with the same idea independently.
I’m sure you can find some anarchist who would oppose any law, but I’m much more familiar with people who want a small government and wouldn’t mind that government enforcing trademark laws. They also generally support truth in advertising laws or labeling laws (“you should be able to sell anything you want, as long as you tell people what’s in it”), or product liability laws. Those laws make for a better functioning marketplace.
This is false, but it's a myth that unfortunately just won't die. Genericide (which is what people usually mean with "losing a trademark") only applies if you are extremely negligent in defending a trademark.
See also: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-beatles-music-idUSKBN0U60...
The classes WIPO uses are here: https://www.wipo.int/classifications/nice/nclpub/en/fr/?expl...
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/13087/word-droid-registe...
This isn't like the normal patent troll nonsense. This is to avoid confusion in the marketplace. Consumers expect a certain level of quality and assume a certain origin when seeing particular words in a product name or brand.
If someone sells an electric car under the "Teslan" brand, consumers could think it comes from Tesla - not only Tesla wouldn't be too happy, but the consumer could be in for a nasty surprise when they realize that the car doesn't meet the expectations they had for a Tesla car. Same for WhateverDroid and Google.
"Orpheus" is longer than "droid" and is certainly longer than "an".
What's next? Forbidding streichholzschachtelfabrikdroid? Due to similarity? C'mon, that's nonsense.
And no, you cannot have rights on the word "droid". Otherwise, lukasarts and the star trek film makers would have sued the shit out of google by now.
Tesla and teslan are a bad equivalent. Tesla and Orpheusla is closer. Just because they end the same way it’s not the same thing.
Is there a chance that somebody will think of a "airpod" when they hear "tide pod"? Sure
Is there a chance that a reasonable person will insert a tide pod into their ear because they confused the name with "airpod". No
Is there a chance that a reasonable person will by accident buy "tide pods" instead of "airpods"? Only if they act negligent
I'd argue that a reasonable person is extremely unlikely to confuse "Google Android" with "Orpheusdroid" or "F-Droid" or "hydroid" for that matter
[1] "As I guessed, on last day of the time period to object, there comes a mail from Trade Mark Registry of a opposition from Google claiming that I infringe the word "droid" and its similar to 'Android" for which they own trademark. The entire opposition notice was flooded with word droid."
It seems that corporations don't know what to do anymore so they start suing small players. Clearly, they're desperate because their schemes are about to be exposed.
Mega-corporations are the center of ethical and moral depravity so they should not be in position to sue anyone. They're the ones who should be getting sued.
Setting aside who should or not be in a position to sue anyone (I would hope due process guarantees that to everyone equally), why should they be getting sued?
Google does not have a trademark on Droid, however. It doesn't actually matter though, because civil litigation is a war of attrition. They don't have to be right. They just have to have deeper pockets.
If you think this is bad or a recent thing, look up Microsoft v. Mike Rowe.
Fast forward to iTunes and they’re in the same market.