The $100 million open source Android trademark infringement

happygeek 0 Tallied Votes 477 Views Share

Looks like Google could be in deep water, along with the Open Handset Alliance and some 40 or so companies, over an apparent trademark infringement. Now you might think that there had been some pretty heavyweight due diligence before Google and the OHA determined to call the open source mobile phone operating system. And indeed, it would seem that Google had indeed made all the right noises to the US Patent and Trademark Office but unfortunately the PTO refused the trademark application after it determined the mark had been granted to a software development outfit by the name of Android Data Corp. way back in 2002. Google, on the other hand, were rather late to the trademark game apparently waiting until a few days before unveiling the plans for Android in October 2007 to make the application. An application that was rejected in February 2008 on the grounds that it was too similar to the 'Android Data' mark awarded to Android Data Corp. founder Erich Specht six years earlier. According to reports Google appealed on the grounds that the original holder had lost it's claim through inactivity, an appeal that the PTO once again rejected. Further appeals also failed, and the Google trademark application as finally suspended in November 2008.

Now it would appear that Specht has decided enough is enough after Google, the OHA and a long list of other defendants including the likes of Motorola, Sony Ericsson, T-Mobile and Toshiba have been selling goods and services using his trademark and he wants it to stop. He also wants a little in the way of compensation, $94 million in all. His attorney goes as far as calling it the use of "a stolen name." Google, meanwhile, is committed to "defend vigorously" against the lawsuit.

I expect a settlement to come pretty quickly, and an out of court one at that. After all, T-Mobile has reportedly sold a million Android handsets, the HTC Magic is due real soon now and there could be another 40 new handsets to follow.

Dani AI

Generated

Short update and practical takeaway tied to the original thread: in April–May 2009 Erich Specht (Android Data Corp.) filed a federal suit naming Google and many Open Handset Alliance members, seeking roughly $94 million and an injunction over Google’s use of the mark “Android.” (computerworld.com)

The dispute did not end in a fast out‑of‑court settlement as guessed; the courts decided the key issue. The district court concluded the Android Data mark had been abandoned, canceled the registration, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed on April 4, 2014 — holding that Specht’s limited activity after 2002 (a lapse in commercial use, domain loss, a few mailings) did not overcome the statutory presumption of abandonment. Many of the other named defendants were dismissed from the suit. (law.justia.com)

Why this mattered: under the Lanham Act a mark is deemed abandoned if use has been discontinued with no intent to resume, and nonuse for three consecutive years is prima facie evidence of abandonment — isolated, token actions (a passive website or a failed mailing) won’t save a fading registration. That statutory rule and the court’s application of it are the legal core of why Google prevailed. (wipolex-res.wipo.int)

Practical points worth adding to the thread and useful years later: owners who value a mark must show bona fide, continuous use in commerce and keep documentary evidence (sales, invoices, contracts, domain control, marketing); registrants must watch renewal and assignment paperwork; launch teams should do clearance searches and monitor PTO action, but understand a PTO refusal isn’t the final word if the prior registrant has effectively abandoned the mark. The Seventh Circuit opinion is a compact primer on what courts will treat as non‑use versus genuine commercial use. (mwe.com)

(References above summarize reporting and the controlling appellate opinion.)

macemoneta 0 Newbie Poster

Android Data? Didn't 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' get there first (1987)? Google should probably pursue invalidating the "Android Data' trademark.

happygeek 2,411 Most Valuable Poster Team Colleague Featured Poster

Good point! ROFL :)

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.