4 ms·

Did they have to license the name?

limeblack 9y ago
Assuming you are referring to the name Oreo read this. https://android.stackexchange.com/q/181818 https://android.stackexchange.com/q/181818 EDTI: Fixed so they didn't pay as stated above but I guess it is technically still licensed.
- khc 9y ago
  the link says they didn't pay, not that they didn't license the name
X86BSD 9y ago
My understanding was you can use a trademarked name but only if it was in an unrelated category. Clearly no one will confuse a phone running Oreo with a cookie you eat and dip in milk. now if google made a cookie and called it oreo, they would get sued. But IANAL and am probably totally wrong here.
- acdx 9y ago
  Google extremely obviously did not use the name Oreo without asking for permission
  - KGIII 9y ago
    From the last time this was asked, they asked permission. With KitKat, they paid - someone linked a citation for it but it's not in my history.
    - snorlaxle 9y ago
      What I read at the time is that no money was paid to anyone. Hope you find the linked citation https://techcrunch.com/2013/09/03/google-strikes-bizarre-licensing-deal-with-nestle-to-name-next-android-kit-kat/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/09/03/google-strikes-bizarre-lic...
      - KGIII 9y ago
        I stand corrected. Well, at least I am not seeing their source.
  - emmelaich 9y ago
    Indeed, and the biscuit company may well have paid Google for the advertising.
- sowbug 9y ago
  Your understanding covers the basic intent of U.S. trademarks, but it got much more complicated with the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trademark_Dilution_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trademark_Dilution_Act. Nowadays, impairing a famous trademark's distinctiveness can be an issue, even in the absence of confusion or competition.
- Kiro 9y ago
  https://www.android.com/versions/oreo-8-0/ https://www.android.com/versions/oreo-8-0/ See the huge Oreo cookie there? I honestly don't understand why you made this comment.
delecti 9y ago
If it's anything like the KitKat situation, no money exchanged hands, but both companies used it as a cross branding deal.

Assuming you are referring to the name Oreo read this. https://android.stackexchange.com/q/181818 https://android.stackexchange.com/q/181818 EDTI: Fixed so they didn't pay as stated above but I guess it is technically still licensed.

khc 9y ago
the link says they didn't pay, not that they didn't license the name

X86BSD 9y ago

My understanding was you can use a trademarked name but only if it was in an unrelated category. Clearly no one will confuse a phone running Oreo with a cookie you eat and dip in milk. now if google made a cookie and called it oreo, they would get sued. But IANAL and am probably totally wrong here.

acdx 9y ago
Google extremely obviously did not use the name Oreo without asking for permission
- KGIII 9y ago
  From the last time this was asked, they asked permission. With KitKat, they paid - someone linked a citation for it but it's not in my history.
  - snorlaxle 9y ago
    What I read at the time is that no money was paid to anyone. Hope you find the linked citation https://techcrunch.com/2013/09/03/google-strikes-bizarre-licensing-deal-with-nestle-to-name-next-android-kit-kat/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/09/03/google-strikes-bizarre-lic...
    - KGIII 9y ago
      I stand corrected. Well, at least I am not seeing their source.
- emmelaich 9y ago
  Indeed, and the biscuit company may well have paid Google for the advertising.
sowbug 9y ago
Your understanding covers the basic intent of U.S. trademarks, but it got much more complicated with the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trademark_Dilution_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trademark_Dilution_Act. Nowadays, impairing a famous trademark's distinctiveness can be an issue, even in the absence of confusion or competition.
Kiro 9y ago
https://www.android.com/versions/oreo-8-0/ https://www.android.com/versions/oreo-8-0/ See the huge Oreo cookie there? I honestly don't understand why you made this comment.

delecti 9y ago

If it's anything like the KitKat situation, no money exchanged hands, but both companies used it as a cross branding deal.