7 ms·
Does simply using the word "Droid" for an Android-related project count as trademark infringement? Can the free software project "F-Droid" [0] (Android App Inst
by segfaultbuserr 6y ago
Does simply using the word "Droid" for an Android-related project count as trademark infringement? Can the free software project "F-Droid" [0] (Android App Installer) be sued for trademark infringement? If it is, it's bad news...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-Droid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-Droid
- wodenokoto 6y agoA license was acquired for the Motorola Droid use of the word "Droid" from Lucas Arts, so I would guess that the answer is yes.
- coolspot 6y agoI can’t find current trademark “droid” in the USPTO database: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/ http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/
- wodenokoto 6y agoI vaguely remembered there being something to it, and to remind myself I didn’t dig deeper than Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Droid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Droid "The brand name Droid is a trademark of Lucasfilm licensed to Verizon Wireless."
- gpm 6y agoHere you go https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77580336&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77580336&caseType=SERIAL_... (found via Wikipedia sources)
- trenchgun 6y agoThat is insane.
- nl 6y agoWhy? 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.
- tim44 6y agoIf the product isn't directly competing, that is insane to call a common word or phrase intellectual property. Before you know it somebody will try to trademark taco tuesday.
- EdwardDiego 6y agoTrademarks only apply within classes of goods and services you're a) in business in and b) have registered them in and c) in the countries you've filed applications in. And there are multiple live trademarks of Taco Tuesday in the US: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4803%3Aiid52j.1.1&p_search=searchss&p_L=50&BackReference=&p_plural=yes&p_s_PARA1=live&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%24LD&expr=PARA1+AND+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=taco+tuesday&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA2%24COMB&p_op_ALL=AND&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query&a_search=Submit+Query 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:iid52j.3.10 http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:iid... [2]: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:iid52j.3.9 http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:iid...
- Normille 6y ago>Trademarks are one of the few pieces of IP that seem to make sense to me... 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&restrict_sr=1 https://www.reddit.com/r/AmazonMerch/search?q=trademark&rest... [1] https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=android https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=android
- akerro 6y agoFacebook sued and won companies that had "book" in their name.
- ummonk 6y agoWhich ones did it win?
- sparkie 6y agoWhy didn't Apple/FaceTime sue Facebook for using "Face" in their name? (The FaceTime franchise dates back to 1997, way before Facebook). 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.
- magicalhippo 6y agoFrom what I was told you can't use a similar name on a similar product or company, but if it's different enough it's ok. 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.
- xmprt 6y agoTrademarks are about customer protection more than protecting the company. If another company starts selling "Android" phones that have a completely different OS, that ruins the Android brand but also makes it difficult for customers to trust that the product they're buying is legitimate unless the Android trademark is defended.
- jackcviers3 6y agoUsing this the next time an objectivist capitalist starts getting angry about how government regulations are all worthless.
- epr 6y agoWhy? trademarks are not incompatible with capitalism
- eecc 6y agoThey might argue it’s up to the incumbent to protect its brand, crushing the competition and holding the market under a tight stranglehold. Like the Romans: Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. Oh, wait... ;)
- nwsm 6y agoThey will tell you "let the market sort it out"
- sschueller 6y agoI was permitted to register my trademark (Techdroid) as long as I don't write it with a large D. This was requested by the holder of the trademark "Droid".
- fomine3 6y agoI expected the holder is Verizon but it seems Lucasfilm. https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/13087/word-droid-registered-trademark-lucasfilm-ltd https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/13087/word-droid-registe...
- danielrpa 6y agoIn many, if not most, cases yes. 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.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- cookiengineer 6y agoYour example of Tesla vs Teslan makes sense. But if you do this comparison of similarity, be truthful with the initial argument here. "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.
- jamiek88 6y agoLucas film license ‘droid’ to Verizon.
- Aeolun 6y agoYou cannot reasonably believe that Orpheusdroid and Android are the same thing. 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.