[segfaultbuserr]

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

[magicalhippo]

From 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.

[Ma8ee]

The classical example is Apple that make computers, and Apple that was the Beatles’ music label. Everything was fine until Apple Computer wanted a bit of the distribute music cake and was promptly sued by Apple the music label. This is the reason it took so long before you could get Beatles music in the iTunes Store.

[Someone]

Entering the music distribution business was round four between Apple Corps and Apple Computer. First case was way easier, in 1978 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer)

[bostonpete]

If that's the reason, it seems strange that they kept off of Google Play for just as long

[giancarlostoro]

I dont think any alternate app stores are on Google Play.

[judge2020]

They're talking about Beatles music not being available on Google Play for the same amount of time.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-beatles-music-idUSKBN0U60...

[xmprt]

Trademarks 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]

Using this the next time an objectivist capitalist starts getting angry about how government regulations are all worthless.

[maxlybbert]

The concept of trademarks dates back to master craftsmen putting identifying marks on their work to build up a reputation. Trademark law gives that practice some legal enforcement.

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.

[jackcviers3]

Yes - but a Randian market isn't under the enforcement of any government.

[eecc]

They 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... ;)

[unishark]

Trademark infringement can be viewed as fraud and a criminal matter with an actual victim (the person scammed into buying the fake Android phone).

Patents are a different story, since the idea itself is the value, and different people can come up with the same idea independently.

[nwsm]

They will tell you "let the market sort it out"

[epr]

Why? trademarks are not incompatible with capitalism

[joepie91_]

> 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.

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...

[magicalhippo]

Good to know, thanks.

[BoredomHeights]

That's a factor but not a rule. The biggest test basically boils down to would a normal person reasonably be confused. In this case I don't think anyone would think this was a Google product. Knowing very little else I don't personally think Google would win a trademark suit like this on its merits, but being Google of course they actually could win if they threw money at it, or make it not worth pursuing.

[EdwardDiego]

Yep, in my rather brief experience (limited to NZ and WIPO stuff) you register trademarks in classes you're engaged in business in (and not having a current business in a given class is grounds to not grant or revoke a granted trademark, to avoid squatting.)

The classes WIPO uses are here: https://www.wipo.int/classifications/nice/nclpub/en/fr/?expl...

[sschueller]

I 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]

I expected the holder is Verizon but it seems Lucasfilm.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/13087/word-droid-registe...

[wodenokoto]

A license was acquired for the Motorola Droid use of the word "Droid" from Lucas Arts, so I would guess that the answer is yes.

[trenchgun]

That is insane.

[nl]

Why?

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.

[Normille]

>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&rest...

[1] https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=android

[addicted]

People aren’t able to “trademark single everyday words”. In fact, if a name becomes a simple everyday word the trademark can actually be lost.

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.

[null_object]

I moved from England to Sweden in 1997, and tried to setup an internet-design company there, in a time before it was a tech and startup hub. I wanted to have Future in my company name, and applied to the authority that decided this (PRV) with a string of alternatives: I remember FutureDeluxe and FutureLab as two favorites - and because at that time the process involved requesting some special papers, which one filled-in then returned and waited 5 or 6 weeks for an answer that came back in the post, in the meantime I would buy the .com domain for each of these series of names. So for a year after that I held maybe 6 or 7 domains with Future in the name, all of which I allowed to lapse and have since become websites for established companies.

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.

[Normille]

Either that's not correct, or the lawyers employed by these companies don't know the law because I [and other people] have definitely had designs rejected by POD sites for "trademark violation" when there was obviously no intent to "pass off" [which is what trade-marking is meant to prevent].

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.

[tim44]

If 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]

Trademarks 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%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...

[coolspot]

I can’t find current trademark “droid” in the USPTO database: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/

[wodenokoto]

I 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

"The brand name Droid is a trademark of Lucasfilm licensed to Verizon Wireless."

[gpm]

Here you go https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=77580336&caseType=SERIAL_... (found via Wikipedia sources)

[danielrpa]

In 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.

[Aeolun]

You 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.

[danielrpa]

I disagree. Do you think of "Tesla" when you read "Orpheusla"? Now compare Android with Orpheusdroid.

[rndgermandude]

"think of" is not the same as "confused with".

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

[Ensorceled]

I am certainly not confused in either case. I know for certain that they are 4 different companies.

[smichel17]

Or, Teslan vs Un-droid

[cookiengineer]

Your 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]

Lucas film license ‘droid’ to Verizon.

[akerro]

Facebook sued and won companies that had "book" in their name.

[sparkie]

Why 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.

[ummonk]

Which ones did it win?

[snadal]

Teachbook.com was finally renamed to TeachQuest.com 2 years after the lawsuit

[akerro]

and sexbook or fuckbook