[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...