Also I feel author is disingenuous when he says used Droid in Orphesdroid references to automation.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-Droid

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.

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

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.

Oh, wait... ;)

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

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...

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Oh, they do know the law. But they’re betting that you don’t.

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...

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

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.

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.

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

"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.

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.

[1] "As I guessed, on last day of the time period to object, there comes a mail from Trade Mark Registry of a opposition from Google claiming that I infringe the word "droid" and its similar to 'Android" for which they own trademark. The entire opposition notice was flooded with word droid."

It seems that corporations don't know what to do anymore so they start suing small players. Clearly, they're desperate because their schemes are about to be exposed.

Mega-corporations are the center of ethical and moral depravity so they should not be in position to sue anyone. They're the ones who should be getting sued.

Google does not have a trademark on Droid, however. It doesn't actually matter though, because civil litigation is a war of attrition. They don't have to be right. They just have to have deeper pockets.

If you think this is bad or a recent thing, look up Microsoft v. Mike Rowe.

Fast forward to iTunes and they’re in the same market.

Setting aside who should or not be in a position to sue anyone (I would hope due process guarantees that to everyone equally), why should they be getting sued?

Just another example where the USA needs improvement and is not the best in the world.

The issue is that lawsuits are often not obvious. There's almost always a non-trivial risk of losing. Therefore, in a universal "loser pays" system, it's even riskier for a poor (or even middle-class) person to sue a company given that they could be responsible for bankruptcy-level legal fees if they lose.

It was my understanding that pro-bono is under rate or free services, correct me if I'm wrong. I think the terminology you're looking for is 'contingent', where the client only pays a % fee to attorney if they manage to generate a judgement. In this case, does the UK insurance kick in to pay a fee to lawyer if they lose the case?

I'm talking about civil cases here, not criminal.

A friend of mine had a law firm take their (civil) case on a contingency basis and there was an insurance policy to cover the lawyer’s time in case they lost.

The simple[1] solution to that would be “loser pays if they spent more”. Which might seem odd at first glance (why punish the loser even more?), but would align the incentives in the right direction.

[1] Read: I haven't put much thought into ways this could be abused

https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/03/30/legal-systems-very-dif...

The article title’s a play on David Friedman’s book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30066446 (I haven’t read this but sounds interesting)

Which is a risk worth taking if someone is suing for the right reasons and it's a once in a decade matter of major importance. That or they're fairly sure they'll win the case.

It also creates specific problems, and a big one is that it can make it hard for normal people to hold large companies accountable for bad behavior when not a ton of money is at stake in each individual case. But that’s probably best addressed by other means.

I don’t know if that’s good or bad. It gives an insurance company a very large say in matters of justice.

But insurance is one of the wonders of the modern world.

I think it would do the reverse. Even if you and your lawyers think you have a good case, there is no guarantee that you will win. If you sue and lose, you have to pay for the other guy's legal fees? Poor people would never be able to risk it.

In the US, a court can award court costs and legal fees to the winning party but they're unlikely to do so unless the case is clearly frivolous and harassing. Which isn't unreasonable because otherwise individuals could basically never afford to take on the risk of suing a company because, were they to lose, they'd be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

The court system is busy and not very sympathetic to parties that waste the courts time. You need to have an actual dispute that needs the court system to resolve.

If a business is stonewalling you and rebuffing you at every reasonable attempt to resolve an issue, you are highly likely to get your costs paid for, especially if that business has no leg to stand on. If your initial complaint documents page after page of your attempts to solve the problem outside of the court system, the judge is probably going to be extremely unforgiving to the other side.

Why the difference? Because out of these 20k, you maybe need 15 to live. For a 1B company, the "need to live" is probably much lower. This is similar to how income tax brackets work in Europe.

In USA I thought you could counter sue for your lawyer fees if you win? Is that not true?

[1] Although Wikipedia says it was licensed to Verizon: "The brand name Droid is a trademark of Lucasfilm licensed to Verizon Wireless." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_Droid

So Maybe it is Disney or Verizon that should be suing?

Yes, Lucasfilm actually owns several trademarks on the word droid, mainly in toys, computer games, and entertainment. Interpreted broadly, these trademarks cover "smart" devices, which are generally used to interact with entertainment media.

See also the legal battle of Apple v Apple[0] (music vs computers)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_(Nice)_Classific...

It only becomes a problem when the hypothetical consumer becomes doormat dumb and half blind. I think that Firefox should have kept the name Phoenix, nobody would get confused by that.

For example, I'm much better served by Sandisk having a tamper-proof verification codes on their uSD cards that I can lookup on their official website and verify the card being genuine. I don't remember the last time I bought non-genuine Sandisk card from random sellers on Aliexpress after they introduced this. Yet I have a bunch of Samsung ones from China (probably fakes), and half of those are already dead.

Both are trademarked. I wish more manufacturers put more effort to creating verification schemes for end-users, rather than to suing for trademark violations.

How so? Once you have the uSD card in hand, they have your money.

This was not for any product or app I was even thinking of making. This was purely: 'You cannot use that email address'.

Macinlock, Mac Cleaner, SMS Mac, Atomic Mac, Mac Powersuite, Wise Mac Care, iFamily for Mac, Macdaddy, CareMyMac, MacTvision

... the list goes on. Just go to some site like macupdate.com or _the_ Mac App Store and search for apps with "mac" in the name, there are hundreds.

For example the company macpaw.com is a company which is over 11 years in the business now. They are regularly featured, yet are allowed to exists.

It highlights Apple's arbitrariness in these situations.

Apple doesn't have to let anyone register a developer account. They don't need a reason if they decide to reject certain account names.

Might be your long held personal email or whatever, but it also looks like a scam URL.

This is the origin of the mac name too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntosh_(apple)

* https://apple.com/uk/legal/intellectual-property/guidelinesf...

* http://macdonald.com./

* https://trademarkelite.com/trademark/trademark-detail/733918...

Even in the the US where MacX or McX is a foreign construct, there have been legal cases where people named McDonald/MacDonald are allowed name their restaurants after themselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_legal_cases#The_r...

(Hope I don't get sued too)

If the latter, did you consider...

What do you with a developer account? Develop apps? What do apps need? A support email address? Would a support email address ending in macscan.net be confusing or misleading? Might the confusion be intentional or accidental? Why even risk dealing with this confusion in the future when you can prevent it right now?

No. Not in any way.

(because from the post, they only got in touch with one to write an initial response)

Can anyone tell me how this is possible? Why am I not allowed to use the word "sky" in any product name completely unrelated to TV?

I.e. one could trademark:

  Acme Editor

  Editor

Man, IP law is such grey area... no wonder there are constant disputes and abuses.

The irony of Google trying a passing-off claim over these names particularly stinks, since they ripped them off in the first place.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2010/jan/07/google-ne...

I have no idea of the specific laws and regulations in effect in this case, but generally an infringement case like this is about whether the defendant’s mark is likely to cause confusion in consumers. My opinion in this case is “no”, but it’s arguable and for whatever reason Google wants to argue it.

I also wonder if there is much to win here. How much does the guy have invested in that name and how much future value does it have over alternatives? It might be less than the risk of legal costs. I don’t see a compelling general principle here that is bigger than the case itself either.

That seems like a good defense, since it's not the sort of thing people would infer to actually be Microsoft.

Not a lawyer, etc., but it seems to me that people continually talk (in this thread and elsewhere) as if trademark was copyright.

Etc.

I am not sure who is right and who is wrong here. But I have the feeling that it is too easy for big companies to threaten small companies.

I wonder if there should be some institution where small companies and individuals can go to when threatened by big companies. And if the threat seems unreasonable, the institution would take up the fight on behalf of the small company or individual.

Look up "the banality of evil."

I can see how it’s a bit annoying, but I can also see how people cannot keep but bring it up.

People have mentioned that before, but maybe it's more them just "wanting to believe" and being suckered due to it?

What's unfortunate is, the law allows those with the deepest bench of lawyers the broadest scope of their trademark. The Googles of the world are obligated to do these things. The law could do better to pursue justice that independent of bank account assets.

> 3months challenge period was about to expire and just a week before the trademark was to be granted, received a "Cease and Desist" letter from Google India's law chamber demanding to withdraw the trademark,

https://www.lexico.com/definition/droid

Disney has also gone after companies for using droid in their name.

Disney should. They own the trademark on the word "droid".

Google has an exclusive licence in the field. They kept it when they sold Motorola.

>The Oxford English Dictionary traces the earliest use (as "Androides") to Ephraim Chambers' 1728

>The term "droid", popularized by George Lucas in the original Star Wars film and now used widely within science fiction

Maybe Disney should sue you too right?

And maybe the State of Greece because it's derived work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(robot)

>The term "droid", popularized by George Lucas

So first...google is NOT the Copyright owner of "Droid", second the Android OS was named after an already existing Word in the same domain.

EDIT:

He wrote that in his own Post and from my point he is right:

> "Droid" is a dictionary word and first coined in 1952 by a American science fiction author.

    Quote:
    Droid: Clipping of android. Coined by American science fiction author Mari Wolf in Robots of the World! Arise! (1952), and popularised by the film Star Wars (1977).

    Droid is a trademark of "Lucas Films" now Disney since circa 1990.
    Possible that Google has licensed "Droid" from Lucas now Disney for using in android

    "Android" itself is a dictionary word.

Or do you want to sue everyone that has Andr (Man) in his name?

1) trademark don't cover just exact matches

2) trademarks are in their own classes, you can't litigate across classes

3) common words are perfectly fine as trademarks, as long as commonly associated with a product

Yes exactly and Droid is NOT associated with a Smartphone-OS but Android is.