After Google was refused the trademark of the term “Android” back on August 20th, 2008, the news about the situation calmed and it seemed as if Google had given up. Now we have received word that Google’s attorneys are appealing the decision before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
We can see that Google will fight this to the death because even though they were denied the trademark, the Google’s brand guidelines clearly state, “Android is a trademark of Google Inc. Use of this trademark is subject to Google Permissions.” We say this is a pretty nice try, but it will take more than that to scare others away. With so many different items and definitions to the word Android, it’s going to be pretty hard for them to swing this one.
[Via uspto]
Let's address (b) first. Suppose you write Android(tm)-compatible applications. Suppose someone else comes along and invents an operating system called Android. Now your logo statement, which adds value to your product, is actually a liability because anyone who tries to use your application on that Other Android will be disappointed and send you hate mail. Google will have to spend time coming up with a new brand name, all the logo requirements will have to change as a result, and users of and developers for Android will go through a lot of pain for it. Let's root for Google to get this Trademark. Trademarks prevent consumer confusion.
Now for (a) - if you do a trademark search for live uses of ANDROID, you will find only a handful. One is Google's application. The rest are: blood testing apparatus, a drug, a piece of automotive parts assembly equipment, a type of cuff link, and a type of watch band. The rest are not exact matches for ANDROID.
None of these are even close to Google's intended use of the term. Frankly I can't find any reason why it should have been rejected.
People think Trademarks are a scary bugbear, but they are one of the few pieces of "IP" law that still helps consumers. Nobody's saying you can't say Android, or can't name your company Android -- you just can't name your mobile phone OS Android, and that's a good thing.
One final note, if you think trademarks are in opposition to software freedom, I refer you to serial number 74560867.
If you want to read them, see http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/p...TEXT=77318565#
The applicant argues that no likelihood of confusion exists because the registrant is no longer using the mark as evidenced by their lack of presence currently on the Internet. Furthermore, the applicant has provided documents showing that the registrant’s corporate entity was involuntarily dissolved in May, 2004.
However, while these statements may be true, a trademark or service mark registration on the Principal Register is prima facie evidence of the validity of the registration and the registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark in commerce in connection with the specified goods and/or services. See 15 U.S.C. 1057(b); TMEP 1207.01(d)(iv). Evidence that constitutes a collateral attack on a cited registration, such as statements about a registrant’s nonuse of its mark, is not relevant to a likelihood of confusion determination in ex parte examination. See In re Dixie Rests., 105 F.3d 1405, 1408, 41 USPQ2d 1531, 1534-35 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Peebles Inc., 23 USPQ2d 1795, 1797 n.5 (TTAB 1992); TMEP 1207.01(d)(iv). Such evidence may, however, be pertinent to a formal proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to cancel the cited registration.