Google being sued over the 'Android' brand name

Advertisement (Why?)

Another day, another lawsuit. Under fire this time is the glorious search giant Google, being sued by one Erich Specht, for use of the name 'Android'... which he legally owns. Yep, it turns out that Specht got awarded the the trademark in October, 2002, as Tom's Guide states.

Specht's lawyer, Martin Murphy, said to Forbes, "Basically, it's a stolen name. [Specht] put a lot of thought into that name, Android. He felt, 'Google is taking this away from me." The best part is that Google actually did apply for the trademark in 2007, but got turned down because it was already owned. Google appealed this, saying, "Specht's firm had lost its claim to the Android brand due to inactivity and pointed out that Android Data had been dissolved in 2004." The PTO rejected the appeal and the company's trademark application was left on hold. According to Tom's Guide, "apparently Specht only recently realized that Android was a mobile OS and not a cell phone, which is why he's suddenly making such a fuss and demanding close to $100 million from Google and all of its friends."

A spokesperson for Google, one Andrew Pederson, has said that they will defend the name vigorously. What do you think, Neowin? Do you think Google is right here, or are they wrong in using a previously registered trademark?

(2 replies) #1 soldier1st on 01 May 2009 - 22:29

lol that specht guy deliberatly waited so he could rake in easy money by saying this n that and that nobody could challenge him, that specht guy should be countersued in some way, google is right here.

#1.1 .Cameron. on 01 May 2009 - 22:34

Google knowingly used the name, after being *denied* a trademark because it was already registered. The fact that they continued to use the name regardless is a blatant violation of the existing trademark, which they were in full knowledge of.

#1.2 m.keeley on 01 May 2009 - 22:49

The trademark is on hold, don't think that's the same as being denied.

(4 replies) #2 m.keeley on 01 May 2009 - 22:30

Stupid that you can copyright a name in an unrelated area especially something like android which is in the dictionary, bit like being able to copyright the word robot, hardly a lot of thought behind it. This is even more stupid as they aren't even in business any more, $100million, must be joking.

#2.1 markjensen on 01 May 2009 - 22:41

Agreed. The trademark seemed to be expired and unused.

Plus, terms like "Windows" can be considered trademarked, but don't affect companies like Marvin Windows from using the term. They are unrelated.

#2.2 m.keeley on 01 May 2009 - 22:47

Although Monster Cables apparently try it on with any company using the word Monster, even the film Monsters Inc. apparently. Horrible company.

#2.3 Magallanes on 02 May 2009 - 15:56

markjensen said,

Strictly speaking, generic names can't be patented, hence Windows, Apple, Sun, Apache and such can't be granted completely but, of course, money talks loudly!.

#2.4 markjensen on 02 May 2009 - 21:31

Magallanes said,

I know. Yet Microsoft forced "Lindows" to drop the name and become "Linspire" because of Trademark laws, because it sounded too much like "Windows".

Go figure.

#3 antsy on 01 May 2009 - 22:52

I bet they are really paranoid about this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIwJ7BvpxiM&fmt=18

(1 reply) #4 Vakerorokero on 01 May 2009 - 23:01

Specht's lawyer, Martin Murphy, said to Forbes, "Basically, it's a stolen name. [Specht] put a lot of thought into that name, Android. He felt, 'Google is taking this away from me."

mmm... he came up with the word android in 2002? come I feel everyone has been using that word for decades? I think you can even hear it in Star Trek from the 60s.

#4.1 Tatiania on 02 May 2009 - 02:22

Actually, the trademarked name is "Android Data" and Google is using just "Android." This Specht guy is just a gold-digger, just like most of the other jackass's that try to sue someone else.

#5 twixz on 01 May 2009 - 23:20

Perhaps he should of read up on wikipedia first, but then again how can someone trademark a word which has been about for hundreds of years? This is one crazy messed up world we live in nowadays.

(3 replies) #6 Cøbra on 01 May 2009 - 23:27

"one Erich Specht... one Andrew Pederson" -- Are you Indian? I've noticed Indian journalists using that type of language.

#6.1 Sam Symons on 01 May 2009 - 23:43

Cï¿½bra said,

Nope, I'm a New Zealander

#6.2 +Kirkburn on 02 May 2009 - 00:25

It's perfectly reasonable (and educated) English.

#6.3 mmck on 02 May 2009 - 02:45

It is actually good usage of the English language, one before a name identifies the person as a "random", so you would probably not use it before a celebrity or person known in the field. So its correct to use it before this guy, but you would not use "one Bill Gates"

(1 reply) #7 redvamp128 on 02 May 2009 - 00:08

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083557/

Prior Copywrite- not to mention there was a Dos based game Android back in the 1980's

So the film company should sue him and then sue Google.

*"Android 2", 1983, ZX Spectrum Can't find more info on that game other than it was availible for PC and Apple.

But being as though it was #2 there was a #1 before.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/zx-spectrum/android-two

Last edited by redvamp128 on 02 May 2009 - 00:15

#7.1 m.keeley on 02 May 2009 - 00:28

I know that's why it's stupid, would be different if they were both in the same sector and actually in business!

#8 redvamp128 on 02 May 2009 - 00:28

I was going to edit and add this but I guess the edit is up on the prior post. ZX Spectrum was a tandy like computer sold in the UK and a Game Company that made tittles. Plus about 10 games with Android in the tittle so I call prior use. and that time it was in the Computer software game.

(1 reply) #9 roadwarrior on 02 May 2009 - 01:09

Exactly what type of business was "Android Data Services" (it isn't stated anywhere in the article). If he wasn't producing an OS or other type of software, then he can go take a flying leap, because trademarks only apply to the same type of thing.

#9.1 mmck on 02 May 2009 - 02:42

It doesn't have to be the same thing exactly, its more of a consumer protection so they can identity differences, by allowing brands to build reputation under a name. If they are both data/computers that is enough probably, as people wont understand, even the guy in the article is confused and he owns a trademark on the word:

According to Tom's Guide, "apparently Specht only recently realized that Android was a mobile OS and not a cell phone, which is why he's suddenly making such a fuss and demanding close to $100 million from Google and all of its friends."

#10 C_Guy on 02 May 2009 - 05:12

the glorious search giant
Heh. If only someone would remind Google what their motto was supposed to be.

Another day, another lawsuit
That sums it up nicely. I doubt consumers are suffering much confusion from this stolen name.

#11 -Vivicidal- on 02 May 2009 - 10:20

Both of them did something stupid and selfish. I think Google should be fined and the other guy left alone.

#12 k34m0n on 02 May 2009 - 13:11

Google, the new Microsoft!

#13 Joshie on 02 May 2009 - 13:24

Wow, Android and Data together in the same product name? Unrelated market or not, this can be no coincidence--Star Trek should sue!

#14 dhruva on 02 May 2009 - 19:10

personally the whole trademark thingie is wrong the dude obviously didnt came with the word someone else did. trademark bull crap. but still i think both are wrong. Google is just bullying if they knew its registerd and yet continued, thats just bullying or prehaps power showing.. and the dude.. what the heck was he thinking ??? 100 $ million for the trademark crap that he didnt comeup with?.. Easy money.. every freaking one is greedy

#15 jackofalltrades on 03 May 2009 - 00:44

Is android even a business product? It's open source =/

#16 Bemani Dog on 03 May 2009 - 03:33

Google will win. Specht's company went bankrupt and dissolved. He should forfeit the trademark.

#17 Ludexiz on 03 May 2009 - 07:03

the name android is too common and too generic. they should strip away that trademark.

#18 XeonBuilder on 04 May 2009 - 00:56

I hope Google loses. Pay the guy his loot and stfu already. Isnt that what people say when MS is in the crosshairs?

#19 KnightWolf on 04 May 2009 - 22:09

wow... i should hurry up and trademark 1, #1, 1st, first, winner, champions, champs... would make a killing having all that revenue from just sports.... yeah its f'in stupid, need a complete overhaul of the patent/trademark laws

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Neowin.net