Android name is being contested by an Illinois developer

why they not call it Gmobile or Gphone?

Android is a dumb name anyway
I simply dont understand why google is not just calling it Gmobile or Gphone

They already have gmail.

Android is anyway a stupid name

Property rights held by the public at large

Go to Google.
Type in
- define: android
in the search bar.
Interesting returns.
With the age and common use of the term, android, how do we escape the "public domain?"
If you next type in
- define: public domain
in the search bar, we get a collection of definitions that boil down to this:
"The public domain is a range of abstract materials - commonly referred to as intellectual property - which are not owned or controlled by anyone..."

Purpose/Application of TMs

I noticed a couple of posts suggesting that Google aught to pay because the word 'Android' turned up in a patent search. I disagree.

One should expect rather that it is likely that the courts (if it goes that far) will dismiss.

The first thing that would be looked at is the value of the existing mark - whether it is in use, and whether it is well known (apparently the answer is no in either case). Secondly, it would be determined whether and how there is dilution or confusion created by Google's use of the mark. Again, probably no dilution much less confusion.

Another thing that would be looked at is how similar the product or service is - and which trademark class it was registered with in either case. The burden here would be on the plaintiff, and they will have an uphill battle to show that there is similarity, unless (of course) they made cell phones or software for such.

Rendering all moot, if the mark was not in use in commerce or proper filings made for future use, the trademark is likely invalid in the first place.

There was a POV put forth that somehow somebody can reserve the name "Android" for themselves into perpetuity, like a so-called "patent troll" - have no fear, that is simply not how it works. (As a starting place, perhaps review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark which gives a decent overview)

I have no inside info, but my expectation is that Android, Inc. (the company Google bought to get 'Android') went to their lawyers and conducted a trademark search. The results of this search suggested that it was unlikely that they would infringe on an existing mark.

Interestingly enough, according to (http://www.android.com/branding.html) it looks like they are using Android as an unregistered mark (TM instead of (R) ) which is still valid, but makes me wonder if they had issues when registering.

In any case, I expect Google and other defendants to respond by burying the plaintiffs in legal maneuvers, including seeking dismissal or summary judgement. After a bit of that, and if a valid claim exists, the parties will be encouraged to settle - the plaintiff will need to show damages at that time, which should prove interesting.

If the plaintiff does not settle at that time (I expect they would get limited fees and a token amount, if that) then they should anticipate protracted litigation against multiple deep-pocketed adversaries in a case they ultimately likely cannot win - even if they prevail, there is no economic loss so no damages.

I think the plaintiffs probably were hoping for a quick 'make it go away' payoff, or inadvertantly committed themselves to litigation by making threats to that effect. Also, I suspect a hungry lawyer sold the plaintiff on the idea that they could get something.

I would be suprised if Google went along, rather I think they will probably decide to make an example of Erich Specht (and his lawyers too if they are on contingency) - at least that is what I would do. Pay these guys off and there will be folks lined up around the block for more of the same - hurt them real bad and it sends a message to other would-be 'trademark trolls'.

$0.02

Casey

Holy guano Batman

I hold the rights to "Cut and Dried", that'll be three scheckles. That's why everybody uses "Cut and Dry".

Specht should just be burned

Specht should just be burned at the stake. It is cases like this one that cheapens intellectual property laws.

You're a journalist.

You're a journalist. Please, please look up the correct cliche before you use it -- It's "cut and dried."

silly rabbit, tricks are for kids...

I'm going to trademark the word "ROBOT" and now everyone will have to pay me to use it!!! (evil laugh) Muhuhahaha....
I give google my permission, to use that in court.

Unfortunately... poorly written (biased)

This article contains a noticeable amount of bias, starting with the topic sentence of the second paragraph "On paper it would appear that the suit has some merit". This immediately puts doubt into the reader's mind as to the merit of the case. Don't forget this OPINION is repeated at the end of the article by quoting the Google spokesperson 'What is Google's take? "We believe the complaint has no merit"'.

The sentence "Android Data's business never amounted to anything." needs to be followed up with a proper reason - not the irrelevant sentence "In fact, the company was dissolved in 2004 and lost its domain name androiddata.com.".

Thirdly, the question "Why did he wait so long?" need not be followed with the suggestion [to maximise settlement money], but simply with the plaintifs own answer
"He had heard about the Android phone, but thought, 'That's a mobile device,' " Specht's attorney told Forbes. "As soon as he learned it was software, he stepped up, and we filed as fast as we could."

The Google spokesperson's comment needs quotes around it, otherwise it inadvertantly appears more neutral (which it isn't) "I anticipate any closed-door settlement somewhere between the $100,000,000 Specht is asking for and a lot closer to nothing."