Google and dozens of Android purveyors slapped with trademark lawsuit

Hold on to your positronic caps, readers. It seems our little green robo-friend may be in for a little bit of legal trouble. Erich Specht has sued Google and seemingly every company that has ever thought about using its mobile OS (like T-Mobile, Vodafone, Intel, Motorola, Samsung, and lots more) for infringing use of the name "Android." He's the owner of the trademark for Android Data Corporation, granted way back in October of 2002. Google came around and filed a trademark application for Android five years later and, wait for it, had that trademark application denied due to confusion with Mr. Specht's. In other words, it looks like Google and its Open Handset Alliance cronies are on the defensive and, seemingly, not on particularly firm ground. Specht wants damages and a name-change for Google's OS, and as of now we wouldn't be surprised if he got at least one of his wishes.

[(Unverified) Posted May 1st 2009 1:12PM]

You do know the correct spelling of "google" is "googol" right?

[Raeglatem Posted May 1st 2009 12:15PM]

Dear Erich Specht,

You are soon the become the victim of internet trolls and many fanboy related attacks. What do you honestly expect to accomplish or happen? Regardless, you are going to lose and simply are just making an ass out of yourself. Have fun tarnishing your name.

Sincerely,
the internet

[Maeztro Posted May 1st 2009 12:16PM]

I think Zero Punctuation has a trademark on the little android guy!

[jerew Posted May 1st 2009 12:17PM]

Reversed Google wouldnt hesitate to sue him so screw em. Maybe trademarking a word is dumb but it's the way things are done and violation of that trademark would be upheld by any company that would be sued by it. It may not seem right to everyone out there, but it's right in the corporate world.

[illiniwatcher Posted May 1st 2009 1:04PM]

At least they can't take away the little green man! What a cutie!

[(Unverified) Posted May 1st 2009 2:52PM]

It is understandable that there would be confusing. Android has been in the English language longer that Android Data Corporation has existed. However, both Google and ADC are in the same industry. What is interesting is the association of Android is greater with Google than with ADC. The most logical solution would be for Google to pay ADC for the exclusive rights to the Android trademark. If this ever goes to trail ADC will get less money than they could now.

[(Unverified) Posted May 1st 2009 3:18PM]

Ok so why do we allow companies to trademark single words. The word android has been around longer than either party so why do we let people claim dibs. If they had invented the word android that would be one thing. And it would be one thing to say "Android OS" is a trademark or "Android LLC" etc but this is BS. Now if google ripped of their robot logo and directly ripped of the name that would be one thing but this is silly.

[WBWB Posted May 1st 2009 3:23PM]

How the hell could either one of them get a trademark on a generic term that's been around for centuries?

[shimrra74 Posted May 1st 2009 3:32PM]

"I'm rich, bitch" You know that is what he is going to be saying once they settle this out of court.

[(Unverified) Posted May 1st 2009 3:43PM]

Hi everyone,

This guy should be happy, no doubt many have heard of his company before this came out.

I can't even find him on google, only references to this case and article.

Is anyone else able to find him?

also, I'm not a patent officer, but there seems to be a big difference between "android" - an open source mobile phone OS and "android data corporation" - a whatever company that does whatever. ( I tried to find what they do, but couldn't find them on google)

[Sanskrit Posted May 1st 2009 4:36PM]

Can't find them on Google.

Gee, wonder why.

[jon Posted May 4th 2009 2:53AM]

You can't find him on google because his company folded in 2004, He created a new site a few days before he filed the suit.

[ae86takumi Posted May 1st 2009 4:40PM]

:) The American dream at work...

[(Unverified) Posted May 1st 2009 5:50PM]

Google obviously knew this was comming... they must have felt they had too much money lieing around.

[(Unverified) Posted May 1st 2009 6:49PM]

So let me understand. Google and the OHA were denied....and they still went ahead anyways. That's very Microsoftian of you Google.

[Eternal Density Posted May 2nd 2009 5:09AM]

In my opinion, Android is an unsuitable name for anything software related, unless it's software relating to an actual... android. Not that the logo isn't cute and all, but it just feels wrong for me. It's like naming a line of standard pocket calculators 'Robot'. (I'm not trying to compare Android to a standard pocket calculator, by the way. Also, it was so tempting to use toasters as my example instead.)

[BeholdersEye Posted May 4th 2009 12:20AM]

Oppps, my fault that is not An Droid, it is A DROID. Stupid english spelling.

[(Unverified) Posted May 3rd 2009 5:04PM]

Just tell them not to use "Droid" or they will have a lawsuit from Lucacarts since they own that trademark.

[VanillaSpice Posted May 4th 2009 10:33PM]

One thing cannot be denied - it was a very interesting decision by Google to continue (without breaking their stride) with the Android name, after the adverse decision had been handed down.

Whether or not they believed they had a good case regardless of that decision, they must accept the outcome, because they knew what could happen.

If Eric ends up being a few mill richer, it will be no-one's fault but Google.

[(Unverified) Posted Jul 26th 2009 11:10AM]

I've been working with an apache subversion called ant and a saxoni subversion called sax. It has developed into many programs. Rewriting old sgml code with numbers many times higher in pages has made the possiblites endless.