Google sues me for using the word “droid” in my company name Orpheusdroid

I mean Microsoft seems to be in the right there, given that he deliberately named it that to be a pun on the Microsoft name. He wouldn't have appended Soft to his name when choosing a domain if Microsoft didn't exist.

perl4ever• 6 years ago

"given that he deliberately named it that to be a pun on the Microsoft name"

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.

WalterBright• 6 years ago

I would suggest changing trademark law so a trademark cannot be a single word found in the dictionary.

I.e. one could trademark:

  Acme Editor

but not:

  Editor

humanrebar• 6 years ago

Hold my legal pad while I bribe some scientists and someone from the OED to define "microsoft" to be a species of insect.

paulcole3• 6 years ago

But they don’t use the OED as their source dictionary and don’t tell you which dictionary they use. Looks like you’re going to have to bribe a lot of dictionary employees.

hda2• 6 years ago

Have an exception for trademarks registered before their inclusion as a dictionary word? Google is already defined as internet search by some dictionaries.

bitwize2• 6 years ago

Hasbro has had trouble trademarking certain Transformer names (Jazz, Prowl, etc.) so in the trademark registration the name actually trademarked is "Autobot X" or "Decepticon X".

junon2• 6 years ago

IIRC this is already the case.

0xFF0123• 6 years ago

Apple is trademarked https://trademarks.justia.com/761/16/apple-76116541.html

intricatedetail• 6 years ago

I think companies selling haemorrhoid treatments started profusely sweating.

mksreddy• 6 years ago

An android variant named xxxdroid and you wonder Google is coming after you for name?

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

segfaultbuserr• 6 years ago

Does simply using the word "Droid" for an Android-related project count as trademark infringement? Can the free software project "F-Droid" [0] (Android App Installer) be sued for trademark infringement? If it is, it's bad news...

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

wodenokoto3• 6 years ago

A license was acquired for the Motorola Droid use of the word "Droid" from Lucas Arts, so I would guess that the answer is yes.

akerro2• 6 years ago

Facebook sued and won companies that had "book" in their name.

magicalhippo2• 6 years ago

From what I was told you can't use a similar name on a similar product or company, but if it's different enough it's ok.

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.

sschueller3• 6 years ago

I was permitted to register my trademark (Techdroid) as long as I don't write it with a large D. This was requested by the holder of the trademark "Droid".

danielrpa2• 6 years ago

In many, if not most, cases yes.

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.

cryptica• 6 years ago

The words 'droid' and `android` existed long before Google existed so Google has no exclusive right to the use of this word.

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.

snoshy• 6 years ago

This sounds to me like a feel good sentiment that lacks careful thought. I agree that "droid" and "android" predate Google and their ilk. It still does not follow that they're suing out of boredom, or that they fear exposure... aren't there bigger brands to protect, like Google itself?

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?

GrumpyNl• 6 years ago

As long as they can trademark a color, they can do it with a name.

MacsHeadroom• 6 years ago

Apples predate civilization, yet Apple does have the exclusive privilege of using the word Apple in relation to computers and almost anything that touches a computer. So that's not a great argument.

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.

z92• 6 years ago

This. Knew there's more to it than what the title implies.

mannykannot• 6 years ago

While it may not be surprising that Google is taking this action, the claim that the author is being disingenuous seems unfair. As far as I can tell, Google itself is making the word "droid" a key element of its objection [1] (the author did not name his company OrpheusAndroid), so issues raised by its meaning, origin and usage are in scope (they may also be moot if Google has or licenses "droid" itself as a trademark.)

[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."

howlgarnish• 6 years ago

The problem is that he's making mobile apps with that name. Lucas Films' trademarks to "Droid" aren't relevant here, because those are for movies and nobody's going to confuse them with the Android OS.

mqus2• 6 years ago

That didn't keep them from going after davdroid (now davx5). Afair lucasarts was behind that.

inops• 6 years ago

It was Google https://mobile.twitter.com/davx5app/status/10706816836938506...

robinduckett• 6 years ago

Did Google specifically license "droid" from Lucasfilm / Disney? Is "droid" a protected term?

goodside• 6 years ago

Google did not, but Verizon Wireless did for the Motorola Droid in 2009.

pacificmint• 6 years ago

Droid is (or used to be) Motorola’s brand name for their Android phones. Google bought Motorola in 2012. They sold them later, but they may have retained the Trademark.

sangnoir• 6 years ago

That cannot be right - Verizon (not Motorola) got the rights from Lucas Arts. IIRC, there was at least one non-Motorola Droid (made by HTC, IIRC)

willmacdonald• 6 years ago

Apple would not let me register a developer account using my domain name macscan.net. Got a letter from their legal team.

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

asutekku• 6 years ago

That looks like a possible apple product so i could see why they would not allow it.

Y-bar• 6 years ago

It's not like "mac..." is an uncommon application, or developer, name, here are a few living examples:

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.

mattmanser• 6 years ago

Fair enough imo?

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

Macha2• 6 years ago

So any Scottish people with macX names cannot use their email or name in the app store?

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

paulcole3• 6 years ago

Do you understand their argument — or do you just not agree with it?

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?

justinclift2• 6 years ago

Would a support email address ending in macscan.net be confusing ... ?

No. Not in any way.

SpelingBeeChamp2• 6 years ago

Your example is not analogous to the OP. You were trying to get Apple to allow you to do something within their own product, not trying to start a business and then having another business say you can't name it something.

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.

wodenokoto3• 6 years ago

Didn't Motorola license Droid from Lucas Arts for the Motorola Droid lineup [1]? And since Google bought Motorola, it is now on Google to protect the trademark?

[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?

stingraycharles• 6 years ago

Isn’t a trademark only valid in a single market, eg consumer electronics vs entertainment?

luto• 6 years ago

Trademarks are valid in one or more "classes", yes.

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

praptak2• 6 years ago

The general spirit is to protect consumers from confusion by competing companies, which is good.

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.

adrianmalacoda• 6 years ago

(IANAL)

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

villgax• 6 years ago

Grow the fuck up google! The legal team at Google India surely has had their heads in the sand, by not knowing anything about the word Droid outside of google realm.

inopinatus2• 6 years ago

What’s next, action against the estate of Philip K. Dick for giving the Nexus series a bad name?

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

dan1234• 6 years ago

Actually, his estate threatened to sue Google over the Nexus name. I’m not sure it came to anything.

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

bitwize2• 6 years ago

That's ridiculous. Google shouldn't be suing you for that.

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

inopinatus2• 6 years ago

They could, but these aren’t the droids they’re looking for.

nl3• 6 years ago

Google had an exclusive licence to in in that field.

garmaine• 6 years ago

No, they inherited a licence from Lucas (now Disney) that Motorola acquired.

sschueller3• 6 years ago

Wow, I just got my trademark (Techdroid) renewed a few days ago. I do have a signed agreement with Lucasfilm from when I first registered it but I wonder if I will have issues with Google in the future and my android apps.

DethNinja• 6 years ago

How did you get signed agreement? Did you contact Lucasfilm or did they contact you?

sschueller3• 6 years ago

They contacted me when I first filed.

mcguire2• 6 years ago

Are you building an operating system for phones?

jzox• 6 years ago

What ever happened to the motto “don’t be evil”?

frouge2• 6 years ago

Investors threw it to the garbage pret-ty fast

nix234• 6 years ago

Dear Google, Android and Droid exist much longer than your crappy OS:

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)

LoSboccacc3• 6 years ago

this isn't a copyright litigation how is this top comment

nix234• 6 years ago

this isn't a copyright litigation how is this top comment
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.

shallowthought• 6 years ago

They just have to establish a history of suing people for using that word because part of keeping your copyright is showing that you have fought for it in court.

schappim• 6 years ago

However this dispute is primarily about trademarks and not copyright.

mensetmanusman2• 6 years ago

Google should sue starwars next.

evgen2• 6 years ago

Oh, you mean the people they are already paying for the trademark license?

Jazgot• 6 years ago

I don't see any documents confirming the lawsuit. Maybe this just some kind of weird advertisement?

peanut_worm• 6 years ago

Surprised Lucas Films doesn't try to collect on all the apps the use the word 'droid'

Synaesthesia• 6 years ago

That would be kinda petty, I'm glad they don't.

simonkafan• 6 years ago

Not the same story but related: Microsoft had to rebrand his online storage SkyDrive to OneDrive once because the television broadcaster "Sky" won a trademark lawsuit in UK.

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?

jzwinck• 6 years ago

Sky is also an internet service provider. Not as far removed as TV really, and SkyDrive is hardly unrelated to internet service.

dehrmann• 6 years ago

I'd say it doesn't seem to be a problem for Box and Dropbox, but it probably is; the two companies are just too similar.

ghaff5• 6 years ago

I can sue you for more or less anything. And, especially if I'm a big company, I can make you waste a lot of time and money (even if you're also a big company). That's why, as someone who has been involved in a number of product naming decisions, my experience is that lawyers are very conservative in terms of what names they let you use even if, on paper, it seems like you have a good argument that your somewhat overlapping name is completely unrelated.

kwanbix• 6 years ago

That is because in USA you pay your lawyers. In other countries, if you loose, you have to pay the lawyers of the other part.

ghaff5• 6 years ago

I doubt that is universally true.

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.

yndoendo• 6 years ago

This simple change in the USA legal system would benefit a lot of people. Prevent frivolous lawsuits. Allow the poor to sue when they do have a case but no money to fallow through. and help end SLAPP.

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

KJLJon2• 6 years ago

I would assume if your a small firm, you will still worry about the risk of losing and needing to pay your lawyers.

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

shultays• 6 years ago

Even if big company is going to lose, that is nothing for them and they can play the game forever and drag the courts while you are trying everything to pay for court costs, even if you are almost sure you will get them back

BrandoElFollito• 6 years ago

It would be even better if the costs were a percentage of your income. You have 1B income, well it is going to cost you 5%. You earn 20k? You will pay 1% of this.

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.

WCityMike• 6 years ago

That's not entirely accurate. It's not uncommon to see "prevailing party pays legal fees" in American contracts.

m463• 6 years ago

"remember, we have a legal system, not a justice system"

mensetmanusman2• 6 years ago

Replace the o with a zero.

heyplanet• 6 years ago

Is there a way to keep up with this story? Looks like Orpheusdroid is not on Twitter.

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.

fortran77• 6 years ago

But they didn't sue him. They filed an objection to his trademark filing and asked him to stop using the name. He can call their bluff, or cave in, or wait 'til they actually sue him to stop.

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,

jmull• 6 years ago

I hope this guy is getting good legal advice. He seems focused on things that aren’t that central to his case, like whether words or word-parts are dictionary words, or whether Google had complained about the name in the past (how could Google object to a trademark that hadn’t been filed for?)

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.

arun6582• 6 years ago

i would believe its unfair if you had registerd your company before android came out.

rmbeard• 6 years ago

I guess George Lucas gets to sue Google now.

evgen2• 6 years ago

George registered the TM via his company LucasArts (whose parent LucasFilm was purchased by Disney), which licensed the TM to Motorola, who was purchased by Google.

chiefalchemist• 6 years ago

As I understand it (i.e., correct me if I'm mistaken), when you are a trademark holder the less you defend (note: not the right word) that trademark its scope (?) erodes, ar least from the POV of the courts.

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.

salamanderman2• 6 years ago

"Droid" copyright LucasFilm, and Google and Motorola pay a licensing fee for the right to put that in products.

TheRealPomax• 6 years ago

Asking unqualified strangers on the internet for "how to make a case stronger" should really be met with "start by hiring a lawyer" as first, second, and third reply.

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

panzagl• 6 years ago

Lucasfilm went after FASA back in the Eighties for their board game 'Battledroid', forcing them to change it to 'Battletech'. It's a trademark with a long history of being contentious. Think he could name his company 'OrpheusiPhone' without pushback from Apple?

nabla9• 6 years ago

If not Google, then Disney.

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

Stierlitz• 6 years ago

Droid: Origin 1950s shortening of android.

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

riffnote• 6 years ago

Honestly, Orpheusdroid is a sub-optimal name. It's too wordy and hard to spell or even remember. This is an opportunity to rebrand into something better.

papul1993• 6 years ago

Offtopic but Team-BP is an excellent forum discussing the Automobile Market in India. The posts are of high quality and they have a pretty high barrier of entry.

Google sues me for using the word “droid” in my company name Orpheusdroid

Related Stories