In early 2009, when the operating system was still in its infancy, Google was sued over the trademark to "Android" by Erich Specht, who wanted monetary damages of $94 million.
Specht had run a company called "Android Data" from 1998-2002, before liquidating assets and abandoning the mark after the tech bubble in the stock market burst.
In 2008, when he became aware that Google was using the Android name, Specht put together a website as proof that he was still actively using the Android Data trademark he had left dormant since 2002.
The judge clearly saw through the attempt, throwing out the case and canceling Specht's original trademark, saying it may now be confused with Google's legal trademark.
Reads the judge's summary (via TC):
Google was pleased with the decision: "We are pleased to see this case dismissed, as it was baseless from the start."
In 2008, when he became aware that Google was using the Android name, Specht put together a website as proof that he was still actively using the Android Data trademark he had left dormant since 2002.
The judge clearly saw through the attempt, throwing out the case and canceling Specht's original trademark, saying it may now be confused with Google's legal trademark.
Reads the judge's summary (via TC):
Moving to Google’s Counterclaim, pursuant to the analysis above, Google is entitled to a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs abandoned ANDROID DATA and the other Asserted Marks. Plaintiffs do not possess valid or enforceable rights to the marks. The Court grants Google summary judgment on Count III of its Counterclaim. In regard to Count I of the Counterclaim, a party that believes it may suffer harm because of a trademark that has been abandoned by its owner may move to have the registration cancelled. See 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3). Google became the senior user of the ANDROID mark when it began using it in commerce on November 5, 2007. Plaintiffs, however, resumed use of ANDROID DATA as the junior user after Google acquired its rights to ANDROID. Plaintiffs’ use in commerce of ANDROID DATA creates a possible likelihood of confusion with Google’s ANDROID mark pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a), as well as possible dilution by blurring of Google’s mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).
Google was pleased with the decision: "We are pleased to see this case dismissed, as it was baseless from the start."
