trademark - Android Police - Android News, Apps, Games, Phones, Tablets

Feb

The Curious Case Of The Brazilian Android-Powered iPhone: Apple Loses Trademark Suit

Posted by Jeremiah Rice in News

International trademark, patent, and copyright law is a bit of a legal minefield, and Apple has proven itself to be among the best in navigating it these last few years. But there is one exception to their otherwise impressive track record: the lucrative South American market of Brazil. While Apple iPhones have been sold in the country for years, Apple has never owned the trademark for the name. A regional phone manufacturer, Gradiente Eletronica, registered the trademark for "iphone" way back in 2000.

That didn't stop Cupertino's legal bulldogs from suing Gradiente after they released the iPhone Neo One, a ~$300 mid-range Gingerbread phone, in December.

Aug

iOS Developer Appigo Is Threatening To Sue Android Apps For Using The Word "ToDo" In Their Names, Generally Being Ridiculous

Posted by David Ruddock in Applications, Development, Legal, News

As Android Police's unofficial person who knows things about laws (as always, none of this is legal advice), sometimes I see law stuff going on in the tech world that just makes me mad. This is one of those times. Appigo, an iOS and OS X developer, filed for a trademark on the word "Todo" (see it here) under the scope of a software application (basically).

Yesterday, we received an email from a developer of an app for Android called Star Trek ToDo Agenda. He was contacted by Appigo, with the following email (private information redacted):

Hello,

I'd like to discuss a small issue with one of your apps:
Your App Name: Star Trek ToDo Agenda
Your App URL: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.stanlm.startrektodoagenda&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwxLDEsImNvbS5zdGFubG0uc3RhcnRyZWt0b2RvYWdlbmRhIl0.

Jun

Editorial: Why The Importance Of The Unified Galaxy S III Launch In The US Cannot Be Overstated

Posted by David Ruddock in AT&T, Editorials, Galaxy S III, Samsung, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless

Here in the United States, we've all been witness to an historic "second" this week (as opposed to a first) in the unified launch of the Galaxy S III, untainted by carrier modification, on all four of the major US wireless providers (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile).

Now, you'll probably say "but David, the Galaxy S III is the first smartphone to launch as the same model on all four major carriers!" and you'd be right. That's important, no doubt about it. But really, the iPhone has had two, and now three, of the four major carriers, and the addition of T-Mobile isn't exactly a massive achievement - heck, they can't even come to an agreement with Apple to sell the iPhone at all.

May

Samsung Grabs Trademarks For A Bevy Of New Smartphones Including Galaxy Forge, Victory, And Wield

Posted by Liam Spradlin in News, Samsung

Samsung - staying true to form - went on a trademark-filing rampage recently, snatching up trademarks for six new devices, described in the documents only as "Mobile telephones; Smartphones."

The newly-trademarked device names include Lunge (SN 85621870), Galaxy Forge (SN 8561866), Galaxy Wield (SN 85621864), Galaxy Mission (SN 85621859), Galaxy Rivet (SN 85621854), and the Galaxy Victory (SN 85621853).

Considering these are just trademark filings, there's no way of knowing when (if ever) we may see smartphones with these names, or what the devices will be like.

Of course, the question of just what Sammy is planning to do with these names would be slightly more compelling if the manufacturer's penchant for wild-hare trademark grabbing weren't so established.

Mar

Google Trademarks New Software Called 'Showy', Turns A Device Into A Remote Control

Posted by Cameron Summerson in Google, News

It's hard to say what exactly Google has up its sleeve here, but it recently filed a trademark application for some new software called Showy that "allows users to use their computer, tablet device, or mobile phone as a remote control to operate video display devices and televisions; and downloadable software which allows users to remotely control the content on internet-connected digital signage."

It's highly probable that this new software will correlate with GoogleTV, as El Goog has reportedly been working on a new remote that incorporates voice controls and cloud services, allowing Android users to control their TV by speaking to it.

Mar

Google Attempting To Seize GooglePlay.com With ICANN's Help, Will Probably Win, Here's Why

Posted by David Ruddock in Android OS, Legal, News

Cybersquatting, one of the more profitable forms of trolling, is nothing new to anyone familiar with the interwebs. In fact, it's often a source of some pretty funny disputes.

That gets us to today's story: a lot of people have noticed Google doesn't actually own GooglePlay.com (link goes to WhoIs.Net - not the actual page). Now, Google wants that page, and they've filed an ICANN dispute to get it.

It has become such a problem that the United States passed its own legislation to address the issue. The preferred method for dealing with these disputes, though, has been an arbitration body known as ICANN, whose decisions are binding around the world (mostly because they essentially control the Domain Name System).

Sep

America Invents Act Now Law, Brings Biggest Changes To US Patent Law In Over 50 Years

Posted by David Ruddock in News, Off-Topic

If you've watched or read any of the major American news outlets today, you might have heard a solid 15 second mention about a little piece of legislation known as the America Invents Act. You probably heard that it brings the most sweeping changes to American patent law in the last half-century, and that it should ease the burden of patent filing for both inventors and the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office).

You also know patent litigation is a major part of life as an Android fan, so your interest was probably at least piqued by the passage of this bill.

Aug

[Exclusive] Toshiba's Sexy New Tablet To Be Called The Excite

Posted by Aaron Gingrich in Excite 10 LE (AT200 / AT205), Exclusives, News, Rumors, Tablets, Toshiba

Last Updated: June 5th, 2012

Back in April, before Toshiba had officially revealed the name of its upcoming tablet, one Babyfacemagee did some serious detective work to figure out that it would be called the Thrive - and ended up being dead-on. Fast-forward a few months, and we're hearing rumors of a new, slimmer, sexier Galaxy Tab-fighter from Toshiba.

While we've yet to hear (or see) anything official from the company, Babyfacemagee seems to have come through with the name once again. This time around, it seems that the tablet will (quite fittingly) be dubbed the Excite.

So, what do we have by way of proof?

Jul

Apple To GetJar: "Stop Using 'App Store' Or We'll Sue You" GetJar: "No."

Posted by David Ruddock in Apps/Games, News

Apple's at it again, this time back on its "We own the words 'App Store'" reign of terror. While a judge denied Apple's request to bar Amazon from using "Appstore" in a preliminary injunction before the issue is decided at trial, that isn't stopping the world's most infamously litigious tech giant from going after everyone and their brother using the words.

And until the Amazon trial is settled or decided (it's on the docket - for October 2012), Apple is free to go about threatening and pursuing more legal action, even though its trademark on the words "App Store" remains actively contested (by Microsoft) in its bid for certification at the USPTO.

Jul

Judge Denies Apple's Request For Injunction To Restrict Amazon's Use Of "Appstore" Name

Posted by David Ruddock in Android OS, Apps/Games, News

In what was a largely expected ruling, a district court judge in California yesterday denied Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction against Amazon attempting to bar the use of the word "Appstore" in conjunction with the Amazon Appstore.

The standard set for enforcing such an injunction is high - generally, the infringement on the trademark must be so clear that there isn't a genuine debate about whether or not consumers are likely to be confused, the infringement should be relatively obvious. Here, according the presiding judge, Apple failed to meet that burden, and was unable to establish any clear likelihood of confusion among consumers.