Google Android Is Accused Of Mobile Infringement In Trademark Infringement.

NetEase technology news May 1st, according to "Forbes" reported that a "AndroidDataCorp" (hereinafter referred to as "ADC"), the founder of the United States software developer ADC (ErichSpecht) said on Thursday that it had filed a lawsuit against the Federal District Court in North District of Illinois, accusing all members of Google and its Android established "open cell alliance" (OpenHandsetAlliance) infringed its trademark rights, and asked the defendant to pay 94 million dollars in damages.

Martin Murphy, Specht's attorney general, said: "Google and other enterprises are doing the same thing as stealing." MartinMurphy This is obviously our trademark, but Google regards it as its own use. " Google spokesman Andrew Peterson (AndrewPederson) said that the allegation was groundless and that they would take necessary measures to safeguard their rights and interests.

In addition to Google and its "open cell alliance" members, the list of defendants listed in Shi Hitt also includes foreign companies such as Motorola, Qualcomm, Sprint, T-Mobile, TI, and China Mobile, Toshiba and Vodafone.

Spicier founded ADC in 1998, mainly providing software development services for the secure and effective website data transmission. In 2000, the company filed a registration application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (hereinafter referred to as "USPTO"), requesting the use of "AndroidData" as the trademark of computer e-commerce software. Then in 2002, USPTO approved the application of ADC. In October 2007, a few days before the release of the Android mobile platform plan, Google filed an application for registration of Android with USPTO, but it was rejected in February 2008. The reason is that there is a similarity between the two trademarks, which has been applied to the "Android data" trademark. Subsequently, Google appealed to the resolution quickly, and claimed that because of the lack of "Android", the company has lost the right to own the trademark. Google Corporation's legal team pointed out in a paper that the ADC company had been voluntarily disbanded in May 2004 (although it was subsequently re established) and had never registered the company's domain name once. However, USPTO rejected Google's appeal and cancelled its trademark registration application in November last year.

Murphy, a lawyer for spitchie, said: "Shih Hitt spent a lot of effort on the Android trademark. No wonder he has a feeling that Google has taken the name from itself. Murphy said that the reason why he was acting now was because he had always been worried. After all, Google was a well-known company. But recently he realized that Google had infringed on his trademark rights. "Hitt had heard of Android mobile phone, but it was only considered a mobile phone product, but when he realized that Android was actually a software, he sued as fast as possible to defend his rights." Murphy said.

In this case, the definition of Android platform is the key to judgement. Many trademarks approved by USPTO include many trademarks named "Android", such as a jeweler who is registered trademark by Android, but none of these are related to software. The dispute between Google and Shi Hitt is that they both apply for trademark registration under the "International Classification 009", which includes the trademark registration of hardware and software.

In addition, in theory, the trademark rights granted by spodge are "AndroidData", while Google applies for "Android". The two are not exactly the same, which makes the whole case more complicated. However, Murphy believes that when SPI was registered with the trademark, it has made it clear that "data" (data) is only descriptive. Therefore, spicier actually has the right to use the trademark "Android". Murphy said: "the descriptive word" data "can be ignored. In fact, we have the Android trademark right.

Generally speaking, in order to prove that the other has already constituted a trademark infringement, and the trademark owner must prove that the user may be confused by other similar trademarks, the prosecution of Hitt on this point will undoubtedly be hindered. Murphy acknowledges that compared with search giant Google, the small company of Shi Hitt appears to be very small. It is difficult for consumers to confuse the Android mobile platform with ADC's e-commerce software. However, Murphy insists that such infringement by Google has seriously affected the business of the company. He said: "when Shi Hitt tried to sell his products, he felt that the outside world was selling Google's imitation products."

Although Google has been informed of the accusation, it has not yet had direct contact with MR or Murphy, but this situation will soon change. Murphy plans to apply for a temporary injunction to the court on Thursday, demanding that Google withdraw all products with Android trademark and repackage it only after renaming. This will undoubtedly affect the sale of G1 phones in the US region. At the same time, the ban will also affect Google Android related websites and marketing materials. Murphy thinks Google is likely to send a lawyer to the court to reject the application.

Because of the large number of defendants, the case is likely to reach an out of court settlement. But Murphy said that the premise of a settlement must be Google's recognition of Android's trademark rights.