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

Post by paulcole » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 8:14 PM UTC

justinclift wrote: post #179

paulcole wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Would a support email address ending in macscan.net be confusing ... ? No. Not in any way.

Post by cyrrus » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 10:29 PM UTC

biot wrote: post #192

Fogest wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a pretty neat system. I assume lawyers can't take on a bunch of obvious shitty cases just to get the insurance money right? I assume the insurance companies would raise premiums or stop insuring them if the lawyer is losing a lot?

The insurance payout doesn’t go to the lawyer who lost.

Post by jamiek88 » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 11:39 PM UTC

cookiengineer wrote: post #77

danielrpa wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cou…

Your example of Tesla vs Teslan makes sense. But if you do this comparison of similarity, be truthful with the initial argument here. "Orpheus" is longer than "droid" and is certainly longer than "an". What's next? Forbidding streichholzschachtelfabrikdroid? Due to similarity? C'mon, that's nonsense. And no, you cannot have rights on the word "droid". Otherwise, lukasarts and the star trek film makers would have sued…

Post by hda2 » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 2:23 AM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #14

WalterBright wrote: post #5

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

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

Post by WCityMike » Sun, Oct 11, 2020, 5:23 AM UTC

kwanbix wrote: post #121

ghaff wrote: post #112

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 over…

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.