Google Glass

[Deckard]

Great article about the current state of play of Glass http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/28/43729 ... a-cola-600

[pogo]

So, privacy is not a problem as other people will always be able to tell when you take a photo or video, what with control being verbal? Well, there's now an app for that:

Google Glass developer writes an app to snap photos with just a wink

Clearly a hack with nasty privacy implications that Google needed to promptly disable. Er, no, they've added it to the OS themselves: https://plus.google.com/+GoogleGlass/po ... jXw?cfem=1

Wink
Glass is about helping you look up and experience the world around you without getting bogged down by technology. Based on this philosophy, we've got a new setting that lets you quickly and easily capture the moments you care about with a simple wink of the eye. Whether it's capturing an amazing sunset on an evening walk, or photographing your receipt for the lunch you'll need to expense, you can now stay in the moment and wink to take a picture instantly. If you want to turn it on, just swipe over to Settings.

Though this is almost thread necromancy. Six months on and they're still rarer than hens teeth outside of Google developer conferences. Makes MS Surface look like a runaway success.

[pogo]

Google submits 1,928 pages arguing for a trademark of the word “Glass”

Not "Google Glass" which they already own. And there's no problem with them calling their product "Glass" in e.g. marketing.

But they want to own the word "Glass" on its own! But you can't just take a common English word and make it your own, especially for a product with almost no sales - it's not as if the word has become associated with the device. Use your imagination and come up with an original name instead. Or live with always adding "Google". Apple do that with their set top box, which is always the "Apple TV", as they can't use just "TV" and presumably "iTV" was taken. If it's a good product it won't matter what it's called.

(you can more understand King wanting to protect 'Candy' after their game became stunningly popular, to stop copycats. And that was only in a game context)

[merman]

Are they employing Tim Langdell as a consultant?

[Darkflame]

a) Glass is obviously untrademarkable. Thats idiotic.

b) Pretty sure there's still a red recording light regardless of what type of command you use to turn it on with.
(might be a sound too - I think thats a legal requirement for Japan at least)

[(o)(o)]

Google submits 1,928 pages arguing for a trademark of the word “Glass”

Not "Google Glass" which they already own. And there's no problem with them calling their product "Glass" in e.g. marketing.

But they want to own the word "Glass" on its own! But you can't just take a common English word and make it your own, especially for a product with almost no sales - it's not as if the word has become associated with the device.

1. Google don't want to "own the word Glass" they are trying to establish a trademark which is stylzed and contextual.
2. Trademarks can be common english words here are a few examples: Amazon, Windows, Apple, Blackberry, Retina, Gorilla, Lightning, Safari.

[pogo]

1. Google don't want to "own the word Glass" they are trying to establish a trademark which is stylzed and contextual.
2. Trademarks can be common english words here are a few examples: Amazon, Windows, Apple, Blackberry, Retina, Gorilla, Lightning, Safari.

Google seem to think so, but the Trademark Office disagreed, saying "the word is too similar to pre-existing trademarks". It's one thing to trademark something like this.


But Google's:

Is just the word written in a particular font, and not an especially distinctive one except the A is missing a bit.

As for your trademark list they're all limited to a certain extent. Apple e.g. own a trademark on computers and related products. They explicitly don't own a trademark as a music company, because of the pre-existing Apple Records - leading to some tricky negotiations when the iPod and iTunes store appeared, keeping the Beatles out of the store for a long time. They also don't own a trademark on the fruit, or the colour Apple Green, or Apple Pie, etc.

MS don't own the trademark on "Windows" generally. They thought they did, took someone to court (Lindows selling LindowsOS) and lost. Completely (MS ended up paying $20m to Lindows for the name).

People would not have a problem if Google wanted a trademark that applies to glasses. I can understand why they don't want "Glass glasses", and it's not obvious what the category of devices will be called (wearable tech seems popular now but is too unwieldy). But "Google Glass" works which they already own. Or pick a new name.

In the end the name doesn't matter - look how people laughed at the Wii's name but it did no harm to the product. Or more interestingly Apple's computer names. Some, like iMac and mini, are modern and carefully chosen. But MacBook sounds much more homely and arose almost by accident. Apple's laptops were PowerBook for many years, because they contained PowerPC processors. This name made no sense when PowerPC was dropped, but it was a very strong brand, and they wanted to keep some continuity (the mini, iMac kept their names). So they chose MacBook. The iPad is more book-like, while there's an app iBooks for reading ebooks on both Mac and iPhone/iPad. But everyone knows what an MacBook is, so it doesn't matter the name doesn't really match the product.

[(o)(o)]

Google's:Is just the word written in a particular font, and not an especially distinctive one except the A is missing a bit.

Denied. The Glass trademark is distinctive and recognizable.

As for your trademark list they're all limited to a certain extent.

As is Google's application.

I take it you did not get as far as page 2.

[Darkflame]

Doesn't apple own "app store" somehow?

Is just the word written in a particular font, and not an especially distinctive one except the A is missing a bit.

Don't say that in front of a designer! Seriously, what looks like "just a font" to me and you has a hidden world of alignments and line end styles and all sorts.

[pogo]

I've not read Google's near 2000 page submission, but here's someone who presumably has and has an interesting analysis.

http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/04/ ... rk-dispute

You need to read the whole thing but it distinguishes between 'suggestive' trademarks which are made-up terms intended to invoke an association: Blu-Ray, Microsoft, Netscape, and 'descriptive' ones which are common words that have "become descriptive", that is they have come to be associated with the thing under consideration and acquired secondary meaning: Apple, IBM, digital. It's nothing to do with whether it describes the object.

Considering that Google has sent the USPTO nearly 2,000 pages of articles to further their application, it looks like Google will be arguing that 'Glass' has acquired secondary meaning. In trademark litigation, courts are most frequently asked to decide between suggestive and descriptive marks on the one hand, and between descriptive and generic marks on the other. This is because suggestive marks, like fanciful and arbitrary marks, are presumed to be entitled to trademark protection, while descriptive marks are entitled to protection if they have become known as representing the producer of the goods, and generic marks can never receive protection.

So the question is whether the word 'Glass' has come to be associated with the product, above all other products called 'Glass'. It's been widely covered in the tech press but barely in mainstream media, and isn't even on general sale, so I'd say not, and so far the trademark office has thought so too.

[(o)(o)]

I've not read Google's near 2000 page submission, but here's someone who presumably has..

Making Presumptions™ would appears to be one your trademarks.

http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/04/05/legal-analysis-google-glass-trademark-dispute

You need to read the whole thing..

It's ironic that you refuse to glance at the appeal document itself, whilst demanding we read a students analysis of it.

So the question is whether the word 'Glass' has come to be associated with the product..

Just today here on the forum somebody referred to Google Glass as "Glass".

[pogo]

It's ironic that you refuse to glance at the appeal document itself, whilst demanding we read a students analysis of it.

One is almost 2000 pages of Google pushing their case. Another's a page or two of independent analysis. Which do you think is more valuable?

(I'd be happy to glance at it but it's almost 2000 pages, there's no way to read it online, and it's an unknown sized download. And he's not just a "student", he's a lecturer and tutor at Strathclyde Uni who's finishing a PhD, as well as being a columnist for The Drum)

[Darkflame]

and 'descriptive' ones which are common words that have "become descriptive", that is they have come to be associated with the thing under consideration and acquired secondary meaning: Apple, IBM, digital. It's nothing to do with whether it describes the object.

How on earth can something become descriptive before that trademark is granted?

Did Apple not have a trademark over their name till after they become successful?

[phattslagg]

I don't think "Apple" is the same thing. It is a company name, rather than a specific product. Also, the name has no prior relation the product, so in the context of technological hardware, it is very distinctive.

"Glass" is much harder word to trademark, because it is already closely associated with products that appear similar, and is commonly used to describe all manner of items.

[Darkflame]

Ok then, App Store. Application Store. Is that not a very basic description of the product? (well, I guess theres some semantics if a store that sales other things is still a product in itself...)
I believe also Apple owns that outright, its not even just a specific logo of the word.