Google Glass

[phattslagg]

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.

Well, not really - I don't personally recall ever hearing "AppStore" before Apple launched theirs. Was there even an "Application Store" before then? Even if there were, it was by no means common language to abbreviate it. I would have thought they had a pretty good case in this instance.

[phattslagg]

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.

Well, not really - I don't personally recall ever hearing "AppStore" before Apple launched theirs. Was there even an "Application Store" before then? Even if there were, it was by no means common language to abbreviate it. I would have thought they had a pretty good case in this instance.

well, ok, I see what you mean, but the service itself was pretty unique at the time, and it could be that they don't get to hold on to the trademark indefinitely, as it will probably become synonymous with all similar services. As I understand it, Sony has lost the sole rights to the name "Walkman" in at least one country for this very reason.

[pogo]

Apparently Apple don't own 'app store' though they'd like too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applicati ... _trademark

Apple own appstore.com, which doesn't mean much - domains go to whoever registers them first.

[Darkflame]

ah, ok then, disregard.

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.

Well, not really - I don't personally recall ever hearing "AppStore" before Apple launched theirs.

I don't recall a HMD being called "Glass" before Google either.

AppStore would have been the same as having a shop called "The Book Store" or "The Food Store" really - something people would use to refer to the generic of that type of thing. (well, there's also "Marketplace" I guess, but there isnt that many alternative words). So to me that seems the same as saying "Glass" as a generic transparent thing you wear on your face.

But if Apple dont have AppStore, then it makes sense if Google cant get Glass as a word.

Although I am still not sure they shouldn't have it as a trademark. That logo looks distinctive enough to me.

[pogo]

Google want it as a trademark for not just HMDs but computer devices and software. And there are people already using Glass as a brand. E.g. these people:

http://web.writeonglass.com/

who among others (there was at least one more) objected to Google's application.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/04/03/ ... od=WSJBlog

[Ollie]

AppStore would have been the same as having a shop called "The Book Store" or "The Food Store" really - something people would use to refer to the generic of that type of thing. (well, there's also "Marketplace" I guess, but there isnt that many alternative words). So to me that seems the same as saying "Glass" as a generic transparent thing you wear on your face.

Mind you, when a comedy club called The Glee Club can successfully sue the makers of a TV programme about an actual glee club, in the correct generic usage of that phrase, for calling it "Glee," all bets are off.

[Baggypants]

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.

A hidden world of alignments and line end styles? so, like fonts do?

[Darkflame]

Well, yes, but if its a font they make themselves.
Its basically a vector image that represents text isnt it.

Google want it as a trademark for not just HMDs but computer devices and software. And there are people already using Glass as a brand. E.g. these people:

The objection earlier seems it was too similar to things already used in that field, but for other things its just a ordinary word used as a brand for completely unrelated things. Which would make it like "Amazon" or "Apple" again then surely?

The only relevant question I think is "can the things be confused" - can Googles specific logo/use be confused for a umm...websnipet software thing?

[pogo]

It's about the word 'Glass'. From the WSJ piece:

At least one company is opposing Google’s bid. In December, Border Stylo, LLC, the developer of a browser extension called “Write on Glass,” filed a notice of opposition against Google. Last month, Google struck back, filing a petition to cancel Border Stylo’s trademark. Lawyers for Border Stylo couldn’t be reached for comment.

They wouldn't be trying to close down other people's use of the word if it were just about the logo. If it were just about the logo they wouldn't be having any of this trouble.

As for 'Apple' there were probably no other computer companies naming themselves or their product after that particular fruit. Amazon is even more obscure - a foreign name with particular associations but not a common English word.

Both companies and trademarks are quite old too. Google has two problems. First 'Glass' is a common English word, so far more likely to be used; in particular many things in computing are made of glass, or of glass-like things, including 'Windows'.

Secondly there are far more companies today, especially small software companies making apps which need snappy distinctive names for their products. And under trademark law a small company has as much right to a trademark as a big one. The big one might have the financial muscle to buy out the smaller one but that's probably too hard here. It's not a made up word like 'iPad' (which Apple paid off a couple companies for the rights to), it's a common word which many people have an interest in.

[(o)(o)]

As for 'Apple' there were probably no other computer companies naming themselves or their product after that particular fruit.

Apple Corps and Apple Inc have had numerous battles over the years.

IMO this would be a whole lot more interesting if you focused on the the objections to the application and Google's response.

Just for giggles, here are a few more approved Trademarks :

Aperture®
Aqua®
Carbon®
Cocoa®
Instruments®
Logic®
Numbers®
Pages®
Quartz®
Sand®
Spaces®
Textile®
Tubes®

[Ollie]

It's about the word 'Glass'. From the WSJ piece:

At least one company is opposing Google’s bid. In December, Border Stylo, LLC, the developer of a browser extension called “Write on Glass,” filed a notice of opposition against Google. Last month, Google struck back, filing a petition to cancel Border Stylo’s trademark. Lawyers for Border Stylo couldn’t be reached for comment.

What? Are they allowed to do that? Surely a pre-existing trademark can't be canceled just because some big corporation decides after the fact that they want to use a word from it?

[pogo]

IMO this would be a whole lot more interesting if you focused on the the objections to the application and Google's response.

You brought up Apple !

What? Are they allowed to do that? Surely a pre-existing trademark can't be canceled just because some big corporation decides after the fact that they want to use a word from it?

I don't think so. We don't known when the creators of "Write on Glass" registered their trademark: Google may feel they have precedence. They may also find out the hard way that the time to oppose trademarks is before they're granted.

[Ollie]

What? Are they allowed to do that? Surely a pre-existing trademark can't be canceled just because some big corporation decides after the fact that they want to use a word from it?

I don't think so. We don't known when the creators of "Write on Glass" registered their trademark: Google may feel they have precedence. They may also find out the hard way that the time to oppose trademarks is before they're granted.

Found a bit more about this at http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/04/ ... rk-dispute:

Google alleges that Border Stylo abandoned the 'Glass' mark, the 'Write on Glass' mark, and any other formative marks because, Google alleges, Border Stylo assigned the rights to the trade mark back in 2012 to another company called Factory Holding

As a result, Google claims the question about whether the trademark is confusingly similar to the 'Glass' mark falls flat.

So it's not just a matter of Google saying "We want that, so you can't have it."

[Darkflame]

Its also worth noting that they objected to Googles use first, so it could still be just about a logo, and Googles response was just a counter-sue legal tactic thing, rather then google actually caring much for them using it.

[pogo]

Google alleges that Border Stylo abandoned the 'Glass' mark, the 'Write on Glass' mark, and any other formative marks because, Google alleges, Border Stylo assigned the rights to the trade mark back in 2012 to another company called Factory Holding

As a result, Google claims the question about whether the trademark is confusingly similar to the 'Glass' mark falls flat.

So it's not just a matter of Google saying "We want that, so you can't have it."

That's the article I linked to earlier. That sounds like very dubious grounds for Google's claim: they don't claim the trademark doesn't exist, or is invalid, but that the firm assigned it to someone else. But firms can do that, perhaps temporarily, perhaps permanently. The mark still exists, which means Google cannot be first, or distinctive, with their use and desired trademark.

It could just be a counter-suit. This happens a heck of a lot in the US, I'm not sure why. Perhaps to drive up costs and tie everyone up in depositions so they'll be more likely to abandon or settle. Perhaps so you can use those depositions to go on a fishing expedition and find some evidence of wrongdoing or untrustworthiness. Perhaps so when it goes to court it can be presented as "us vs. them" and come down to who seems most convincing, rather than legal facts.