Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

We are looking for moderators.  Message the admin if interested.

Author Topic: ANDROID TRADEMARK  (Read 277 times)

leenjohn2014@outlook.com

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
ANDROID TRADEMARK
« on: 03-17-18 at 09:08 am »

Hi all back in 2013 i sold tablets that were allwinner and came in a packaging box with pc tablet on them.
They had android software on them which i know is fine and still ok today as google welcome and encourage everybody to use the software on their devices.
I had 304pc of tablets come in a box with the word android on them and thought nothing of it at the time and just sold them in their new boxes.
In 2014 i had a visit from trading standards and they told me that i cant sell tablets with the android software on them i was shocked and asked why and they just said as its a breach of trademark so i proved that it wasn't and the charge against me was dropped.
They still charged me for the packaging telling me that i cant sell my allwinner tablets in a box with the android logo on the and as they are trading standards i believed this to be true so looked into just to double check and found out on the intellectual property website that android logo is registered and TABLETS are in class 9 which means they have the rights to protect tablet computers and that the android logo cant be sold on a tablet.
As i said above my tablets were allwinner and there were no android logos on the tablets but only on the packaging boxes.
There is no classification for packaging and i mentioned this at one court appearance and trading standards told my barrister that packaging comes under the class for stationary which i know was not true so i emailed the ipo and they emailed me back saying that this information is not true and that packaging does not come under stationary so my barrister told them this at my next court appearence and then they changed it again claiming it comes in the same class as its product.
I emailed ipo again and they sent me an email saying that as long as i didn't advertise the boxes as a product or a service then the android logo being on the packaging was ok and i never advertised the packaging boxes so this email was shown in court and a trial was agreed which was good for us as we could show all our evidence.
Our barrister has been useless and always pushed us to plead guilty even with all the evidence we had and at our last appearance for trial with a new judge made us plead guitly as he told us a judge will not be interested in our evidence which under pressure we did so only to be told by the new judge that we could face prison so we have had to get a new barrister who has confidence in our evidence and are fighting to change our guilty pleas.
Trading standards also told us we cant sell our tablets as android tablets in its title which we did do on some occasions but after checking the ipo website the wording of android can be used and was only registered for advertising after we sold the tablets but they are still trying to fight us in court with false evidence.
We have tried wrote to the courts we have wrote to the ombudsman and wrote to so many other people about the fact we had a bad barrister and that we have good evidence but nobody will seem to listen to us so im posting onhere to see if theres any help or advice i can get from members of the public.
We are parents of three children and paid all our taxes etc... and run a legal business and was very proud of our business and am obviously in shock at the thought of going to prison for a logo on 304pc packaging of non branded tablets and this has turned our lives upside down for the last 3-4 years and is still ongoing.
We have messaged google but never seem to get a reply so hoping this forum may help us and hope somebody has a bit of knowledge with our issue.
Thanks for taking time to read this and i hope somebody out there can help us as this is our last hope.
Thanks Lee
Logged

MYK

  • Lead Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4140
    • View Profile
Re: ANDROID TRADEMARK
« Reply #1 on: 03-17-18 at 02:12 pm »

I'm not entirely sure of what you're looking for, since you mention buried at the end that you have a new barrister who is actually trying to get things taken care of.  At least in the U.S., I'd say you might have a malpractice claim against your former barrister who refused to present evidence and told you to just plead guilty.

I should first note and disclaim that (1) I have no knowledge of British laws, especially related to "trading standards"; (2) I have only cursorily looked up Android code licensing; and (3) I have looked into Android trademark usage guidelines in detail for my former employer.

That done, to the best of my knowledge the core Android software is freely available to anyone for installing on any device, including for tailoring the operating system so that it functions on the device.  I am not aware of any specific requirement for compatibility testing or functional testing before marking devices and packaging with the Android trademarks, but it is quite possible that such requirements exist.  The trademark usage guidelines are straightforward.  Anyone may use SOME OF the Android trademarks, including the word mark, the various version names, and the robot logo, for marking products, whether software or hardware, that run a version of the Android operating system or are compatible with being used on hardware that does.  Of course, if a product doesn't work, then that may create its own issues related to fraud, being fit for purpose, and so on.  NOTE THAT the stylized-text version of "ANDROID" is NOT allowed to be used without specific written agreement from Google (read the usage guidelines!).

This free availability was Google's main marketing point for the software -- get people to use it so that Google could eavesdrop on everything that they do and spy for the NSA or in your case GCHQ sell location-specific ads for every shop, restaurant, bar, strip club, toy store, and gas petrol station near the person's GPS location.  Several spinoffs that attempt to restrict that eavesdropping exist, including Cyanogenmod and LineageOS, and Google hasn't even cracked down on those projects.

https://source.android.com/setup/brands

https://source.android.com/setup/licenses

If the sole problem is the packaging, then read the above branding guidelines and FOLLOW THEM.  If you don't understand what they say, get the opinion of a solicitor who handles trademarks in Britland before printing the packaging.  Reprinting packaging is cheap compared to the hardware inside, and is also cheap compared to getting sued by some self-important board of prats.

As far as I am aware, we have no British solicitors or barristers hanging out on this forum, and even if there were one he would not be able to give you specific legal advice about your problem on this forum.  You may wish to ask on Reddit to see if you can get UK-specific advice if you're not sure of your new barrister.  The URL is http://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceUK

I should, however, warn you that while I've never visited that particular UK group, Reddit's U.S.-centric "legaladvice" group is complete shit, with police, insurance adjusters, business owners, and other wannabees all pretending to give advice while mostly just mocking the people who post questions.  Sometimes there is some useful advice given out, but that tends to be rare, and it's usually drowned out by all the idiots telling the people posting actual information that they must be wrong because "nobody would ever do business like that."

Hope this was of some help, and good luck.
Logged
"The life of a patent solicitor has always been a hard one."  Judge Giles Rich, Application of Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990.

Disclaimer: not only am I not a lawyer, I'm not your lawyer.  Therefore, this does not constitute legal advice.
 



Footer

www.intelproplaw.com

Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

www.intelproplaw.com

Page created in 0.115 seconds with 20 queries.