Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Sued Over Chromebook Name

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the warm-up-the-litigation-cannon dept.

Google 116

nk497 writes "A PC maker is suing Google over the Chromebook name, saying the brand infringes on its own computer, the ChromiumPC — which was originally intended to run the open-source Chrome OS. Isys Technologies wants Google and its partners to stop marketing Chromebooks, and is hoping to delay the 15 June launch. The company also claims that Google had originally been planning to call the netbook-like devices 'Speedbooks.'"

cancel ×

116 comments

Google hardware? (2)

arisvega (1414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400202)

Google makes their own hardware? Niceeee...

Re:Google hardware? (1)

UnresolvedExternal (665288) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400280)

Urgh... Good Luck With That... Why is the technology world today turning into a bad version of office politics?

Why? Money! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401614)

It is much easier to get money by sueing someone than actually making a product.

Product development is expensive and sales might be disappointing. The risk for losing money on the project is rather high.

Now compare that with sueing someone: it is cheap to initiate and the possible payout is huge. So what if you won't win every time? It all works out in the end.

That's why industry pushes software patents and hard IP laws. They all think there is more money in sueing newcomers for all they have than making an actual product.

Re:Google hardware? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400322)

these people might want to read trademark law a bit. chromebook and chromiumpc are not exactly the same. If it was chromepc and chromiumpc then there might be an issue, but this is just fishing for a settlement from google in hoping that the judge is an idiot.

Re:Google hardware? (1)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400766)

It doesn't need to be exactly the same to be a problem. The amount of variation required pretty much depends on the likelihood of a mistake being made by a consumer.

Re:Google hardware? (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400820)

I think you're missing the part of "the product in question needs to actually be on the market for the trademark to be valid". Unlike patents with non practicing entities, isn't it a requirement for trademark if I recall correctly? the so called idiot test would probably pretty easily pass here:

Ok folks, example a: google laptop, named chromebook
example b: no product at all, named chromiumpc.

Are you confused? No. (1 product).

There may be contract law issues or things of that nature but trademark on this is a fucking joke.

Re:Google hardware? (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400940)

What the heck is this? A Google branded laptop? But I wanted this desktop machine (not) manufactured by the well-known, and very famous, Isys Technologies.

Isys -- putting the "no" in "technology".

Re:Google hardware? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401782)

Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a right to its trademark.

Worst case of "small guys don't deserve their rights when facing bit guys" comment I've seen on slashdot recently...

Re:Google hardware? (2)

teslafreak (684543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402154)

Wow. That's not even remotely what I took away from his comment. He was making (I assume) a joke to the effect that it would be difficult to mistake one for the other. Since that very type of mistake is what this is about, it is a pretty absurd lawsuit.

Re:Google hardware? (2)

zwizzlemydizzle (955627) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401264)

Unlike patents with non practicing entities, isn't it a requirement for trademark if I recall correctly?

Pretty much, but not exactly. "Use" or "Intent to Use" (in commerce) are the two basis for trademark, and the latter essentially provides you with 6 months to enter the marketplace. Surprisingly, that actually makes sense, as it lets people protect names as they set out with a business or product, rather than have to wait until after the fact.

Re:Google hardware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36402410)

Pretty much, but not exactly. "Use" or "Intent to Use" (in commerce) are the two basis for trademark, and the latter essentially provides you with 6 months to enter the marketplace.

Not to be pedantic, but an "intent to use" application provides the applicant with 3+ years to demonstrate actual use. Moreover, even for "use"-based applications, the trademark use need not be actual sale of product - some pre-sale type activities can also qualify.

Re:Google hardware? (2)

AJH16 (940784) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401432)

I think it is also ironic that ChromiumPC is atleast as close to ChromeOS or Chrome as ChromeBook is to ChromiumPC and I'm pretty sure that Google has the trademark on ChromeOS. If I was Google, I'd be suing the crap out of ISys for violating the ChromeOS trademark.

Re:Google hardware? (2)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401186)

I think it more likely that they're using this for cheap advertising. Even if they're not, that's the overall effect.. I'd certainly never heard of ChromiumPCs before :P

Bit strange that they're suing Google for creating a product with a name too similar to a product with a name based on another product that Google created..

Re:Google hardware? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36400684)

BUTT PLUG

Re:Google hardware? (2)

quickgold192 (1014925) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401100)

In case you weren't joking, (and for those who don't know,) they do, [blogspot.com] and they've been doing it for a while.

Re:Google hardware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36403012)

Well, and not to mention the Nexus phones.

Let me be the first to say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36400222)

Rofl.

Bass-ackwards (1)

Joehonkie (665142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400314)

Wait, wasn't THEIR name specifically trading off of Google's trademark to begin with? How does that even work?

Re:Bass-ackwards (1)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400644)

Not really. Names are separated by industry too and how they are sold. A laptop sold in retail is significantly different than an operating system being sold wholesale (factories).

Re:Bass-ackwards (1)

Barefoot Monkey (1657313) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401814)

Not really. Names are separated by industry too and how they are sold. A laptop sold in retail is significantly different than an operating system being sold wholesale (factories).

But in this case the name of the laptop is a direct reference to the operating system that it uses, so the separation isn't clear, and the only similarity between the names of the two laptops is that they both refer to the name of the same operating system. This doesn't look like a particularly strong case.

Chrome OS (2)

Andrewkov (140579) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400352)

Wait a sec, Google made Chrome OS. Are they trying to hijack the name or what? LOL!

Re:Chrome OS (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400900)

No. The Chromebook clearly infringes on their use of ChromiumPC... which is used to run ChromeOS....

I don't know what their line of reasoning here is...

Re:Chrome OS (1)

Zantetsuken (935350) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402258)

Also, Chrome is based on Google Chromium, so they already own the Chromium name

Re:Chrome OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36402620)

Nitpick: There's no such thing as "Google" Chromium. Yes Google owns it, but they don't put their brand name on anything called Chromium, only Chrome.

Re:Chrome OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36403482)

No. There is no google chromium, it's just chromium, and google chrome. one of the (few) differences between chrome and chromium is the google brand and logo.

Re:Chrome OS (1)

cream wobbly (1102689) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400950)

Wait a sec, IBM made the PC. Are they trying etc.

Huh (1)

dagamer34 (1012833) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400358)

And here I was thinking that Google owned the trademark to "Chrome" as it refers to browsers and "Chromebook" would be an extension of that. How on earth is "Chromebook" the same as "ChromiumPC Modular Computer"?? The nerve some companies have these days.

Re:Huh (1)

ginbot462 (626023) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401506)

As others pointed out, you have to trademark in each industry. Still, in this case it's pretty stupid.

Chromebooks are already out (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36400368)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110699231322

Re:Chromebooks are already out (1)

VFA (1064176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402220)

"Buy it Now" is set at $1,000 and the starting bid is $300! Good luck with that. A real nice HP netbook like a dm1z goes for under $500 and can run a real OS. Sometimes I do not understand the gadget market...

It may be Chrome... (2)

Neil_Brown (1568845) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400370)

... but do they have a cast iron defence?

Re:It may be Chrome... (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400970)

I hear the evidence was forged.

Re:It may be Chrome... (1)

UnresolvedExternal (665288) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401004)

They should send the coppers around to arrest them... don't ya zinc? It shouldn't be alloyed!

Re:It may be Chrome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401212)

I heard they had to steel it!

Re:It may be Chrome... (1)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401404)

They're gold-hearted criminals, without a silver of conscience. The coppers should show up in a tank and platinum all... show no mercury!

Re:It may be Chrome... (1)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401498)

That's stretched pretty tin.

Re:It may be Chrome... (1)

speculatrix (678524) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402204)

how much will these things sulfur? sell for? geddit?

Re:It may be Chrome... (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402470)

That's easy: A nickel.

Re:It may be Chrome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401416)

That's what I'm lead to believe too!

Re:It may be Chrome... (1)

petteyg359 (1847514) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401802)

Is this ferrous wheel stopped yet?

Re:It may be Chrome... (1)

Yaruar (125933) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401162)

I'm just worried that the Irony will be lost on the courts.

Re:It may be Chrome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36402316)

I'll alloy it!

Re:It may be Chrome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36402860)

*Iron Clad...

Re:It may be Chrome... (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402904)

... but do they have a cast iron defence?

That's your problem right there. Chromium metal has hardness of 8.5 Mohs, smack dab between topaz and corundum. It's harder than most tool steel, which makes it resistant to filing [archive.org] .

Re:It may be Chrome... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36402906)

ba dump bump! Thank you thank you. That was Neil everybody, give him a hand. He'll be here all week. make sure to tip your waitress...

Read to the end: Google is strongarming them (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400374)

Zenger claimed Google delayed Isys' trademark registration until it could launch its own Chromebooks last month, "thereafter demanding that Isys cease and desist using its ChromiumPC mark and abandon its application for registration".

Now, that's a bit different from the "Tiny launched bizarrely quixotic suit against Google hoping to make some fast bucks" implied by the headline, isn't it?

Re:Read to the end: Google is strongarming them (1)

SudoGhost (1779150) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400462)

claimed

They're also claiming Chromebook infringes on ChromiumPC, so I'd take it with a grain of salt.

Re:Read to the end: Google is strongarming them (2)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400576)

I'm curious how Google delayed their trademark registration. Now, I've never filed for a trademark, but I always had the impression that you filled a trademark at a government office, not at Google HQ.

Now, it may be that they had to license the 'chrome' trademark from Google, in which case isn't it completely up to Google to allow it or not? Regardless, it's not like "Chromebook" is that far of a stretch for Google to decided on.

Hell, if I were Isys, I would be jumping for joy that somebody could even possibly mistake my model name for something made by the tech behemoth that is Google. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt your possible sales.

Re:Read to the end: Google is strongarming them (4, Informative)

Rary (566291) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400762)

I'm curious how Google delayed their trademark registration. Now, I've never filed for a trademark, but I always had the impression that you filled a trademark at a government office, not at Google HQ.

I've also never filed for a trademark, but a trademark, unlike a patent, apparently, isn't just automatically granted because you filed the paperwork and paid the fees. There is a process where the details of the trademark application are made public, and third parties have the opportunity to submit comments and criticisms of the trademark application if they feel it is not a valid trademark. It is possible, although I'm only guessing here, that this is what Google did.

Here's Wikipedia's explanation of the process [wikipedia.org] :

Third, and after the examination of the mark has concluded with no issues to be addressed or an applicant has responded adequately to an examining attorney's concerns, the application will be published for opposition. During this 30-day period third-parties who may be affected by the registration of the trademark may step forward to file an Opposition Proceeding to stop the registration of the mark. If an Opposition proceeding is filed it institutes a case before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to determine both the validity of the grounds for the opposition as well as the ability of the applicant to register the mark at issue.

Re:Read to the end: Google is strongarming them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36400624)

How exactly would Google delay someone else's trademark registration?

Is a private company government now?
Oh, wait....

Re:Read to the end: Google is strongarming them (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36400862)

Google makes Chromium OS
Isys decides to register ChromiumPC as a trademark for making PCs with Chromium OS
Google decides to make Chromebooks with Chromium OS
Isys decides to sue Google stating that Chromebooks are too similar in name to ChromiumPC, which is running Google's Chromium OS.

Re:Read to the end: Google is strongarming them (1)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36403532)

I'm no fan of Imaginary Property, but if the basic intent of the law is to be upheld, then Google really ought to win this one.

WTF? How is this right? (1)

westcoast philly (991705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400382)

Correct me if I'm wrong... (I know, I'll have 30 people do this automatically) but isn't Chrome OS owned by Google? Shouldn't they be allowed to call their own product by a name they own? If they were trying to call it ChromiumPCBook, I can understand....

Re:WTF? How is this right? (1)

jimmypw (895344) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400848)

Totally. Google have been using 'Chrome' since 2008. Xi3 since 2009-2010. It's obvious they are just taking a cheap shot at google to see what falls out. The ChromiumPC is specifically designed to run Chromium (os) so how can they say that they were using the name first. Jokers. They should be counter sued.

Re:WTF? How is this right? (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401298)

The last paragraph of the article reads:

Zenger claimed Google delayed Isys' trademark registration until it could launch its own Chromebooks last month, "thereafter demanding that Isys cease and desist using its ChromiumPC mark and abandon its application for registration".

So it seems that they are doing this as a reaction on Google. If they are right to do so, nah. Maybe Google should have reacted earlier on the ChromePC name though, you should protect your trademarks.

Re:WTF? How is this right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401050)

Since you can understand that s1 can infringe on s2 even though s1 != s2, can you explain it? Are you sure you haven't been brainwashed? Of course lawyers will say that infringement can occur because they can be put out of a job by std::string::operator==. I would like an argument not tainted by COI.

Re:WTF? How is this right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36403172)

Correct me if I'm wrong

This is the Internet. Someone will correct you even if you're right.

In May huh? Why not earlier? (1)

halfey (1516717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400422)

Any chance that this post [blogspot.com] was backdated? You know, post scheduling...

Publicity... (2)

RdeCourtney (2034578) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400466)

I'm sure that this move was made not because the company thought it was going to win, but merely to garner additional publicity. I'm sure they'll pull out early (that's what she said).

Re:Publicity... (2)

donotlizard (1260586) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401190)

I wonder what the actual cost difference is between investing in proper marketing/advertising and suing Google and getting free advertising as a result.

Does trademark derivation affect ownership? (2)

swillden (191260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400516)

This is interesting. Both ChromiumPC and Chomebook are obviously derived from Chromium, ChromeOS and Chrome, which are trademarks owned by Google. If someone trademarks a term derived from my trademark before I create a new trademark derived from my trademark, can that someone really claim that I'm infringing?

I realize this gets complicated by the fact that trademarks are specific to market categories, so it's not infringement to create a derivative (or even duplicate) trademark in a different market space. But the PC space is awfully closely related to the PC operating system space... I would think that Microsoft would stomp all over someone trying to market a WindowsPC brand, and that the courts would support them because it would create market confusion.

In short, to my non-lawyerly eyes, I would think Isys is more at risk of having the court shoot down its ChromiumPC mark than Google is of losing its Chromebook mark.

Maybe the suit is just Isys' way of snagging some free publicity for their product. Heck, for that matter, Google might even be willing to play along for its own share of that free publicity, though that seems very non-Googley to me.

(Disclaimer: I'

Invent your own disclaimer! (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401650)

It's the invent your own disclaimer game!

"(Disclaimer: I'"m someone who will accidentally hit "submit" in the middle of a sentence.)

Re:Does trademark derivation affect ownership? (1)

ginbot462 (626023) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401916)

(Disclaimer: I'

OMG! What happened to swillden?!? I bet he was going to say something related to inside knowledge he has, e.g: I'm Currently Consulting for Google's "First Born" Project. The reason I mention that name is because I'

Re:Does trademark derivation affect ownership? (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402056)

This is obviously the one court case dying to use the Chewbacka Defense.

"Alright, ChromiumPC and Chromebook were created to run the same operating system, Chrome OS, but ChromiumPC decided not to run Chrome OS, then sue the makers of Chrome OS for creating Chromebook. That does not make sense..."...

Re:Does trademark derivation affect ownership? (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402652)

(Disclaimer: I'

Doh! Slashdot ate my disclaimer. I had typed the whole thing. Here it is (hopefully complete this time):

(Disclaimer: I'm a Google engineer but I don't work on Chrome, Chromium, ChromeOS or Chromebook. I don't know anything about this stuff other than what I read in the public press.)

Re:Does trademark derivation affect ownership? (1)

eparker05 (1738842) | more than 3 years ago | (#36403272)

Yo dawg, I herd u like trademarks, so I trademarked your trademark so you can get a trademark law suit when you try to trademark my trademarked trademark.

Re:Does trademark derivation affect ownership? (1)

Rary (566291) | more than 3 years ago | (#36403548)

If someone trademarks a term derived from my trademark before I create a new trademark derived from my trademark, can that someone really claim that I'm infringing?

The gist of the complaint, though, is that Google led Isys to believe that they were not going to create a similarly named product, because they were going to call their product "Speedbook" instead. This left the door open for Isys to use that name if they wanted, and Google continued to let them believe that they could do this for 18 months, then tried to block the trademark registration, probably by filing an Opposition Proceeding, and then finally announced their own similarly named product.

If all of that is true (and I'm not saying it is or isn't), then the responsible and non-evil thing for Google to do would have been to let Isys know 18 months ago that they were going to use that name, so Isys could have selected a different name and spent 18 months marketing that name instead. The damage allegedly done to Isys is that it's a little late in the game for them to change the name now.

Chromium trademark (1)

Bloodwine77 (913355) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400564)

I know Chromium is open-source, but shouldn't Google or some open-source organization obtain the trademark for Chromium to prevent commercial entities from pulling tactics like this?

I am not a lawyer, but you would think there is precedent. Does Mozilla Foundation have a trademark for Firefox? Does TDF have a trademark for LibreOffice?

Re:Chromium trademark (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36400968)

Right, this is as stupid as someone marketing a WindowsPC. Idiots would think it was made by Microsoft.

So thought this was going to be facebook... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36400596)

Do I not recall a trademark case a while ago where Facebook were trying to get *book trademarked?

Re:So thought this was going to be facebook... (1)

zeroshade (1801584) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401544)

They didn't get *book trademarked, they successfully (ugh) won a case that *book infringed their trademark in the market of social networking websites.

Not logical (1)

Xeroxis (2163152) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400628)

To me Chromebook and ChromiumPC doesnt seem so simmilar. Since name Chromebook with Chrome refers to OS and book to lap top. ChromiumPC doesn't mean anything specific like that to me beside Chrome beta (why would u want to say u will run chrome development?) to anything of those 2, and PC to pc in general not lap top in particular. Really wondering how this will turn out. We might see Apple bugging others for app store not for its trade mark but for having APPle in it.

Re:Not logical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401180)

You're wrong. It has nothing to do with a "beta". ChromiumPC means, literally, a PC running Chromium OS, the OS which ChromeOS is based upon. Chromebook and ChromiumPC are virtually synonymous except for the open source differentiation.

Are you ritawded? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36400652)

Ummm, Chrome /= Chromium, right? So while the names are similar, and the devices are similar (both netbooks/laptops), what drives them is technically different.

Re:Are you ritawded? (2)

Jahava (946858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400824)

Ummm, Chrome /= Chromium, right? So while the names are similar, and the devices are similar (both netbooks/laptops), what drives them is technically different.

This article discusses Chrome/Chromium [chromium.org] , Google's browser-centric operating system. Google owns trademarks [google.com] on "Chromium" (the contested word).

Re:Are you ritawded? (1)

Tolkien (664315) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400962)

LOL So these people are suing Google despite them being the ones who are infringing. What retards! They've painted huge bull's eyes on their own foreheads by doing that.

Ah noteBook.. (1)

Andtalath (1074376) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400872)

Seriously.
Appstore, app store.
Chromium PC Book
Chrome PC Book

SERIOUSLY?

Don't use an obvious name and try to make it a unique name.

This company wanted a name to sound as if they are the only legitimate reseller of chromium-based hardware and are pissed that google won't allow it.

Bloody hell.

USA has a broken system.

Re:Ah noteBook.. (1)

zeroshade (1801584) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401578)

Chromium and Chrome were not in use to refer to an OS until the products were developed, it is not an accurate analogy to the Appstore/App store issue.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401020)

ChromiumPC =/= Chromebook

Two very different names, just as Honda and Hyundai are very different names.

I'd be annoyed with Google if they tried to sue the other company too,

Re:Huh? (1)

syockit (1480393) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402162)

I think Google can sue Isys seeing that they own the trademark to Chromium

There may yet be another hat in the ring... (2)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401160)

Doesn't R. Talsorian Games have a trademark on 'Chromebook' for the series of cyberware and gear compendiums for the Cyberpunk 2020 RPG?

Re:There may yet be another hat in the ring... (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401656)

If it isn't a computer, then there isn't a conflict. Trademarks are only valid in a market area, not in a broad sense.

Re:There may yet be another hat in the ring... (1)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402530)

Ah, thanks. Wasn't sure.

Here we go... (1)

omfg-no (1848750) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401254)

Lawyers, start your engines...

Liars? (2)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401316)

FTA:

Isys said it filed for tradmark registration of the ChromiumPC name in June 2010, receiving interim approval in October 2010, and claimed to have been using the name for 18 months. Google first announced the Chrome OS in 2009.

Isn't it a bit of a stretch that they apparently used that name with the intent to run Google's OS nearly a year before news of the OS even went public? You'd think lying on these kind of documents would nullify the registration.

Re:Liars? (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401736)

Even that shouldn't matter. If a PC maker came out with a "MacPC", and runs "Mac" software, you honestly think Apple will pay them a single penny if that company sues Apple for the "MacBook"? Hell no, Apple will bury them before the PC maker could blink. And I hope Google does the same here, sues for the entire company's assets, and turns their offices and buildings into giant 3D rendition of the Chrome logo.

Re:Liars? (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401878)

It's ambiguously worded. You are reading it as "Isys claim: they filed for trademark in June 2010. Information about claim: they received interim approval for said application in October 2010. Information about claim: they claimed (on said application) to have been using name for 18 months." I read the last bit as "Second Isys Claim: They have been using the name for 18 months". If the "claim" verb was also meant to be subordinate, it would have "claiming" not "claimed". But it's never good to have a sentence where the meaning depends on the assumption that you haven't messed up your verb tenses. It's the most common* error to make, after all.

*not intended to be a factual statement.

Re:Liars? (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402142)

It doesn't say if the 18 months is relative to the trademark filing date, or the lawsuit filing date. 18 months from when the Chromium OS project was launched (November 2009) would have been April this year.

good lord. (1)

Danzigism (881294) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401550)

so you're going to sue Google for giving you an OS to put on your Chromebook in the first place? It wouldn't even be called a Chromebook if it wasn't for the OS in the first place. Not to mention, chromebook is one of those coined terms. It is like trying to sue the person that came out with the term Notebook.

absurd (1)

mwolfe38 (1286498) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401582)

Google should get its best lawyers and completely wipe this company out.. This is plain absurdity, the names aren't even that similar.. You build hardware around someone else's operating system then try to sue them for using a name too similar to your own (which really isn't that similar to begin with). Let them die.. 2 months from now, nobody will remember the name. I usually stick up for the little guy, but not when the little guy is a punk ass bitch.

Counter Sue? (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401672)

I'm pretty sure Google has the Chrome trademark. Since the maker is suing because their "Chromium" is too much like "Chrome", would it not suffice that Google could sue saying exactly the same thing. Sounds like a troll looking for a settlement. I think Google should spend the extra money and bury them legally.

Re:Counter Sue? (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402704)

I'm pretty sure Google has the Chrome trademark. Since the maker is suing because their "Chromium" is too much like "Chrome"

For that matter, I'm pretty sure Google owns the trademarks on Chromium and Chromium OS [chromium.org] as well.

Superman Anyone? (1)

ginbot462 (626023) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401808)

Reminds me of the Superman rights/trademark issue. Where he has to be trademarked in every domain (comics, movies, clothing, toys, etc...). PC machines vs OS. And yes, sometimes it creates stupid scenarios such as this. A nd, with Superman, sounds like DC/WB have their hands full now (well, the specific issue at hand has been going on a while). Possible scenarios are say the original creators controlling his looks, DC controlling the name. From a forum (so salt and all that):

*The blue and white, electrically-powered Superman of the 1990s was created for precisely this reason. In case the families won the rights to the intellectual property of Superman, they would have to change Superman's look and powers. So the electrical Superman was created as a back-up in case this happened, because DC would still own his name but not his image.

*The names Superman and Superboy, or the Superman costume have never been used in the Smallville TV series.

*Superboy was killed off in Infinite Crisis, and Superboy Prime was re-named Superman Prime. This happened at a time when a ruling against DC made it look like they would lose the Superboy copyright.

posted: bigbadbruce on: http://dcboards.warnerbros.com/web/thread.jspa?threadID=2000245076&start=34 [warnerbros.com]

News:
http://www.movieweb.com/news/man-of-steel-legal-issues-could-split-superman-franchise-in-two [movieweb.com]
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/05/28/what%E2%80%99s-in-the-marc-toberoff-%E2%80%93-superman-stolen-document/ [bleedingcool.com]

Sounds like Google's in the right (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401924)

Suppose (insanely, I know) that Mac OS X was OEM'd out to PC manufacturers, and one of them decided to build a PC and call it the "Mac PC." Ya think Apple would be all cool wi'dat?

!Books (1)

Baby Duck (176251) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402072)

Can we just stop calling them books? They don't burn as easily.

Re:!Books (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36402282)

Clearly you are using the wrong Lithium-ion battery.

Quick (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36402130)

I need to trademark FirefoxPC

marketing genius (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36402286)

Let me get this straight.. "Chromebook" is confusingly similar to "ChromiumPC Modular Computer" presumably because of the one thing the two names have in common: a reference to the same metallic element. And yet the ChromiumPC maker's marketing gimmick was that they were going to preinstall Google's software which is named after that same element.

It sounds like the only argument they'll have, is that they are first into the market with hardware named after that element, which is the reason that their element reference didn't infringe Google's trademark. Ok. But then why didn't you just name your hardware "Chrome?" Is it because your lawyers told you that it would be trademark infringement? If so, then you must think your hardware infringes Google's software trademark as much as Google's hardware trademark infringes yours. If not, it's because you were too stupid to give your computer a descriptive name. Either way, you suck.

I'm confused ... (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 3 years ago | (#36403292)

They're presumably calling their device a ChromiumPC because they're borrowing part of the Chrome name from Google's software. As I'm quite certain Google has the Trademark for Chrome [google.com] , wouldn't the PC maker in fact be the ones potentially infringing?

Note: I don't think either party is infringing, but as Google owns the trademark at least for "Google Chrome" and "Chromium", this is just moronic.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...