Software Developer Sues Google Over Android Brand Name

Erich Specht, who runs a small, Palatine, Ill.-based firm called Android Data Corp., is seeking an injunction on Android-branded products and up to $94 million in damages for infringing his trademark. “Basically, it’s a stolen name,” says Specht’s attorney, Martin Murphy. “It’s our trademark, and Google is using it as if it’s theirs.” The software developer is seeking close to $100 million in damages from Google and 46 other technology companies over the term “Android.”Google spokesman Andrew Pederson says the company believes the claims are without merit and “will defend vigorously against them.”

In addition to Google, the suit filed Tuesday with the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, names every company in the “Open Handset Alliance,” Google’s Android-centric consortium, as defendants. The list includes major U.S. firms like Motorola, Qualcomm, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile and Texas Instruments, and foreign companies such as China Mobile, Samsung, Telefonica, Toshiba and Vodafone.

Specht’s complaint hinges on filings with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) that go back nearly a decade. The developer first incorporated his firm in 1998, specializing in software that would help Web sites transfer data securely and efficiently. Enamored by the word Android and its geeky connotations, he tried to trademark “Android Data,” related to computer e-commerce software, in 2000. The PTO granted his request in 2002.

Google applied for its Android trademark in October 2007, just days before it publicly unveiled its Android plans. The PTO rejected the application in February 2008, citing similarity to Specht’s mark. Google quickly appealed the decision, arguing that Specht’s firm had lost its claim due to inactivity. In a document, the company’s legal team pointed out that someone had voluntarily dissolved Android Data Corp. in May 2004 (though later reactivated it) and failed to re-register the firm’s Web site URL at one point. The PTO rejected Google’s appeal, along with subsequent attempts, and suspended Google’s trademark application last November.

Murphy portrays Specht as the David to Google’s Goliath. “[Specht] put a lot of thought into that name, Android,” says Murphy. “He felt, ‘Google is taking this away from me.’ ” Specht didn’t take action until this month because, Murphy alleges, he only recently realized the search giant was infringing on his trademark. “He had heard about the Android phone, but thought, ‘That’s a mobile device,’ ” says Murphy. “As soon as he learned it was software, he stepped up, and we filed as fast as we could.”