On: Android Oreo

[dsp1234]

Does INTERCONTINENTAL GREAT BRANDS LLC have a trademark for Oreo in the "computer and scientific" or telecommunications categories?

If not, then there is no trademark issue. Google isn't selling a food, it's selling an operating system.

[IkmoIkmo → dsp1234]

Only they're marketing it with oreo cookie mascot, look at all the material. I highly doubt you can just do that.

It's the same with kit kat, they probably couldn't just use that, either.

But it's a win-win for both parties, I doubt either of them paid.

[jerf → IkmoIkmo]

They can't, without permission.

The logical conclusion is that they have permission, not that one of the largest companies in the world made a legal mistake that the "We Are Not A Lawyer"s on HN can see right through... for (at least) a second time. Keep an eye out for Oreo packages with Android branding material on them, in the style of: http://cdn.redmondpie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/kitkata...

I do find myself curious what the negotiations look like when Google wants to not just use Oreos, but not slather all their material with "Oreos are a registered trademark of blah blah blah", which is pretty unusual.

[non_sequitur → jerf]

They definitely had permission. Android was cross marketed on Kit Kat bars as well, e.g.: http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1444541.13782299...

[randyrand → IkmoIkmo]

It seems like unnecessary legal risk for Google, and probably restricts how they can market it.

[function_seven → randyrand]

There's no risk. They talked to Nabisco, said, "Hey we wanna call the next OS 'Oreo', coo?" And Nabisco said, "Ok."

Maybe money was paid one way or the other. Or not.

What restrictions are you imagining?

[randyrand → function_seven]

Even with negotiations, If a engineer said in a Google youtube talk "Oreo is Americas favorite android," they could set themselves up for trademark infringement.

If Google had a line in a blog post that said, "It's better than real Oreos", they could likely be sued.

Oreo would not like Google saying either of these things. So Oreo needed to make up legal documents to map out all the things Google is allowed to say about Oreo Android. It seems like an unnecessary legal headache - one for dubious marketing gain.

[function_seven → randyrand]

Licensing a trademark means not having to worry about such fine-grained details. There's no reason anybody would have a problem with "Oreo is Americas favorite android" What is there to sue over? The damn thing is called "Oreo"

Same with your other example. That line is clearly humor, and keeps the cookie brand's name in people's minds.

I think you're overthinking all of this.

[Nomentatus → dsp1234]

Interesting point - the origin of trademark laws is as a way to reduce "consumer confusion." Few people are gonna try to eat their phones as a result of this naming convention so it's hard for Nabisco to claim that consumers are being misled.

[hsjoberg → dsp1234]

Are they really selling an OS? It's free right? They sell something else with android but can't figure out what...

[comstock → hsjoberg]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not sorry.

Android is in itself a loss making project. It makes money as a marketing vehicle for other Google products (and therefore ultimately advertising).