## Facts

- Erich Specht formed Android Data Corporation (ADC) around 1998 to license e-commerce software and provide related web services.
- Specht applied to register the “Android Data” trademark in 2000; the registration issued in 2002.
- By late 2002, ADC had lost clients; Specht laid off its only employee, canceled its internet service, and moved operations into his home.
- Specht transferred ADC’s assets, including the “Android Data” mark, to another wholly owned company, The Android’s Dungeon, Inc. (ADI), and spent 2003 unsuccessfully trying to sell the assets; ADC’s phone line was shut off.
- After 2002, Specht’s activity was limited to hosting the ADC website for a time and performing some hosting services; the androiddata.com domain lapsed in 2005.
- In 2005, Specht distributed business cards bearing the “Android Data” mark, but the record lacked details about their quantity, recipients, or purpose.
- Google acquired Android, Inc. in 2005 and released the Android smartphone operating system in 2007.
- Specht sued Google for trademark infringement based on “Android Data”; Google counterclaimed seeking cancellation on the ground of abandonment.

## Issues

1. Whether Specht abandoned the “Android Data” mark under the Lanham Act by discontinuing use with no intent to resume.
2. Whether Specht’s limited post-2002 activities constituted bona fide use in commerce or sufficient evidence of intent to resume use to defeat the presumption of abandonment.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Google.
- The court held the undisputed record established abandonment of the “Android Data” trademark.
- The court upheld cancellation of the trademark registration.
- Because abandonment extinguished enforceable rights, Specht could not maintain infringement and related claims against Google.

## Legal Principles

- A trademark is abandoned when its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume; three consecutive years of nonuse constitutes prima facie evidence of abandonment. (15 U.S.C. § 1127)
- Once the nonuse presumption arises, the trademark owner must produce evidence of continued bona fide use or intent to resume use within a reasonably foreseeable time.
- “Token” or minimal activity that does not reflect genuine commercial exploitation of the mark (e.g., an inactive or residual website presence, vague business-card distribution) is insufficient to maintain trademark rights.
- Attempts to restart use after abandonment has occurred do not restore prior priority as against later users.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit concluded that Specht’s business had effectively wound down by 2002 and that years of nonuse, coupled with objective indicators of no intent to resume, amounted to abandonment of the “Android Data” mark; as a result, summary judgment for Google and cancellation of the registration were proper.


Specht v. Google Inc., 747 F.3d 929 (7th Cir. 2014)