Hello.

I decided to make an unofficial android client for one site, since it does not have an official one, and it will be more convenient to use the application.

The site is a payment system and each user can create an api account to manage the wallet.

On api, I decided to make an application.

When you start the application for the first time, a webview with the site was opened and the user had to log in to the request to create an api from the user. A large js was built into the webview so that the application could understand when the user logged into the acc.

Next, the application worked with api through the data taken.

I downloaded the application, after several hours it was rejected due to spam via webview

Of course, the application did not send any spam, but simply sent a request to the server of the payment system.

I sent an appeal, where I described that it is an unofficial application, does not send any spam, etc.

By the way, everywhere in the application and in the description in the play market, I highlighted that the application is unofficial. And pointed out that it itself creates an api account.

After 2 days I was answered and demanded proof that the trademark of the payment system belongs to me.

By the way, I used the real name of the payment 2 times: in the description: "... unofficial android client for the payment system ****** ..." And in the application itself in the same context.

The name of the application was "My - ******", where ****** is the name of this payment system. Those. I did not use a trading name

Once again I sent a letter, where I once again indicated that the application is unofficial, this trademark does not belong to me and the site was created specifically for the developers to use it on websites, in applications, etc.

While the answer is not sent, but I would like to know what are the chances that the application will be allowed to publish, or if it is blocked, then you should not even try to prove something?

  • rather, they have passed this name as a registered product, that's all. Do not write letters but correct, all that you indicated in the letter, they say sorry, I was mistaken. If you write that they say it is not so, you just have an account and they are gambling on an orevoire. - Shwarz Andrei
  • @ shwarz-andrei, just remembered that there is an unofficial application for this payment in the market, though its developer simply inserted a webview and downloads the payment website there. those. nothing different from the browser. So, the name of this application is 100% copy of the name of the payment system, the application icon is also the icon of the payment system. And the description is copied from the main page of the site. Of course, he has a lot of 1-star reviews, but the point is that ... This application was allowed! - Dev

1 answer 1

Use only content that you own the copyright. Do not use other people's pictures, videos or sounds, even if your application will contribute to the development of the author of this content. Be especially attentive to the title of your application. Out of harm's way - do not add the names of companies or any popular products. https://habrahabr.ru/post/231009/

Be careful when contacting Google technical support. Instead of unlocking the application, they can block a whole account because of a single letter. In addition to the general rules for applications, there are even more specific recommendations https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/113474?hl=ru , and in Russian and in beautiful form, with examples.

  • Thanks for the quick response. The application did not have a picture / sound / video copyright. Apparently, this happened because of the name (?). - Dev
  • Please see my comment on this. Stackoverflow.com/questions/558598/… . I would like to know your opinion on this matter. - Dev
  • Read the article in the flesh before the comments. habrahabr.ru/post/231009 . In short, how lucky here. - Tim K.
  • answered ... In short - can not publish the application due to spam in WebView. What are they doing in their heads? What do you think, let's say, if you download 1 more same application, but remove the js injected, and if they allow it. Is it possible in the update in a few days to upload the version that they are now rejecting? - Dev
  • If the application did not pass the automatic check, then I think that you should not do so. (And in the future, they can block any day, especially if it becomes a bit more popular), this will be the second warning. Use another implementation method. (I had a case: after a year they only blocked the application because of the tags, and without the possibility of editing, ie, download the apk and all the statistics, the number of downloads, etc. for zeros naturally) - Tim K.