Slashdot Mirror
Gmail Under Trademark Dispute
fbform writes "As reported by this article on InternetNews, when news about Google's IPO broke on March 31, 2004, some companies (Cencourse, Precision Research and ProNet Analytics) made a beeline for the USPTO to get Gmail trademarked in their name, as Google's IPO prospectus said that its unregistered trademarks included Gmail. Google itself was fourth in line, and it was followed by the Gospel Music Association. This might be a very sticky issue because USPTO Trademark Administrator Sharon Marsh says 'The application process is first come, first served. Applications are processed as they're received, and the person second in line will get a refusal of registration from our examiner.' All of which means that between Google's delay in applying for the trademark, the other organizations' attempt at what can only be called cybersquatting, and the USPTO's bureaucracy, Google could well be denied the use of Gmail as a trademark."
Geek fandom aside, you don't launch a product (even a beta) and not grab the name. What did they *think* would happen?
*Scratches head* I'm not going to go as far as some press has gone and say Google's been botching the IPO, but one wonders: how are they a good investment option if they can't even get basic business procedures right?
All of which means that between Google's delay in applying for the trademark, the other organizations' attempt at what can only be called cybersquatting, and the USPTO's bureaucracy, Google could well be denied the use of Gmail as a trademark
Now if we replaced Google with Microsoft and gmail with hotmail, we'd all be critisizing MS for stomping on the rights of these poor little companies and non-profits.
Anyone else notice the similarity between the way the legal profession operates and the way 2 year olds behave
Google wants it to offer a general-purpose web-based email service to the general public.
The investment firm uses it as a subscription-based mailing list for traders, bankers, brokers, etc.
The Gospel Music Association uses it to refer to their newsletter.
The fourth firm, it doesn't say specifically, only that it's involved in high-tech equipment design.
Remember that a trademark only protects your mark in your specific line of business; it doesn't give you the undisputed use of the name in all arenas. Not that it stops the big companies from trying to throw their weight around, mind you (Like Nissan)
News stories like this and this shut down any errant ideas I might have had over investing in the Google IPO. The company is brilliant and definitely a market leader. But the company has not yet shown that it can run itself as a publically traded company. They have no track record. They have made a few early blunders.
If you want to be successful do what succesful people do. In investing, try Warren Buffet: He invests in undervalued companies with good potential for growth. Undervalued typically requires underhyped. Google has potential for growth but is definitely overhyped. Only a fool invests at the peak and Google's IPO is definitely an overhyped peak.
Just my 2 cents - - which will be invested in not-Google by the way.
That's the domain that their employees use. It wouldn't make sense to offer email accounts that their employees have. Google isn't a mail service, gmail is. I really doubt the people over at google want to start throwing out @google.com email addresses. It's like @hotmail.com getting changed to @microsoft.com.
So, trademark GoogleMail, whose domain is gmail.com. Since when does a trademark automatically give you ownership of a domain, especially if you had it before the trademark?
Also, is there not a provision to prevent "reverse cybersquatting" with a trademark? I would think no judge would have any doubts.
THE OTHER COMPANIES WHERE USING THE NAME GMAIL FIRST. It's in the damn artice, why don't you try reading it.
/. when at least some of the posters had IQs that didn't have a negative sign in front of them!
My God, I miss the old