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."
change it to @google.com?
Gmail isn't that good of a name any ways. They can just call it google mail. mail.google.com is that so hard?
Is it still called cybersquatting when the other companies have been using the name for *years* already? One has been using it since 1998, fer cryin' out loud.
Granted, I'd consider it a bit fishy that they only now bothered to trademark it (unless they were concerned that Google would force them to change), but they do have a legitimate claim to the name.
I interviewed with them and from what i could tell they are seriously screwed up. Apparently while I was in the air flying out there (on the reservations _THEY_ made), they called my apartment leaving a message trying to cancel.
I show up to the hotel and there is no reservation for me, so I'm forced to pay $200 out of pocket (not cheap for a college student). After the interview, there was a series of hijinx which I will not go into here. I had to send them a reminder e-mail to reimburse me for the hotel room. Then several months later I get a note from one of their financial departments asking me to fill out a survey so they could better get to know their "suppliers".
They were so screwed up they somehow thought I was a contractor or other service provider. How can a company not even know where and why their money is going? This incident, combined with some of the recent news doesn't give me a lot of hope for that company.
Let's see, Orkut privacy violations, accusations that Orkut is stolen IP, "forgetting" they gave 28 million shares to employees and contractors, apparently violating SEC quiet registration period, "forgetting" to trademark Gmail, and so on.
I used to love Google like every other techie, but I've been seriously disillusioned. It won't take much for me to switch my preferences to another engine.
The more you know, the less you understand.
The problem with that is that the name Gmail has already been widely-publicized, making it more difficult to simply change the name. The majority of the public probably doesn't realize that Gmail is still in beta.
Trademarks are not like domain registrations, with the first filer automatically getting it. Any new trademark registration is first published for opposition, to give others with competing claims to the mark an opportunity to challenge that registration. If Google had been first to file and someone else was already using it (as has been alleged), they'd get the same chance. That's part of this USPTO bureaucracy that people are moaning about... and it's a part that serves a useful purpose.
Looks like gmail.com has been through a bunch of iterations. Not sure how on topic this is, but it's interesting to see the different sorts of things that the domain has been used for.
Or do you have to patent (see, this still sounds strange to me) your name if you want it reserved nationally? I thought you patented your inventions, not the name of your business, etc..
Need a Linux consultant in New Orleans?
I think this is a non-issue. Wasn't the concensus of the Katie.com issue that as soon as you register the domain you automatically have rights to the trademark?
Well, gmail.com was registered back in 1995 according to the whois I just did:
Domain Name: GMAIL.COM
Registrar: ALLDOMAINS.COM INC.
Whois Server: whois.alldomains.com
Referral URL: http://www.alldomains.com
Name Server: NS2.GOOGLE.COM
Name Server: NS1.GOOGLE.COM
Name Server: NS3.GOOGLE.COM
Name Server: NS4.GOOGLE.COM
Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
Updated Date: 31-mar-2004
Creation Date: 13-aug-1995
Expiration Date: 12-aug-2006
Strangely enough, google.com wasn't registered until 1997:
Domain Name: GOOGLE.COM
Registrar: ALLDOMAINS.COM INC.
Whois Server: whois.alldomains.com
Referral URL: http://www.alldomains.com
Name Server: NS2.GOOGLE.COM
Name Server: NS1.GOOGLE.COM
Name Server: NS3.GOOGLE.COM
Name Server: NS4.GOOGLE.COM
Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
Updated Date: 03-oct-2002
Creation Date: 15-sep-1997
Expiration Date: 14-sep-2011
Perhaps Google bought gmail.com from the original owners (who, I presume, would have owned the original rights to the trademark).
Either way, Google's lawyers should be fine.
rcwoolley
(Unfortunately, I can't log in right now)
I would suggest you READ the parent carefully. "Gmail.com" was NOT under dispute anytime. Nobody had REGISTERED the trademark UNTIL google announced it would be doing so.
As for your comment about the Gospel Music Association, read the parent again. This matter will be taken to the courts. And they will have to hire some good lawyers to deal with it.
I am sure the Gospel Music Association would like to throw money like water on this case, right?
Gospel Music or the other 3 companies NEVER filed a claim for the domain name itself.
Still got any comments about fanboyism?
If you look at Google's org chart three of the top five people are Sun business veterans. The other two being Larry and Sergei.
Of course, Sun looks kind of like a ship without a rudder headed for a reef so maybe Google picked the wrong ship to recruit their bridge crew from.
Their head of product management is from @home which isn't exactly a success story at this point.
@de_machina
the domain is not at issue, it has been registered to google since 1995. whats under issue is the fact that google has not used the term "gmail" until recently, while at least two of these companies have been using these terms with the public for years. Gawd...
Under the agency's guidelines, the USPTO ignores all domain suffixes in determining whether a term can or cannot be trademarked. So Gmail.com is still treated as Gmail for the goods or services offered.
"Yes your honor, my client has plans to launch an email service before Google."
/. ;-) only just noticed the project. But to a court, that merely shows your own lack of attention. It sure looks like google has spent nine years developing their product, and as soon as they make it public, others jump in and try to claim the name for themselves.
;-)
Your lawyer might have a bit of a problem supporting that, considering that google registered gmail.com nine years ago. Maybe the media (including
Of course, it's likely that google's attitude is that they aren't much concerned with trademark. The word "google" was an English-language dictionary entry long before there was a computer industry. They not only can't stop us from using it as a common verb; they clearly benefit from this. (And they've added another item in the dictionary entries.
What matters most is that they own "google.com" and "gmail.com". If others try to claim "google" or "gmail" as trademarks, what does it matter when you've owned the domains all along?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.