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.
One does have to already have used a mark in interstate commerce before registering the mark in the USPTO.
Just goes to show that you can think you're smart when reality demonstrates something quite different.
I don't think I'll invest anything in Google. The mistakes made are too numerous. Their judgement in many areas is questionable. Like improper share distribution, interview timing, forgetting to register Gmail. Is the company being run by idiots?
In spite of the above I still think it's the best search engine around. Go figure. The product is great and the management team appears to be a thundering heard of dumbass.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
I mean, shit, come on. It is just basic to trademark your corporation's name in association with what you do for profits. Not doing so smacks of stupidity! Maybe they should have finished college before starting the company.
And now an interview during their quiet period... well, duh! Like they didn't know there was an IPO in the pipe when they gave the interview. How stupid can you be? If they didn't say "We're doing an IPO next year, and want Playboy to sign something saying they won't publish it during the legal quiet period" they deserve what they get.
In my opinion, Google needs to shape up its business practices if it is going to be subjected to the intense scrutiny that comes with being a publicly traded corporation. They can't pull this half-assed stuff and expect to get away with it, because as we're seeing now, they won't. The eye of the press is un-blinking. Mistakes like this scuttle bright fortunes all the time. It would be a shame if this happened to Google, because I really like them.
I suggest they hire an old guy, (50+) to act as the company's spokesman. Somebody who has been through a million IPOs, who knows the rules and who can make public statements without screwing up the whole company. If I were a google shareholder, I'd expect no less.
Who did what now?