Slashdot Mirror
New Legal Threat To GMail
wellington writes "Google is facing a renewed threat of legal action from a company that claims to own the intellectual property rights to its GMail e-mail service. Independent International Investment Research, a British company that specialises in research and has several leading City investment banks as clients, argues that it launched "G-Mail web based email" in May 2002."
Google's is called GMail BETA
So they claim that they own the G?
Ha! As much as I'd love to root for the little guy... I don't think they can fight Google... :( Google is getting pretty big lately. I can't help but wonder about some of the rumours that I've heard...
Google should give them 50% of the profits from GMail.
Let's see, a free email service generating $0 profit. 50% of $0 equals $0.
Settled.
I've actually already patented the use of single letters in front of "Mail", so they're both screwing me over.
AMAil
BMail
CMail
DMail
etc.
ALL MINE!
Yeah, I'm Amazon.com. This whole "Dopefish" thing is just an alias.....
Surely this is just trademark infringment at most. The summary seems to infer that general IP rights to the service are involved, rather than just the name.
Steve Ballmer hires a minion to launch the first volley in the Internet War of 2005
Sounds like they have a legitimate claim here... They did launch a web-based email service called GMail well before Google. The fact that they've been negotiating with Google for the past 15 months would indicate that they also brought their claim to Google early on. I wonder why Google hasn't just paid them to license the name? Wouldn't they rather use some of their excess money reserves than risk a tarnished name?
And they did register that trademark long in advance of Google.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Wow, yet another vague summary, that can definitely be misleading. Having first read the summary, I thought it was about a company claiming to have created the code and/or services of Gmail only to have google steal it. But no, the company is merely sueing for trademark infringement. Way to go slashdot! The word "TRADEMARK" could have been mentioned somewhere in the article, would have cleared it up a tiny bit. But I guess Slashdot gets more pageviews (and ad views) by confusing its readers.
I heard that Google is planning on calling it's personalized homepage GSpot...
If you RTFA, you will see that the company is a small company, and was involved in communication with google over the span of 15 months or so, before jumping right into litigation. That sounds like the right thing to do, IMO, rather than just sue immediately. The company is a small one, and they say they don't have the big money that Google has to bring a law suit just to protect their name.
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
Why doesn't google just cough up another letter and call it "GoMail"? Or if that's taken "GoogMail", etc.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
The summary for this story is another good example of why the phrase 'intellectual property' should be avoided.
The company does not 'claim to own the intellectual property to GMail'. It has a trademark claim. This is completely different and unrelated to any copyright interest, patent held, or trade secret. Lumping them all together as 'intellectual property' which can then be 'infringed' in some vague way just muddies the issue.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
"I feel it is up to me as the founder and the major shareholder. We're not going to sit on the sidelines while a company uses our intellectual property rights," he said. "We're confident that we have the funding available to us and we're girding our loins," he said.
As much as they may have a case, I always find the "we don't want to, but they are forcing us" argument funny. Not because of the company itself, but because I can imagine some IP lawyers saying, "Yesss! They are being forccced to! Hisss!" as their forked tongues flick from their mouths and they rub thier greedy paws together with reptilian glint in their eyes.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Why doesn't Google just change the name from "Gmail" to "GoogleMail". They already have the domain for googlemail.com, and I think it would be a better branding option anyways.
Gmail and G-mail are too similar to be separate trademarks. Fortunatly for Google, a trademark is only valid in a specific domain, and Google have never tried to trademark the term Gmail for a stupid mail-based service that no-one would want, so they should be safe.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
... the summary is correct, they're claiming:
"IIR, led by chairman and chief executive Shane Smith, accused the search engine of "failing to respect the intellectual property rights of others" and said it had no alternative but to pursue an expensive legal action that it admitted it could ill afford."
"I feel it is up to me as the founder and the major shareholder. We're not going to sit on the sidelines while a company uses our intellectual property rights," he said. "We're confident that we have the funding available to us and we're girding our loins," he said."
It's silly, but the summary is correct.
- sigs are for wimps.
But they never bother spending the $10 to register gmail.com?
'Nobody snuggles with Max Power. You strap yourself in and feel the "G"s!'
What reason did this company have for naming it "gmail?" Where's the "G" in their company?
/. article about how journalists are ignorant fucktards just yesterday?
You can't copyright a letter. Perhaps TFA was in error; it certainly wasn't very clear.
I wish people would stop talking about "IP." Intelectual "property" is not property. If you're talking about a copyright infringement, don't say "my IP rights were violated," say "my copyright was infringed.
I'm talking to those of you who are journalists or think you are. Er, wasn't there a
This sounds like a trademark issue. Did this company register the trademark with Germany or the EU? Yes? Then case closed, rule in the little guy's favor. No? Then case closed, Google wins.
But again, why did they want "gmail" and why does it matter to them? It smells like they're looking for a little publicity. I hope Google crushes them like the cockroach they appear to be.
Google, the internet search engine, is facing a renewed threat of legal action from a company that claims to own the intellectual property rights to its GMail e-mail service.
Is it just me, or is there something particularly novel and innovative about a browser-based e-mail service? Or, is there something particularly stupid about a company laying claims to this idea as its "intellectual property?" None of the concepts are particularly new.
Google's new online banking service, known as "gmoney BETA", has become another legal battle..
Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
A careful review of the full article reveals that the company attempted to resolve this with Google out of the courts over 15 months ago. In the business world it is the responsibility of the newcomer, not the existing business, to conduct a name search when launching a new product or service, so as to avoide disputes like the one described here. Google may have conducted such a search, but may have felt that its service was sufficiently unique so that its use of the name "Gmail" would not cause confusion in the marketplace. The courts generally hold that other businesses can use the same name if 1) the newcomer is not trying to leverage (claim) the reputation or the name of other existing businesses, and 2) the new business is in a different sector than the existing business so there will be no brand confusion. For example, the courts would generally disallow another restaurant from claiming the name "McDonalds", but they probably would allow an antique store named "McDonalds", providing the antique store doesn't try to piggyback on the hamburger chain's image (by using, for example, golden arches in its logo).
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
If a trademark is worthy of a multi million dollar claim, then it should be higher in the search engine listings than the news about the lawsuit.
It just feels wrong otherwise.
liqbase
If these folks had 'gmail' as a legitimate trademark for an actual product or service (not vaporware), why then did they not register the domain names for their alleged trademark? Registering "gmail" in every top-level domain for 10 years would have cost them less than $1000. If they actually had a legitimate business plan to launch a "gmail" service, securing the domains would have been the FIRST thing they would have done. Failing to register the domains, while trademarking a non-existant "service" smells of submarine tactics and demonstrates bad faith. Their failure to secure thier trademark by registering the domains also demonstrates criminal negligence on their part and is grounds for a shareholder lawsuit. Dollars to doughnuts says their business plan was "wait until someone with money grabs the gmail domains and does something with them, then sue them for everything we can get"
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
"We're not going to sit on the sidelines while a company uses our intellectual property rights"
Has anyone even heard of these idiots?
YOU PUT A G IN FRONT OF MAIL.
Don't try to act like it's the light bulb, you snaggletoothed limey.
This lawsuit has been brought to the attention of your lawyers by the letter G, and the numbers 0 and 5.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Note that Google's Mail service is now accessible at mail.google.com? Pretty much all the g-prefixes have been removed.
So they'll probably settle if necessary and just go on with Google Mail. Big deal.
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
There is nothing called "Intellectual Property".
Either you say:
Trademark
Copyright
Patent
But "Intellectual Property" is not a term you can use intelligently, only as a way to further the company propaganda-machine. This example clearly shows it is not suitable for intelligent readership. I heard this from RMS last time he visited Norway.
... this was a german company, with its product named "G-Mail, und die Post geht richtig ab" (roughly translated "G-Mail, and the mail really gets going"). They also tried to sue people selling GMail invitations on eBay. a legal case is open in Germany, and GMail is obliged by a court order not to give @gmail.com-adresses to german users - those ones get @googlemail.com adresses instead [which also work with gmail, but this is not yet well-documented.])
The fact that the british and the german trademarks are so similar to each other makes me think... does anyone know if there are connections between those companies?
Screw the FSM - Real geeks believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn
'mail' is a generic term. G is just a letter, devoid of any meaning beyond a possible abbreviation. In this case, it's a legitimate abbreviation for 'Google'. This reminds me of IBM trying to trademark the number 2 to stop vendors from making PS/2 compatible computers called "PC/2" They lost. Intel tried to trademark the number 386 & 486. They also lost. I'm not a google apologist or anything, but I think the litigants don't have a case
I could write a program to combine suffix/prefix combos to common words like "mail", "net", "service", "video", "sound", "conference"
Then sue everyone 3 years afterwards?
The fact they never even bought a domain name for the service [or advertised it broadly] suggests they're not seriously impacted by Googles actions because it's their own ineptitude that crippled any chance of making it big.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
It's always interesting to turn these stories around and wonder how slashdot would react if the litigant were a beloved cause-celebre and the plaintiff a moustachioed villain.
Like, for instance, if Microsoft released a mail product called "qmail".
Seriously, do you think the same people would be posting "it's just a letter Q!"
erroneous: look me up in a dictionary
Oh, that's right. Money. I'm guessing it went like this:
Also, I'm kind of miffed that this keeps getting called an "intellectual property struggle". G'fuh? I remember back in the old days, we used to call them "trademark disputes". I wasn't aware that changing the first letter of a well-known contraction for "electronic mail" was a rigorous intellectual task. If that's your claim to fame, you're an idiot.
--- What
it is not funny, it is sad truth here in germany
Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
Just like you have Apple Corp. in the music business and Apple Computer in the computer business, and one doesn't play in the other's... ... oh wait...
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
IIIR has no website which can be located by Google, Yahoo, or any other search engine that I've used.
All that comes up are some investor reports like OneSource, which reports them as having a whole seven employees.
Trademarks are not automatically international, and the mere presence of the "G" before "Mail" is not a trademark. Trademarks are either specific spellings (with/without hyphens), logos, icons, color combinations, etc.
The lawsuit sounds like basic "trolling for dollars", legal style.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Since a few months they changed the logo on the top left to a "Google Mail" logo, no longer "Gmail". So has a court ruled. See http://mail.google.com/mail/help/images/googlemail .gif
You can see that the domain serving the service is not gmail.com but mail.google.com.
So i think, this UK company has seen the success of this action in Germany and tries to profit in the same way.
Sincerelly, i don't really care how is it named, "Google Mail" makes more sense to me, even if i pronounce it as "geemail".
It's always a struggle for me to give my gmail e-mail address. I have to spell it. People ask if it is g-e-e. etc. I have to explain "G", as in "Google" In French, it's worse, because "G" in English is pronounced like "J" in French. A real hassle. I wish the service was called Google Mail and that the all the gmail adresses would be converted to @google.com. Everybody knows that word. Everybody would understand that...
On the off chance that you're serious in your ignorance, "girding [one's] loins" is a turn of phrase stating that one is preparing for action with the allusion to battle. It's kind of the equivalent of putting on a jock-strap.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
You don't think that GMail and G-Mail are confusingly similar?
Especially given that there's still no consensus as to whether to refer to electronic mail as "email" or "e-mail"...
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
There's another instance of Gmail, too! Ghirardelli Chocolate has a Gmail service! As of two weeks ago, they were still calling it G-MAIL, and their use of the term goes back several years. I don't know if they've ever registered the trademark.
Best Buy can have you arrested
... and said it had no alternative but to pursue an expensive legal action that it admitted it could ill afford.
Translation:
Does anyone with a beef against Google want to donate to our worthy cause? Anyone?
According to the US Patent and Trademark Office, the "GMAIL" mark has been assigned to Google, who applied for the mark on April 2nd, 2004. The Trustees of the "Smith Trust", Shane Smith and Karen Griffith, applied for the same "GMAIL" trademark on April 3rd, 2004, one day after Google Inc. The "Smith Trust" has not been assigned the trademark by the US PTO, and the latest rejection of their application was June 11th, 2005.
s no=78395746e ntry=78395931
Perhaps someone else can post the equivalent info from the UK?
See Google's GMAIL trademark assignment:
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&
and the Smith Trust's application status: (rejected)
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&
I am going to repost all the +5 modded comments
from here onto this topic.
Wrong. whois only tells us that gmail.com was first registered (created) on August 13, 1995 and that Google is the current owner. It does not say that Google was the entity that registered it in 1995.
Google could just trade under the "Google Mail" name, and advertise the mail.google.com addresses, but since they own gmail.com and are using it the gmail.com addresses could still continue to work, and jut forward to a comparable mail.google.com addresses. There would not have to be any distruption of service to the user, but the name would change.
Unless g-mail can win the gmail.com name, that is another story. Right now they are just threatening to sue for trademark infringement.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
I'll wager that 15 months of communication was along the lines of "we'd sue, but we'll take a cash settlement instead..."
I mean, SCO communicated prior to suing, too, but that doesn't mean they were acting in good faith.