Slashdot Mirror
Google "Loses" Gmail in Europe
Hippie Hippie Shake writes to mention that Google has just lost the right to use the name 'Gmail' in Europe, according to the EU. "Daniel Giersch, a German-born 32-year old entrepreneur, has just announced that his company received a positive ruling last week from the Harmonization Office supporting his claim that "Gmail" and his own "G-mail" are confusingly similar. G-mail is a German service that provides a "gmail.de" email address, but also allows for a sort of "hybrid mail" system in which documents can be sent electronically, printed out by the company, and delivered in paper format to local addresses." It looks like "Google Mail" from here on out, at least in the Old Country."
I think this is the first time Ive ever heard of where a company has succesfully been challenged and lost the right to a name while a product was still in "beta". Its already Google Mail in the UK, no? I wonder if this large a swath of the world will cause google to just rebrand the whole thing google mail for everyone, just for continuity and branding's sake. As much as I like the name Gmail and would be sad to have to say something longer all the time, it does look to my first cursory glance like this was a legit claim as opposed to cybersquatting, so perhaps its the right thing.
I heard about this quite a while ago. A quick google search reveals: Gmail Trademark in Dispute (if you don't want to click it, it's an article on the subject dated August 12, 2004). This may be another instance of someone claiming rights to it, but it certainly isn't the first place Google has lost the GMail trademark.
If you have a blahblah@googlemail.com does blahblah@gmail.com not work anyway?
The @googlemail addresses are too long and clumsy. I made use of a US based proxy when I signed up for my account to ensure I'd get the more succinct gmail version. Bloody Germans.
Yeah damn the Kraut for having the name first, as well as a legitimate trademark and a business in full operation. Don't blame Google for failing to do their homework, or for assuming "the little guy" would let himself be bought out for a relatively trivial sum ($250,000; yes it's a large number but the "gmail" name is worth many times that.)
Yes and no. Generally, I think it is a good thing, that the "underdog" can win for a change. My problem with the ruling is though, that the name Giersch owns is not "G-Mail" as stated in the article but "G-Mail...und die Post geht richtig ab" (sorry, really hard to translate if it's supposed to make sense). While "G-Mail" and "Gmail" may be easily confused, I don't think there's any real danger to confuse "G-Mail...und die Post geht richtig ab" with "Gmail".
You'd be throwing away a bunch of money. A few years ago, a small mom-n-pop cable tv company out in New Mexico owned the roadrunner.com domain. My employer, a certain other, much larger cable modem company was understandably interested in that domain and they offered the owner a similar 250K low-ball figure.
The owner had an idea of what it would be worth to them so she declined. Then the larger company tried the bully approach, taking her to court and citing trademark infringement, etc. She knew she would probably win since it's the state bird of NM and had been part of the name of her company all along. She was right and she won the case. The larger company knew they were going to have to cough up the dough if they wanted that domain and they did. 8 figures worth.
"I can be self-referential if I want to," said Tom, swiftly.