Slashdot Mirror
Google Loses Gmail Trademark Case
amigoro writes "A court in Germany today banned Google from using the name 'Gmail' for its popular webmail service following a trademark suit filed by the founder of G-Mail. Daniel Giersch, started using the name G-Mail in 2000, four years before Google released 'Gmail'. "Google infringed the young businessman's trademark that had been previously been registered," said the Hanseatic Higher Regional Court in its judgement."
that I had ebayed my gmail account... I wonder if google will be changing the domain name.
Sounds like the guy had a legitimate case. I'm sure that it cost him a fortune to defend a suit against Google. I'm surprised Google thought they could win this one. Isn't case law in this area pretty strong? Nissan.com I think is the traditional example.
Back around 1990, I was registering a couple of company domain names...going through the (then) magic. ...but I never did...
...poor...
And I though... "I should register some GENERIC domains, just for kicks"
And I remain,
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
I may be wrong but didn't 'froogle' (now product search) die for the same reason?
This looks like a smart young businessman. Fighting Google instead of selling a name means he gets publicity, and it looks like he is sure that he can turn this publicity into profit for his company and himself. Bad to hear Google preferred to fight him in courts instead of trying to find a way to get him on board. This is the way of big bureaucratic corporations that lack innovation, and I would expect smarter choices from a company that seeks to employ the brightest engineers. I guess such a smart (and resourceful, for being able to withstand so long against a giant) businessman would be an asset if Google could persuade him to join them. Now thanks to this legal battle, more people than previously know about his business, and this is only good for him and I am sure he knows it. I wonder what he is going to release in, say, 5 or 10 years.
I sure hope google doesn`t change the name of gmail globally.
I personally use my gmail address for just about everything. It scares me to think about how long it would actually take to go around and change my email address on all the various services I use.
I was waiting for some to suggest gnaaMail
I'm not sure if I'm being taken for a troll-ride here, but I'll bite...
From The Fine Article, and indeed The Fine Summary, it is pretty obvious the guy wasn't just trolling for copyrightable names, and hoping that one day, four years into the future, a large corporation would adopt one of his brands as a name for a flagship product. Not to mention that the "G" probably refers to his name (Girsch-Mail any less catchy?), but also Google clearly thought it was a unique enough name that they would be able to successfully use and legally defend it when they were picking a name for their new email service.
Google actually changed the [domain] name they use in Europe to googlemail.com some time ago. European users are pointed in that direction... I don't know if that is forced though. I got my gmail address before the switchover.
I guess they anticipated losing.
They call it Googlemail in Germany, and the UK, where the name Gmail was owned by another company. Pre-existing @gmail.com addresses registered by UK users were left as they were, while new signups changed to @googlemail.com.
...in Germany.
Americans, happy birthday!
Did they try to offer him a big wad of money, say US$50M bucks?
That'd certainly be a lot better way to do it than ruin some poor guy's life with worry over court cases - which incidentally does Google's image no good.
ISO certified == THX certified
I'm sure laws like this will change over time. After all in an increasingly global market, you can't afford for your trademark to be diluted by having a different name in each of six different geographical regions. I'm sure that someday the WTO will have something arranged so that the guy producing the most benefit from the trademark will win. If you came up with the trademark (or a copyrighted idea) twenty years ago and are using it to generate a million dollars in business per year, you have to surrender it to the bigger company who comes along and is making a billion dollars per year off of it.
I would think that would fall into the whole imminent domain concept that they use to justify taking part of your property to build a strip mall or expand a road. Likewise, a billion dollars of business in your economy is more important to society than some piddly million dollar business using the same concept or trademark.
Sad, but . . . I think that might be in our future.
Everyone here knows that Google is the wrong spelling for googol 10x100 power right?
Does anyone else find it ridiculous that a company, whether it be Google or someone else, thinks they can basically own the rights to a letter in the alphabet. What next, my friend George will get sued and must henceforth be known only as Eorge?
I realise that the case was against "G-Mail" which does bear a similarity to "Gmail" but I see this as the thin end of the wedge. If they didn't want this sort of problem they should have thought more about their name originally.
A lawyer told me once that an application by Nike to register "Air" as a trademark was rejected on the basis that no company could own the rights to one of the four ancient elements. I don't see much difference to owning one of the letters of the alphabet.
If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
I think this guy is full of it when he says it's not for sale. What he's really saying is "I'm going to drag this on as long as I need to until you pay me enough." Certainly there will come a point when the guy will realize he'd have to be stupid to pass up so much money that could benefit his company far more than the name Gmail ever could.
TWD - TheWhiteDragon
Visit my weblog
I think I'm going to register iMail as a trademark,. . . and then sue Apple when they launch their new iPhone/iMac/iBook/iPod/iNausea email service! ;-)
So, does this only happen in Germany, or is Google banned from using Gmail internationally?
I thought that Apple had trademarked the small letter "i" in front of product names... I thought for sure there would be some sort of battle over "iGoogle."
I get the point of, say, not letting someone use the name GMail or Google to setup their own email or search service because they'd be unfairly profiting from Google's name. What's the point in not letting Google take a service that was launched out of the U.S. and extend it to Germany? Granted, it's bad for this guy's business, but it's not like Google is unfairly profiting from his trademark.
Also, what affect does this have for Google in the U.S.? I mean, it's theirs in the U.S., right?
Finally, I presume this is the guy's site: http://www.gmail.de/
If I were Google I would simply shut down Google.de and the German GMail and give the whole country the big old middle finger. I bet it would only take months for local public pressure to force g-mail to get out of the way of the real Google GMail.
That is not how it works. The guy owns the trademark and Google is infringing. There is also no appeal, because the case is obvious. The only way for Google to get this resolved is to convince the trademark-owner. Public opinion and/or pressure does not play any role here.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
It's the exact same argument that is brought up regularly regarding Microsoft in the EU. "Microsoft should just pull out of the EU instead of paying all the fines. That'll show 'em!!!11"
"A Lisp programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing." - Alan Perlis
gmail.com and googlemail.com are the same place. If you get an address on either, you can receive mail on both and check your mail on both. All that happens is that based on which country you're in, you'll get redirected around and wind up with a slightly different logo in the top left. That's it.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://gmail.de
The current service was up as early as 2005:
http://web.archive.org/web/20051104021658/http://
Remember - all Google did themselves anyway was simply buy the gmail.com domain from someone else who was using it -
http://web.archive.org/web/19961223105823/http://
As one poster said, Google seem to think they have a right to everything that begins with a G. So why didn't they want to buy it out in this case? Obviously, because the value of the domain name has sky-rocketed, especially in prime-real estate like Germany. I bet you won't see them raising an eye-brow over http://gmail.co.za/ - Gardale Solutions, Cape Town.
It's all about the money. Stop pretending like it's got anything to do with what's "right". I bet it would only take months for local public pressure to force g-mail to get out of the way of the real Google GMail. Why, because you think Germans care more about American companies than German locals? Lets view this the other way around - do you care more about German companies than American businesses? Stop being so naive.
+BlackD
And if I were the entire automotive industry, I'd refuse to do business in California!
--Jim (me)
This is great news!
Yeah goes to show how much you can trust any large corporation to stick to their corporate slogan.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Today I would like to register a trademark on
a-mail
b-mail
c-mail
d-mail
e-mail
f-mail
g-mail oops already taken
h-mail
i-mail
j-mail
k-mail
l-mail
m-mail
n-mail
etc. etc.
Now you are all stuck with nm-mail dot com where n and m are two letters of your choosing! bwahahaha Watch it with that i-mail trademark. We all know Steve Jobs and Apple, Inc. own all the words that begin with the letter 'i'.
...you had some self-control. /. funsters, such as they are, but letting the bots in? I mean, come on! At least offer up your own spam account as a sacrifice.
I mean, it's all very well opening it up to the
THUD~*
Imminent most commonly means,
"Threatening to occur immediately; near at hand; impending;
-- said especially of misfortune or peril."
Damping absorbs vibrations. Dampening is caused by moisture.
>>I think you will find that McDonalds has pursued several high-profile lawsuits against companies who dare to put the prefix "Mc" on their name.
Ah, but I think you'll find that they don't sue on the theory of trademark infringement, but on the relatively new (made up and idiotic, in my opinion) trademark dilution ideas. Blurring, etc.
Nice, i think that way too. hug, Fausto http://www.toloicouto.adv.br/
I think you will find that McDonalds has pursued several high-profile lawsuits against companies who dare to put the prefix "Mc" on their name.
Yes, but they don't always win.
See: http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/articles/26/0C043
Basically, a guy named McBratney sponsored a rugby team, and put his nickname 'McBrat' on the team shorts. McDonalds took offense at that, but unfortunately for them, McBratney is an IP lawyer who had a good case.
Ever stop to think
Anybody know who is the paying the legal costs?
Although Google is using some strong tactics to try to preserve its ability to use the Gmail name, it makes sense to try to hang on by any means possible.
Many people use Gmail as their primary email address; a large portion of these people may be using Gmail as their only email address. If Google were to lose the rights to using the Gmail name, it would make very little sense for email to still go to a gmail.com. A large number of people would be put through considerable difficulty to tell their contacts to send their email to a new address. Hey, with all that difficulty, why not switch to Yahoo! Mail? Pretty AJAX interface with integration with that new fancy iPhone.
This is also not a new story. Check where that thing --> leads. There was a Slashdot article about this a long time ago too.
I don't know about Germany and IANAL, but many countries of the ability to take a person's property (e.g. compulsory acquisition in Australia, eminent domain in the US). Usually they compensate you at the market rate to do so. If they really wanted to, the German government could probably compulsorily acquire the trademark. In this case, public opinion would definitely have an influence.
Look out!
And this is why I have my email hosted (along with web hosting) on my own domain name. First of all, it establishes a "non-generic" email address that's easy to remember (myname@lastname.com anyone?), instead of some weird randomuser127@hotmail or some other nonsense. Personally I recommend to everyone who is serious, especially contracting professionals, to get their own domain (or a family domain, or whatever) for email purposes. You never know if your current free email provider will one day start charging, or change their privacy policy, or in this case, be in danger of losing their domain name. For someone who is professionally connected, changing your email is an incredibly difficult task, and you stand to lose a lot of extremely valuable communication. I've been using my email address for years now, and I couldn't be happier. Since I host it, I get to connect to it however I damn well please. I can run the best webmail client on the server that I like, I can get at it with IMAP, POP, or any other method I see fit, and customize my spam blockers the way I like. It's truly miles above any of the free services out there, though Gmail probably has the best web client.
And yes, Google is completely wrong -- and evil -- here!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
For starters, Germany is the export world record holder. Its 80 million people are one of the most important markets on this planet. It is also one of the leading countries of the European Union, the largest and most profitable economy around.
You don't walk away from that market, unless you have an (economic) suicide wish and want to be fired by your shareholders.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
This is outrageous! Clearly Google should have won - they are FAR RICHER, and besides, they are American, not just some snotty communists from a terrorist country.
That's what they said about the immigration bill in the United States Senate too.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If anyone has tried searching for g-mail or for that matter, g-mail.de (i'm sure millions have), all you get is different flavors of gmail links for the former while tons of blog/journal entries on this case for the latter. BUT NO GMAIL.DE !!! On the other hand, both Yahoo! and MSN search show up the site in top 5 search results, understandably enough. Google and Transparency... Anyone??
Yessssssss!! Fuck Google!
If I were Google I would simply shut down Google.de and the German GMail and give the whole country the big old middle finger. I bet it would only take months for local public pressure to force g-mail to get out of the way of the real Google GMail.
Why would anybody want to get back to provider that screwed them earlier. If my search and mail provider would cut me out of my services, I would need to build a new one, mayby from their competition. Same with their marketing, how could I rely on such provider with my ads that have caps on their service.
You don't stop offering your services to customers over some little things.
That's not the whole story. I can set my "reply to" address on googlemail to any email address in any domain except for gmail.com
GMail has been around for several years.. yet no objections were raised by him when it opened (google.com has been talking it up since it's inception as a beta service). Go ahead and think "well, it wasn't in germany then..". Bullocks. It's a Google tool. If you've a local google.xyz domain to connect to, chances are it will be in your back yard soon. It just sounds like this GMail company in Germany got lucky with their name, and rode the wave of Google's Marketing department all the way until he got his chance to open suit against them (because if you don't defend it, you lose it). It's a more subtle squatter movement than registering "microsoft.com", knowing microsoft will eventually pay you off - but imho, sitting on it while Google spent the marketing dosh makes this very similar.
When we start seeing governments step in to force small businesses to change their names and give up domain names that they legitimately acquired and use, because a larger company feels it would be better if they could use the name and domain, then we will have a problem.
:) )
There are enough abuses already in the patent and trademark areas without adding a rule that states simply that the bigger your company the more rights you have.
There was recently a case in the UK where The Tan Hill Inn, which is apparently the "highest pub in England", was told by KFC to remove references to "family feast" from its Christmas menu. I mean, apart from the fact that it is ludicrous that anyone could claim ownership of the term "family feast", it is unlikely that you are going to confuse a meal that apparently includes Guinness and stilton pate, roast turkey and Christmas pudding with a cardboard box of fried chicken, chips, coleslaw, potatoes, gravy and a 1.25-litre bottle of some soft drink. I would also assume that if you are sat in a (probably) few century old building, with a Bar and a sign saying "Tan Hill In" over the door, it is unlikely that the moment you open the menu and see family feast you are going to think that you are in a KFC and get all confused.
However by your reckoning I assume KFC should be permitted to force this pub not to use this generic term, after all KFC is an international brand, it benefits far more people to have KFC use the term rather than some pub in the UK, not to mention the fact that clearly no one else will have used the term "family feast" before KFC started using it...
The system for trademarks is (if not abused) fairly sound in most places; If you use it first its yours, if someone else uses a term you have trademarked but are in a different business areas (and there us unlikely to be confusion) then that's OK and you cant trademark something too generic. If that is all enforced properly then problems should not occur. In this case Gmail was being used by a German fellow before Google got into the game, he is using it legitimately, the two services are similar enough that there could be confusion and Google clearly didn't check to see if the trademark was in use before it started using it or was aware that it was in use and didn't care, either way that's Google's problem.
Lastly the people in this thread saying that Google are being evil by pursuing this case are wrong, and they are wrong for the reason that you already mentioned, Google are trying to be consistent internationally, that is good for their users, they offered to buy the domain and were denied. It made good business sense for them to attempt to acquire the domain through legal means and if they had it would have been beneficial to people in Germany who want to use their services (whether it is more or less beneficial than the other is obviously debatable). They haven't left this individual out of pocket (and if they had then the law would have had to say he was in the wrong - so fair enough.)
(Sorry for the ramble, I think it makes sense...
Google must really like the name "G-Mail". But is "Google" a good name in the first place anyway?
Goomail, Moogle, Screwyouihavelotsofmoneymail....
Would you like a slice of toast?
In the UK you are told to use @googlemail.com, however you can use @gmail.com if you want. Mail to both addresses ends up in the same mailbox I guess its the same for Germany
"I'll let them use my name until they get to many users then BAM, that's your ass Mr. Postman!"
And on another subject, did anyone see the ads right below this article?? lol just in case your too lazy to read it, there is a Gmail (Google, not this dipshit) ad right below the last paragraph. "In your face Daniel Giersch" says Google.Oooh, the Germans are mad at me. I'm so scared! Oooh, the Germans! Uh oh, the Germans are going to get me!
link
Pretty ironic for a search engine company.
Actually, Google already lost this case in April 2006, but they appealed. Now, they lost the appeal also at the Hanseatic Upper Court. Google cannot appeal at the German Supreme Court but could try to file for non-admission of the ruling. Here is an article that gets the details right.
Interestingly, Google already rebranded GMail in Germany as Googlemail, so it's really not that clear why they think that they have a case and why it is important to them.
There is an easier way to fix it; they pay this guy $500M dollars - or twice whatever his total net assets are. Google is in a position to fight him over the name, but they are also in a position to bring him into the fold. Why spend money on court fees if you can just buy him out?
Actually, the reason for that is probably precedence. They want wins against their trademark to discourage future such challenges.
[Ego]out
You are an idiot. I mean that in all seriousness. You are a buffoon. I won't even point out the obvious way you are a buffoon because you wouldn't get it. Have fun in your ignorant bliss, stupid.
So the big guy should always have it.
Whay should I bother thinking about a good trade mark if the big guy will come and steal it from me.
Do you have any other good ideas or are you in a slow day today?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And we are all thankful for that.
Aufwiedersehen.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Many websites use email addresses as user login names.
If you provide me@gmail.com and you try to use that to confirm login registrations you may have problems because you will be seen as me@googlemail.com
It is a minor annoyance to be fair, but it is there.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Those leeches take a life of its own in big corps....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Why is the plaintiff's age important enough to be mentioned in the judgment? How old one has to be to not be "young" in the eyes of the German legal system (apparently more than 33)? Is this special treatment of adult "young" people peculiar to Germany or happens in other European countries? If I am annoyed by this, does that mean I am old?
If they really wanted to, the German government could probably compulsorily acquire the trademark. In this case, public opinion would definitely have an influence.
AFAIK they cannot, unless it is something they have a right to. They can certainly not take from somebody to give to a company. That would be unconstitutional.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
That's what they said about the immigration bill in the United States Senate too.
That is something entirely different, as schoulb be obvious to any educated person....
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
1. Search for "do no evil" (with quotes) in google
2. Click on the first link in the results.
3. Search for the phrase "do no evil" in that page
Yeah, that's right.
Moral of the story, though contradicting: 1. Google sell the results (in this case, to themselves)
2. They no longer believe in "do no evil" and hence no such motto on their philosophy page
You seem to be equating the terms innovation and invention. Your list of things Google did not invent does not preclude innovation in those areas.
"Syndicated advertisements existed long before Google" but highly focused, non-intrusive, online advertising is Google's innovation on top of syndicated advertisements.
"Syndicated news existed long before Google" but tailored aggregation of news and specific news searches is Google's innovation.
"Search engines existed before Google" but the ranking and crawling or other ways Google implemented search innovated search engines to give better results.
"Web mail of various kinds existed long before Google" but Google innovated by making drastically improving the UI and increasing storage space.
etc...
The tech community in general tends to define "innovation" as "invention" which is not necessarily true. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation)
However he may be able to force google to hand over the gmail.com domain. Then everyone who has your email address will have to update it to 'googlemail.com'.
Domain Name: GMAIL.COM
Registrar: MARKMONITOR INC.
Whois Server: whois.markmonitor.com
Referral URL: http://www.markmonitor.com/
Name Server: NS1.GOOGLE.COM
Name Server: NS2.GOOGLE.COM
Name Server: NS3.GOOGLE.COM
Name Server: NS4.GOOGLE.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 10-apr-2006
Creation Date: 13-aug-1995
Expiration Date: 12-aug-2014
Not sure how valid that is but to me it looks like it was taken in 1995 or at least first registered then..
The court cited (Hanseatic higher regional court) is obviously just a small local court based in the city of Hamburg. The Hamburg court is already infamous for its non-existent understanding of the Internet since it was claiming in 1998 that a ny website owner could be held responsible for the content behind the external links on his website. The case was counterbalanced by a higher court. So if Google takes the case to a higher court (next step is probably the German federal court or European court), Google will probably win the case.
My sympathy is for Google. I've never heard of Giersch's G-Mail until now and there's absolutely no reason for that person to call his cute little product G-Mail. Why doesn't he call it P-Mail since his company is called P1? Would be much more straightforward.
The case reminds me of a German retailer called Metro that once tried to ban Paris's underground railway system that was called 'Métro' since the beginning in the year 1900 to be called 'metro'. The retailer of course lost the case.
Um, you're an ass clown. Number 6 on that page is "You can make money without doing evil."
Your premise is incorrect, so everything that follows is unsupported. It isn't the duty of police to "represent" the law -- it is their duty to enforce the law.
In a meta sense, as many cop cars have written on them, their duty is To protect and serve. . Despite this, many cops are under the delusion that their duty is To Dominate and Enslave. Unfortunately since they have the guns, the populace is dominated and, at least partially (Tax Freedom Day was April 30 this year), enslaved . With a ruler like Lord Bush in power, the domination and loss of freedom is more apparent. Hey, maybe someone will invade us and rescue us from our corrupt government and leaders (hopefully they'll do a much better job than Lord Bush did in Iraq).
"Have a nice day"
That's because, as was pointed out very early on in these comments, Google, Inc.'s motto is "Don't do evil."
Unfortunately, most trolls can't read, and those who can, lack comprehension.