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."

Comments

Re:Legitimate Case?

[fosterNutrition]

I agree, it sounds to me like the issue is completely in Mr. Giersch's favour. Apparently the courts thought so too:

"As far as the Hanseatic Higher Court is concerned, the legal situation is unambiguous to the extent that it has not allowed an appeal to the Federal Court of Justice"
What bothers me about this issue, though is the following:

Google has filed lawsuits against Giersch in Spain, Portugal and Switzerland.

"Google has announced, at least in writing, to 'fight' my client abroad for as long as it takes before he drops the legal claims lodged in Germany," Eble confirmed. In other words, the case seems completely in the German fellow's favour, both from a common-sense point of view (G-Mail versus GMail, started using it four years earlier), and from a legal point of view (see the court decision quoted above), yet Google is still fighting the issue. As much as I love the GMail service, I have got to say that to me, this reeks of big money betting they can wear this guy down. He can't afford to retain a lawyer for ever, and I'm sure they know that. Hardly not evil, Google.

Re:Legitimate Case?

[samkass]

If 10 years ago someone told me the biggest company on the internet would be an advertising agency that used the phrase "do no evil" and people believed them I would have said they were on crack. Alas, it seems to be the case.

Re:Legitimate Case?

[phulegart]

The logic as I see it, is something like this...

Police officers should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us, since it is their duty to represent the law for the general public. They should lead by example, and therefore be MORE law abiding.

A dry cleaning company has to be held to a higher standard than a roommate doing you a favor, when it comes to doing laundry. This is because their business is based on guaranteeing and delivering that higher standard. If they do not provide it, they lose business and eventually are forced to close.

Any business that uses a promise to "do no evil" is therefore expected to shine the big "DO NO EVIL" floodlight all over anything they do to make sure that it isn't going to be seen as evil, or isn't in fact evil. They themselves have set that higher standard by which they are to be judged, by saying "We will do no evil. Really, take a good look. No eeEee-ville here."

Now, of course, evil is subjective, and all depends on which side of the line you live on. One man's good is another man's garbage. It's not like the Force though, for after a certain point the followers of the dark side know the evil which they do. Most people would agree that a large corporation obviously in the wrong that intends to use its finances to wear down the little guy in the right, is an "eeEee-ville" thing.