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."
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'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.
why does any super rich company waste their time? ego. the top guys don't like to be told what to do, because once you have all the money you will ever need, there's nothing but ego to fight for.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
So we get rid of this guy's legal right because google didn't bother to check that GMail didn't conflict with any trademarks of the markets they entered? It's the guys choice if he wants to sell the name or not. Also why would 5 million users have to change their email address?
So, does this only happen in Germany, or is Google banned from using Gmail internationally?
Only if the apple store would compete in something like the IT or multimedia business.
A windows cleaner service won't be put in a legal minefield with Microsoft, for example.
Sometimes these lines are blurred, and sometimes companies intentionally try to cross these lines, but I doubt Apple would be able to get a lawsuit of an apple store through.
One example that became a real case in court was the Apple Corps vs Apple one, but in that case it was because both shared a field of business (music entertainment).
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
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/
Actually, if you had spamMePlease@gmail.com, the automated email scrapers that people use to assemble these lists would probably assume the 'spam' had been added in as an anti-spam mechanism, and MePlease@gmail.com would end up getting all your spam...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I think the whole reason this came about was because Google tried to offer him cash and he refused saying he's certain his business will do well. Google wouldn't go to court without first trying to see if they can get it for less than it would cost to sue. Sure it gives the guy publicity, but honestly there's going to be a point where he'd be stupid not to sell out. At the same time he sounds pretty set on never selling. Some may call it smart business, but I think he's just kidding himself.
TWD - TheWhiteDragon
Visit my weblog
Well, it's not Hitler evil, but it's the same degree of evil that MS is often accused of. Besides, if you're going to stand up on your high horse and say that your motto is "do no evil", than you'd better hold yourself to a higher standard than those who make no such claim.
Something tells me they could have made an early offer that both parties would have been happy with - I mean, dude could make millions just by luck of naming something with a letter. But instead, Google just goes ahead with it and tries to fix it after the fact. Not necessarily evil, just crappy planning and then a desperate attempt to fix it.
I wonder if they even tried the carrot before they used the stick. Maybe they made an offer and the guy wanted more. No excuse for what they're doing, but I'm curious.
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
I saw a guy a short while ago whose actual email included "NOSPAM", as in "joeblowNOSPAM@example.com". You have to include the NOSPAM in his address because that's really part of it. I thought it was a very clever idea; he told me that he gets very little spam.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
I use spam@mydomainnamebutimnottellingyouwhatitis.com as a spam harvester - I registered it on several mailing lists and forums and then plugged it directly into my spam assassin learning filters since everything to that address is guaranteed to be spam - since I did that the accuracy of spam assassin has certainly increased.
I suspect I could do a little more with auto blacklisting of mail servers and such things but haven't got around to it yet
I also find it rather amusing to give that address to companies over the phone when they can't give me a sensible reason for wanting my email address (ie its purely for "marketing purposes")
$_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
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
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