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."
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.
How about GoogleMail ?
I didn't found something funny to put here.
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
Bill.Gates@gmail.com
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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.
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.
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?
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.
In trademarks, they are never trademarking only parts of the name, but the full name. Google is not trademarking "G", but "Gmail". They can't trademark "mail", but again, it's the full sequence of letters that is.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
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!
Yeah, it is totally ridiculous. In fact IBM is using THREE letters so they are triply as bad!
It is also true that Apple owns Apple. I find it pretty ridiculous that the world has lost a fruit to the corporate world, and that a place that sells apples, could find themselves sued if they have this fact in their business name.
Remember that trademarks are restricted to a line of business. Apple can be used to sell computers, vacations, and music without any problem (at least until the first Apple started selling music!). I doubt any of those companies would be successful in shutting down a grocery seller using the name apple (barring other factors that might confuse consumers).
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
Let me help you with that typo: techgeek@gmail.com. A very nice address it is, and I'd be happy to bid $0.75 if it is spam free.
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
It's good I never tried PleaseSpamMe@gmail.com
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.
And if I were the entire automotive industry, I'd refuse to do business in California!
--Jim (me)
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
Does yours get spammed a lot?
I keep getting spam for new furniture and chair repair...
--
Steve.Ballmer@gmail.com
I get spammed a lot on mine from shampoo and soap sales.
richard.stallman@gmail.com
Don't mod me, bro'!!!!
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
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.
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!
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
Since Germany has a (mostly) sane legal system, and the judge found the case to be unambiguous, Google will have to pay his legal fees - which is as it should be, IMO.
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...
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
Now that's not very nice of you, mentioning techgeek@gmail.com 's email address. Why, if i was techgeek@gmail.com i would be very upset now. Imagine all the email harvesting bots that'll pick up techgeek@gmail.com as a valid email address? Poor techgeek@gmail.com and his inbox. Well, i won't participate in that, techgeek@gmail.com !! Rest assured that i will never give away techgeek@gmail.com on any website and i will say to anyone using or posting techgeek@gmail.com that they should stop it, because techgeek@gmail.com is getting enough spam as it is!
There. You're welcome.
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