Slashdot Log In
Google Abandons the Gmail Name In Germany
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Jun 23, 2008 06:34 PM
from the but-not-the-service dept.
from the but-not-the-service dept.
praps writes "A three-year trademark conflict has ended with Google withdrawing its use of the Gmail brand in Germany. On Friday, a plain-text message appeared, beginning 'We can't provide service under the Gmail name in Germany ... Bummer.' Despite the climbdown, Google Germany's spokesman said on Monday that the action was being taken 'even though we believe we're not legally obliged to do so.'" We discussed the tussle in Germany when Google first lost in court a year ago.
Related Stories
[+]
Google "Loses" Gmail in Europe 154 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it's hardly surprising. According to government records, the only names not yet trademarked are "Popplers" and "Zittzers". I remember the internal confusion at Google back in the day when there were plans to set up a worldwide network of Google hot spots, or Gspots, only to find out that it is nearly impossible to find a name that is both pleasant to the ear, even remotely meaningful and not already taken. Enyone remembers the scandal [theinquirer.net] three years ago? This is another example. And what about our beloved Firefox browser? It had to change its name not once, not twice, but trice to finally get rid of the trademark problems and still any literate person will point out to the Craig Thomas' novel, not to mention the Firefox bicycle company, or the Malaguti Firefox scooter, all of which being much older than any web browser on Earth. But does it mean that people can't use Google to check for any prior art of the name they have chosen for their projects? No. It just means that all of that trademark hysteria of the last one and a half decades, this "get outta my intellectual property!" attitude, it all hurts progress. Because, at the end of the day, isn't progress what it is all about? Shouldn't we just shut up, roll up our sleeves and start making our global village a better place instead of worrying about not hurting someones feelings or not breaking some law? I am really sick of every good initiative being sabotaged by someone who "owns" some "intellectual property". Google is probably one of ten, maybe twenty companies that are more concerned about morals and ethics than profits, yet some Germans have a problem with one of its most popular names and when do they sue? When the name is already known worldwide! This is just too much. Please let me quote a great thinker, George Bernard Shaw: "If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas."
Re:Surprising? (Score:5, Funny)
But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.
So, you have an idea that I thought up... for FREE!!! Evil commie. </Reagan>
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Surprising? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Surprising? (Score:5, Funny)
yup. Frankly, if someone had mentioned 'gmail' to me with no explanation back in 2003, I'd have assumed that it was a google product. But then I don't live in Germany.
Parent
Re:Surprising? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the problem with people running international companies that rely on a single letter to brand all their products - you can only have 26 of them. Let's see where we are with that; 'g' is for Google, 'j' is for Sun, 'i' is for Steve.. Hey ! We can make a nursery rhyme out of this !
Re:Surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
The name "gmail" was already taken for an e-mail provider. Except for hard-core Google fanboys (and girls), this really seems like a pretty open-and-shut case.
For a case like Firefox, where there are other companies using "Firefox" in their name... I don't think there's any chance of bicycles and scooters being confused with a web browser. But an e-mail service and... An e-mail service, well, there might be room for some confusion there.
Google has a shitload of money. Does anyone really think they'd back down on this if they didn't have to?
Big gigantic company doesn't get its way every single time. Boo hoo. I think Google will survive.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe g-mail was bought by Microsoft and they asked for $171 Billion dollars to license the trademark to Google. Muhahaha.
Google is Gigantic (Score:5, Informative)
first of all it is 20K not 5K,
secondly their market cap at $171B is one of the largest in the world,
so yes they are Gigantic!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When Mozilla renamed Phoenix to Firebird, I started having serious trouble googling for information on Firebird The Database Server - almost any usable information at all. You see, things like news, web pages of its users and so on. (At that time, I was learning Firebird in order to write a school project on top of it, and as a newbie, I simply used Google first to get some pointers.) Most of the things I was able to google were "OMFG the new super cute Firebird browser!". Oh, this, and the flamewsrs betwee
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Du you pronounce "gmail" and "g-mail" differently?
I don't.
Re:Surprising? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, no, they tried to fight the little guy who held the rights to it for years and eventually the court ended up ruling against them. "Not being evil" would have been if they had walked away as soon as they realized that another guy legitimately owned the name gmail. Google's failure to crush the little guy in this instance was not for lack of trying.
In the case of windows defender at least MS had an argument that the third party had no right to use the name "windows" as part of their trademark. Google didnt even have that.
Basically the MS case in this instance is less evil than the Google case. It is amusing to see all the fanboys try to find some reason why google was being morally superior in this instance though.
Parent
You're Right, BUT... (Score:5, Insightful)
...when it comes to Trademarks, it's not all about progress.
Copyright law and patent law are about progress, at least in the United States (and, I believe, the UK). Trademark law is about unfair competition and brand identity. The legal community (I am a law student, not a lawyer) doesn't even agree entirely on whether trademarks ought to qualify as "intellectual property" rightly considered.
If you study trademark law, you will realize that when it comes to trademarks, not only is progress not the point, but in fact progress is the problem. Specifically, back when we all did our shopping at local stores, knew the owner (who was also one of the checkout clerks), and likely lived within a few days' travel of the craftsmen who made the products we purchased, trademarks were really important to ensure quality. This is why trademark law was solely the domain of state governments in the U.S. for many years--it just wasn't a federal issue. Interstate commerce was just too big for trademarks; if you lived a whole state away, you probably had never heard of any of the other state's "brands."
There were some very big exceptions to this, of course, but they were few. If every other town had a "Johnson's Jeweler's" owned by a different Johnson, who could complain? There was no competition. The industrial revolution and mass production changed the game somewhat, but maybe less that you'd think. You could produce goods en masse, but advertising still had to take place to establish your brand. Even the telegraph and telephone, while making the world of advertising a bit smaller, didn't quite do trademark law in.
But these days, everyone's eye is on the Internet. And if you own "BobsEmporium.com," you're the only guy who can really be Bob's Emporium (dot com). Add into the mix various international treaties, and some guy in China can trademark-squat on a couple of names and when you try to start your business, you may find yourself getting sued the moment you have enough money to justify it.
Furthermore, most people don't understand trademark law well enough to realize when they do or do not have an actual trademark. All over the Internet we see these claims popping up about how this name or that is "protected," as though simply owning the domain name created a trademark. Trademarks have specific statutory requirements. One that even the courts often forget about is that trademarks are supposed to be source indicating. All those "Smarmy Comment(TM)" that you see around the web that fail to be source indicating, in my opinion, shouldn't be protectable unless the company using that tagline is actually using it to indicate source.
My perception is that trademark law needs to be revisited by a sensible legislature. The Internet creates major headaches for the establishment of a trademark, never mind its enforcement, by putting your enterprising imagination up against everyone else in the world, instead of everyone in your community. It's bad for commerce. But sensible legislatures are hard to come by, and the big players are not about to weaken their "IP warchests" by suggesting that trademark law is about as broken as every other kind of IP law.
The Information Age has changed the way we approach this sort of information, but thus far our laws haven't caught on.
Parent
Re:Surprising? (Score:5, Funny)
"But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas."
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You totally miss the point.
- Google is known worldwide, not "gmail"
not using your Googol-$ brand is a bummer
- they sued right away when gmail started
- every major multinational company knows how to
research international brand names, but Google can't? Google is not mozilla.org
At least they should learn how to find and use a good search engine in the internets.
- Google is not the savior of this planet, but another BIG company in the hands of greedy shareholders, like any other.
If you don't believe that. let's
Re:Surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
You had me up until this bit:
Google is probably one of ten, maybe twenty companies that are more concerned about morals and ethics than profits
Google is interested in profits, period. That doesn't make them bad. It just makes them like any other publically held company. The 'Don't be Evil' motto went out the window when they went public, for better or for worse.
Parent
Re:Surprising? (Score:5, Informative)
Moderation. As in, 'In moderation.'
In moderation, most things are good. If I make a really good car, and I call it a Sephir, I don't want another company to be able to call their car (or car-related service) a Sephir.
However, do I care if there's a Sephir cola? Probably not.
Do I care if someone makes an email service @sephir.com? Probably not.
Frankly, I probably wouldn't care if 'Sephir' became synonymic with 'car.'
But the problem, at least in the US, is that firstly, to hold a trademark, I must actively defend it. Meaning that to demonstrate that defense, I have to C&D or sue every ISP and cola manufacturer that uses it, so that when some slimy car company opens up and tries to usurp it from me, I have a legal leg to stand on.
The other problem is a sense of entitlement. Two search engines called Google? Award it to the original Google. A non-information technology product called Google using dissimilar trade dress (meaning the word, but not the logo as it sits today)? Let them run with it. It shouldn't hurt anything.
It's not IP that hurts progress. It is the overreaching of IP theories and laws that hurt progress. If a person invents or makes something really good, why not allow him/her to enjoy some real 'bonuses' for having done so?
Parent
Re:Surprising? (Score:4, Informative)
As the two anonymous cowards pointed out, trademarks are not global. When applying for a trademark, the business in which the trademark will be used must be listed. So when applying for a trademark for Sephir, your original trademark only covers transportation. A Sephir ISP or cola could co-exist as long as neither brand makes an attempt to suggest that a relation exists. Doing something like "Sephir Cola, the perfect drink when driving your Fnord Sephir" would be a no-no. The same goes for "official" licensing: since Sephir Cola exists, Gurps Beverages can't offer "Gurps Cola Sephir Collector's Edition".
So since successful trademarks can expand into licensed merchandise, it is prudent to meet those with similar names, and define beforehand who gets what sector. Of course, this won't prevent legal battles down the road (see Apple Records versus Apple Computer)...
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I found Googles Gspot, it was hidden behind some foliage and server wires.
Re:Surprising? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't comment on this particular case with much knowledge, but if I spent a lot of time, money and effort to build up a local product around a particular name, I'd be really annoyed if someone else came in from overseas and usurped all that effort making it worthless. This is particularly the case if their only claim to having the name was that they happened to be a company 1000+ times larger than my own (eg. Google, Microsoft) with expensive lawyers, and they thought it'd be a nice name for their own service. Businesses and organisations shouldn't get special treatment over others just because they happen to be well known and (in some cases) liked by a lot of people.
Clearly there should be some kind of common sense approach to trademarks, without clearly defining what that actually means, but I don't think that simply stomping on anyone who happens to already be using a name that a corporation like Google might want is the way to go. If these guys were using 'gmail' in Germany before Google created its own service, and if they were using it for something that might be confused with Google's service (which they clearly were), and if they notified Google within a reasonable amount of time, then I think they're completely within their rights to take this action. Good for them.
It's part of doing global business that some names might already be being used in some countries. The people at Google should know this as much as every other corporation and plan for it accordingly. If Google picked a global name that might eventually send more business to a possible competitor, then it's Google's own fault.
Parent
Re:Surprising? (Score:5, Funny)
Hey! You're infringing on the trademark of the Film Actor's Guild!
Parent
FFS (Score:4, Insightful)
Call it GoogleMail , not rocket science.
Re:FFS (Score:4, Interesting)
They call it GoogleMail in the UK too, and have done for some time, because they lost a more-or-less identical trademark case here too. If I go to gmail.com I'm redirected to a site where all the branding reads 'Google Mail'.
Parent
Dasterdly Deutchmen (Score:5, Funny)
A look at gmail.de nets some strange foreign ramblings. The first bit which says
'G-mailer versenden und empfangen ihre elektronischen Nachrichten und echten Briefe über www.gmail.de und sparen so Zeit und Geld (Briefporto ab 2 Cent!) und entlasten unsere Umwelt.'
Now, it's been awhile since I was in high school, but that roughly translates to:
'G-mailer verily and emphatically this here electronic new right and etches uber briefs www.gmail.de and spares so this and gold (portable briefs at 2 cents) and enlisted users underwhelmed'
Clearly, they want to use gmail.de to sell personalized underpants at 2 cents per unit, despite the fact that wearers are not too impressed.
These krauts get to use gmail.de to sell their kinky feitsh-wear while the smart folks at Google get nothing? Remind me again who won the war!
Re:Dasterdly Deutchmen (Score:4, Informative)
Why would Google want to put their services on each top-level domain? Just detect the web browser's language settings and present the German content.
THAT is the whole point: google never tried to take over gmail.de or g-mail.de or however is called. The "german" gmail claimed in court that somehow gmail.com used in Germany is affecting their trademark. The immediate effect (that was going on for years) was that you couldn't get a gmail.com (notice .com not DE) email if you come with a German IP - you would get a googlemail.com account instead and everything will be mostly transparent (gmail.com will go to googlemail.com, emails will reach you even if sent to name@gmail.com instead of name@googlemail.com and so on). Now it is even worse: gmail.com goes to this text page that says something like "you should go to mail.google.com but we are not allowed to give you a link here" (and presumably they can't redirect you automatically as before). YES, google is scared/forced not to to put a link to mail.google.com on gmail.com (of course they own both domains). Is this messed up or what?
Parent
Silly Krauts (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Silly Krauts (Score:4, Funny)
You win.
Yours was longer.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Can I just remember the IP address? It's easier to memorize.
Re:Silly Krauts (Score:5, Funny)
Won't someone think of the umlaut?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
ö is expanded to "oe" not "oo"
What you wrote sounds closer to "gurgle" than Google.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Gòøglègêmêínschàftélèktrõnïschèpõstsytëmïsch
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Google mail user1: "What does that URL mean?"
Google mail user2: "I don't know - he hasn't got to the verb yet!"
What's wrong with DerGoogleElektronischePost? (Score:2)
Uhhhh, on second thought...nevermind.
'Gmail' brand sucks everywhere guys (Score:2)
They should have called it "Google Mail" from the beginning. I still have people asking me what the hell gmail is.
Re:'Gmail' brand sucks everywhere guys (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
This works (Score:2)
De-Mail works for me. ;)
Buy the company takeover the trademark (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Buy the company takeover the trademark (Score:5, Informative)
They tried and Daniel Giersch denied them.
Guess what, if they offer you a ton of money for something, you DON'T have to take it!
Parent
Gmail can be confusing in German... (Score:4, Funny)
G pronounced in German sounds like "gay". A few years ago when I told friends that I got a G-Mail beta account, they made fun of me and asked what my girlfriends thinks about that...
Re:Gmail can be confusing in German... (Score:5, Funny)
You see, that's how we know you're lying.
Parent
Re:Gmail can be confusing in German... (Score:5, Informative)
G pronounced in German sounds like "gay". A few years ago when I told friends that I got a G-Mail beta account, they made fun of me and asked what my girlfriends thinks about that...
What? That must have been a situation of an English speaker pronouncing the letter wrongly; probably just having read somewhere that it's close to the pronunciation of "gay". If you hear a German pronounce the letter, you will hear that it's nowhere near "gay".
You can compare this to people saying that the English "th" sounds like "s".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Oh, look at poor Google. It's like a wayward schoolchild who lost his iPod."
"Poor Google's users" is what you'd be thinking if you had actually put some thought into it.
Hardly the end of the world (Score:3, Informative)
FTFA, this is the message GMail/Google Mail users are now getting in Germany:
"We can't provide service under the Gmail name in Germany; we're called Google Mail here instead. If you're traveling in Germany, you can access your mail at http://mail.google.com./ [mail.google.com] Oh, and we'd like to link the URL above, but we're not allowed to do that either. Bummer."
Users are then forced to copy and paste the URL into their browsers to access their Gmail account.
People will have to copy and paste... Oh no, those poor users!
Re: (Score:2)
"People will have to copy and paste... Oh no, those poor users!"
It means an email address change for them when the domain is shut down. Yes, those poor users.
Man, even people reading the f'n article aren't engaging their brains today.
Re: (Score:2)
copy AND paste? you my friend need to upgrade to linux, here its just middle click.