New Legal Threat To GMail 526
wellington writes "Google is facing a renewed threat of legal action from a company that claims to own the intellectual property rights to its GMail e-mail service. Independent International Investment Research, a British company that specialises in research and has several leading City investment banks as clients, argues that it launched "G-Mail web based email" in May 2002."
Aaarrgggh! (Score:5, Informative)
And they did register that trademark long in advance of Google.
Re:Why so long (Score:5, Informative)
-Jesse
'Intellectual property' (Score:5, Informative)
The company does not 'claim to own the intellectual property to GMail'. It has a trademark claim. This is completely different and unrelated to any copyright interest, patent held, or trade secret. Lumping them all together as 'intellectual property' which can then be 'infringed' in some vague way just muddies the issue.
That's what they're claiming ... (Score:3, Informative)
"IIR, led by chairman and chief executive Shane Smith, accused the search engine of "failing to respect the intellectual property rights of others" and said it had no alternative but to pursue an expensive legal action that it admitted it could ill afford."
"I feel it is up to me as the founder and the major shareholder. We're not going to sit on the sidelines while a company uses our intellectual property rights," he said. "We're confident that we have the funding available to us and we're girding our loins," he said."
It's silly, but the summary is correct.
Re:Why so long (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Sounds legitimate (Score:2, Informative)
And the service is specific to the currency trading business. There is almost no overlap and the names are different. Yes it is by one character but when you only have five to start with that is significant.
Frankly if the trademarks are not identical then I would say no case. But then Microsoft somehow has convinced people that they invented using "windows" in a GUI. I wonder when they will sue X-Windows?
After all X-Windows is a lot closer to Windows than Lindows was.
Re:Sounds legitimate (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That's what they're claiming ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sounds legitimate (Score:2, Informative)
TESS S/N 78395931 for the word mark "gmail" is held by the Trustees of the Smith Trust Shane Smith and Karen Griffith, both citizens of the United Kingdom. The registration application was filed on April 3, 2004 and claims a first use in commerce of 20020528 (May 28, 2005).
TESS S/N 78395746 for the word mark "gmail" is held by Google. The registration application was filed on April 2, 2004 and claims a first use in commerce of 19980120 (Jan 20, 1998).
Interestingly TESS S/N 75629087 for the typed drawing "gmail" used to be held by a man named Milo Cripps. The registration application was filed on January 28, 1999 and claims a first use in commerce of 19980120 (Jan 20, 1998).
Neat coincidence. The records indicate that the mark was abandoned on Feb 18, 2000, but that does not necessarily mean that the applicant abandoned USE of the mark. Without knowing more, I cannot evaluate the claim. However, Google could very well have bought out Mr. Cripps business sometime prior to launching gmail, in which case their trademark priority will relate back to Mr. Cripps usage, which predates IIIR's usage.
Warning: link to TESS search [uspto.gov], which may not work if it's dependent on a session variable.
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:1, Informative)
I really thought ... (Score:3, Informative)
... this was a german company, with its product named "G-Mail, und die Post geht richtig ab" [gemail.de] (roughly translated "G-Mail, and the mail really gets going"). They also tried to sue people selling GMail invitations on eBay [heise.de]. a legal case is open in Germany, and GMail is obliged by a court order not to give @gmail.com-adresses to german users - those ones get @googlemail.com adresses instead [which also work with gmail, but this is not yet well-documented.])
The fact that the british and the german trademarks are so similar to each other makes me think... does anyone know if there are connections between those companies?
The letter 'G' (Score:5, Informative)
Re:G? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GMail = Google Mail (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Aaarrgggh! (Score:5, Informative)
You might be able to get away with it if you use significantly different styling for the logos. e.g. Microcenter could cause brand confusion if they styled their brands in such a way as to make the consumer believe that they were a Microsoft company.
However, a judge would probably find that you were attempting to cause brand confusion based on the shear popularity of the Microsoft mark.
In this case, however, my understanding is that Google didn't learn of the mark until a month after they launched their service. In addition, the two services operate in different markets. So Google has a strong case in that the two services are unlikely to be confused, and that Google has been using the mark in good faith.
Doesn't matter. The Firebird database is a niche item, but they'd still have won a trademark case with Mozilla Firebird.
I wish people would stop repeating nonsense like this. As with many legal threats, there was no court case. Since there was no court case, there was no determination of brand validity. Since there was no determination of brand validity, there is no legal precident steming from the issue.
The most that could come out of it is that if Firebird (database) ever went to court over their name again, they could claim that Mozilla decided to settle because they believed in the validity of Firebird's claims. (In reality Mozilla just didn't want any trouble, so they picked a truely unique name.)
Re:G? (Score:2, Informative)
Even though it was launched as such, IMHO if you actually look at the 'GMail' logo it doesn't read 'GMail' it is G[underneath "by Google"][envelope]ail. Also notice how the envelope 'm' is only the same height as the "a" in "ail". So no, to me it reads "G. mail" (as in an abbreviatiation), "Google mail" or "mail by Google".
From the articles 3rd and 4th paragraph's it doesn't even sound as if Google and this company are in the same business.
On the other hand. Why hasn't the German company "Giersch Ventures" that caused the previous legal problems for Google tried to sue this British company yet? They have had the "G-Mail" term trademarked since 2001. Maybe a taste of their own medicine would sort the IIIR out. After all, using your 'intellectual property' is using your 'intellectual property' no matter how much the other company is worth or they can pay you in legal compensation. Right?
After a search it seems the "Independent International Investment Research" shares some ground with "Giersch Ventures". Both offer financial servicey type things dealing in investment and I would wager they have more in common with other than either of them do with Google.
Re:Intellectual property rights to GMail? (Score:2, Informative)
Saying: "Surely this is just trademark infringment at most. The summary seems to infer that general IP rights" Is very much like saying: "surely this is just a problem of buffer overflow. The summary seems to infer that general security issues are involved, rather than just a buffer overflow."
Slight misquote there. Cheeky. You chopped off the bit that said "general IP rights [to the service]". Possibly I could've been clearer but I was distinguishing the service (patents/copyright) from the name (trademarks). I'll ignore the slightly abusive tone of the rest of your post since you didn't understand.
Re:Intellectual property rights to GMail? (Score:4, Informative)
IP encompasses several "properties", some of which are:
Copyrights
Patents
Trademarks
Trade Secrets
So the GMail service is accused of being in violation of the intellectual property of some other company.
-Adam
mods: funny?! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:GMail = Google Mail (Score:3, Informative)
Girded loins (Score:3, Informative)
Re:G? (Score:2, Informative)
It would be humorous to see the judge throw out the case based on the fact that IIIR and the German company aren't defending their property against each other.
Re:Fight Google? (Score:3, Informative)
Atari fell to the Samurai Sword.
--Pete
Re:mods: funny?! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:G? (Score:3, Informative)
They already did, at least in Germany, where it is now called "googleMail" and not "Gmail"
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum100/241.htm/ [webmasterworld.com]
Google owns the GMAIL mark, at least in the US (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps someone else can post the equivalent info from the UK?
See Google's GMAIL trademark assignment:
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&
and the Smith Trust's application status: (rejected)
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&
Re:G? (Score:3, Informative)
And that list was just culled form a quick look at google using genericized trademarks as the search term. I'm sure there are plenty of others out there if you look for them.
Re:Why so long (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Google owns the GMAIL mark, at least in the US (Score:5, Informative)
Here [patent.gov.uk] is the UK trademark website. If you search it, you'll find the earliest application is from Google, Inc. on April 14th, 2004. Karen Griffith applied on October 4th, 2004, almost half a year later.
So there you go. In the USA, Google applied first, and with an earlier date of first use to boot. Google quickly followed up and applied in the UK as well. These guys, supposedly BASED in the UK, didn't bother for another 6 months. Further, their only reference in their UK application was to their US application. If that application was rejected, the UK one will be too, I would imagine.
Re:Girded loins (Score:2, Informative)
Re:rumors (Score:5, Informative)
The penis is a terrible tool to stimulate the G-Spot with. There are certain positions in which penile penetration can stimulate the G-Spot, but many women find them uncomfortable. So get in there with those fingers!
Re:G? (Score:3, Informative)
A trademark is a mark which the use of has become associated with your business. It can almost be anything, witness Microsoft's trademark on Windows.
Re:Google owns the GMAIL mark, at least in the US (Score:2, Informative)
Being a US company has no legal bearing outside the US. The UK company can claim damages in the UK, therefore the UK law and trademarks apply.
Sounds complicated, but that's how it works.
Re:gmail.com (Score:3, Informative)
What the link says is that the domain was registered in 1995, and that Google currently owns it.
This does not mean that Google registered it in 1995, just that somebody registered it in 1995, and at some point since then, Google acquired it.