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."
Yeah, but... (Score:5, Funny)
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: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.
Instant Karma (Score:3, Funny)
from here [slashdot.org] onto this topic.
Re:Yeah, but... (Score:2)
G? (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory Simpsons quote (Score:5, Funny)
Re:G-? (Score:2)
Re:G? (Score:5, Informative)
mods: funny?! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:mods: funny?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:mods: funny?! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:G? (Score:5, Funny)
Sesame Street should cover this shit. (Score:5, Funny)
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]
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: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.
Fight Google? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Fight Google? (Score:2, Funny)
It is all true.
Re:Fight Google? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fight Google? (Score:3, Informative)
Atari fell to the Samurai Sword.
--Pete
I doubt that was their intention (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, that's right. Money. I'm guessing it went like this:
Also, I'm kind of miffed that this keeps getting called an "intellectual property struggle". G'fuh? I remember back in the old days, we used to call them "trademark disputes". I wasn't aware that changing the first letter of a well-known contraction for "electronic mail" was a rigorous intellectual task. If that's your claim to fame, you're an idiot.
Re:Fight Google? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes they can. They just need the right law firm. Google has a lot of money and everybody wants a piece of it. The IP hoarders deserve to be constantly at each other's throats, IMO. If you live by the sword, you will perish by the sword. Well, you will at least get hurt. Didn't Oracle have to pay 100 million US dollars or so to settle an IP-related suit just recently? Companies are like kids fighting over who the toys belong to. When will they wake up and grow up? It is
Re:Fight Google? (Score:5, Funny)
I am John William Babbittworth, of the law firm Thompson, Richards, Williamson, Heresford, Babbittworth, Jones and Spencer law firm.
We represent the interests of Independent International Investment Research, which has exclusive trademark rights to all words beginning by the letter "G"...
Re:Fight Google? (Score:5, Insightful)
The IP in question is a trademark (awful journalism banging on about 'owning the intellectual property rights to the GMail service'). I take it you think Linus is an IP hoarder too, because Linux is trademarked.
This seems like a perfectly straightforward trademark dispute to me. No glaring flaws in this area of intellectual property law that I can see. This kind of dispute does not deserve to be lumped in with the ridiculous patents and copyright excesses we've seen.
Fair's fair... (Score:5, Funny)
Let's see, a free email service generating $0 profit. 50% of $0 equals $0.
Settled.
Re:Fair's fair... (Score:5, Insightful)
and what about the ads ?
free != zero-profit.
Re:Fair's fair... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fair's fair... (Score:2, Interesting)
you kidding me? those AdSense things generate what people in the biz refer to as a shitload of cash simply due to the sheer volume of people seeing them (and it helps that they're targeted to what your mail's about). sure, it's a free service but it's not like they're losing money on it or something.
Re:Fair's fair... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fair's fair... (Score:4, Interesting)
Already done (Score:5, Funny)
AMAil
BMail
CMail
DMail
etc.
ALL MINE!
Yeah, I'm Amazon.com. This whole "Dopefish" thing is just an alias.....
Intellectual property rights to GMail? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 fundin
Re:That's what they're claiming ... (Score:3, Informative)
Repeat after me: There's no such thing as "IP" (Score:5, Interesting)
Either you say:
Trademark
Copyright
Patent
But "Intellectual Property" is not a term you can use intelligently, only as a way to further the company propaganda-machine. This example clearly shows it is not suitable for intelligent readership. I heard this from RMS last time he visited Norway.
Re:Repeat after me: There's no such thing as "IP" (Score:3, Insightful)
Trademarks, copyrights, and patents are the sorts of things designated by the general classification of intellectual property--but intellectual property doesn't exist!
When people talk about intellectual property, they are talking about trademarks, copyrights, patents, or the ideas or information covered by same (books, inventions, company and product names and logos). Inasmuch as a piece of intellectual property does not exist, neither does any idea or piece of information. None
Girded loins (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Intellectual property rights to GMail? (Score:3, Insightful)
You maybe would want to say Intellectual Property if you are talking about trademarks, patents and/or copyright in, say, an article or a paper. But claiming you have intellectual property when you claim rights to a trademark is misleading. It's like claiming someone did "considerable economic damage" to you w
Attack ONE! (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds legitimate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds legitimate (Score:2)
It's a frikken G and a dash. The fact that Google would have to pay a company to use a G is just ridiculousness.
This just highlights the ridiculousness that can be trademark laws.
Re:Sounds legitimate (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but had it been the other way around, you know very well that Google would not have been "good" and just looked the other way.
Because they can't be found (Score:5, Insightful)
IIIR has no website which can be located by Google, Yahoo, or any other search engine that I've used.
All that comes up are some investor reports like OneSource [onesourceexpress.com], which reports them as having a whole seven employees.
Trademarks are not automatically international, and the mere presence of the "G" before "Mail" is not a trademark. Trademarks are either specific spellings (with/without hyphens), logos, icons, color combinations, etc.
The lawsuit sounds like basic "trolling for dollars", legal style.
E-Mail vs. Email (Score:3, Insightful)
Especially given that there's still no consensus [alt-usage-english.org] as to whether to refer to electronic mail as "email" or "e-mail"...
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 w
Re:Sounds legitimate (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sounds legitimate (Score:3, Insightful)
Get real, trademark law protects your trademark from all other marks which are mistakenly similar, not just identical.
Aaarrgggh! (Score:5, Informative)
And they did register that trademark long in advance of Google.
Re:Aaarrgggh! (Score:2)
Yes, this 'IP' nonsense is invariably a sign of someone that either doesn't understand what they're talking about, or doesn't want YOU to understand what they're talking about (or possibly both.)
As to them registering their trademark first, that's true. However, that's not the end of the story. The trademarks are not identical - googles is 'Gmail' while theirs is 'G-Mail.' Gmail is a rather obvious abbreviation for 'Google Mail.' Their trademark is apparently UK only, and it doesn't sound like they've don
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.)
Vague Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Vague Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's all intellectual property. We have to use the word property, it's very important. Otherwise, how can we legitimately claim 'piracy' and 'stealing' if it's not property?
Personally, I think the editors should put their money where their mouth is and summararily reject any story that uses the words 'intellectual property' in the article blurb.
rumors (Score:5, Funny)
Re:rumors (Score:5, Funny)
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:rumors (Score:3, Funny)
That sounds like a lot of work to get her to scream your name. I just leave the fridge door open.
Two letters (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Two letters (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Two letters (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Two letters (Score:2)
Re:Two letters (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're ok with "GoMail" which is ONE character different from G-Mail, then why aren't you ok with GMail, which is also ONE character different?
Re:Two letters (Score:5, Funny)
I sure wish I could get some of that oral tradition...
'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.
From TFA... (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
As much as they may have a case, I always find the "we don't want to, but they are forcing us" argument funny. Not because of the company itself, but because I can imagine some IP lawyers saying, "Yesss! They are being forccced to! Hisss!" as their forked tongues flick from their mouths and they rub thier greedy paws together with reptilian glint in their eyes.
Re:From TFA... (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the problems with owning a trademark is that you must defend it or lose it. Unlike copyright, trademarks can be invalidated in court if they
Re:From TFA... (Score:4, Funny)
Since when do reptiles have paws ?
Change to GoogleMail? (Score:2, Interesting)
gmail.com (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I smell FISH (Score:2, Interesting)
You can't copyright a letter. Perhaps TFA was in error; it certainly wasn't very clear.
I wish people would stop talking about "IP." Intelectual "property" is not property. If you're talking about a copyright infringement, don't say "my IP rights were violated," say "my copyright was infringed.
I'm talking to those of you who are journalists or think you are. Er, wasn't there a
See how STUPID this is? (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it just me, or is there something particularly novel and innovative about a browser-based e-mail service? Or, is there something particularly stupid about a company laying claims to this idea as its "intellectual property?" None of the concepts are particularly new.
In other news. (Score:2, Funny)
A sign of success (Score:2)
I have been using GMail for 18 months - I hope that they do not have to change the gmail.com domain name - that would be a nuisance.
Stupid issues (Score:3, Interesting)
It just feels wrong otherwise.
Sounds like bull (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sounds like bull (Score:4, Interesting)
gmail.com, on the other hand, has been registered for a little while (since the 90's), wish I can find out since when it was transfered to Google.
This company does not own gmail.co.uk or g-mail.co.uk either.
What!?! (Score:5, Funny)
Has anyone even heard of these idiots?
YOU PUT A G IN FRONT OF MAIL.
Don't try to act like it's the light bulb, you snaggletoothed limey.
In the credits at the end of the lawsuit... (Score:5, Funny)
GMail = Google Mail (Score:4, Insightful)
So they'll probably settle if necessary and just go on with Google Mail. Big deal.
Re:GMail = Google Mail (Score:4, Informative)
Not at all. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless g-mail can win the gmail.com name, that is another story. Right now they are just threatening to sue for trademark infringement.
Re:GMail = Google Mail (Score:3, 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?
Use it or lose it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then sue everyone 3 years afterwards?
The fact they never even bought a domain name for the service [or advertised it broadly] suggests they're not seriously impacted by Googles actions because it's their own ineptitude that crippled any chance of making it big.
Tom
Qmail (Score:3, Interesting)
Like, for instance, if Microsoft released a mail product called "qmail".
Seriously, do you think the same people would be posting "it's just a letter Q!"
In germany is already Google Mail (Score:3, Interesting)
You can see that the domain serving the service is not gmail.com but mail.google.com.
So i think, this UK company has seen the success of this action in Germany and tries to profit in the same way.
Sincerelly, i don't really care how is it named, "Google Mail" makes more sense to me, even if i pronounce it as "geemail".
There's yet another GMAIL! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why so long (Score:2)
-h-
Re:Why so long (Score:5, Informative)
-Jesse
Re:Why so long (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, SCO communicated prior to suing, too, but that doesn't mean they were acting in good faith.
Re:Why so long (Score:2)
I guess you didn't RTFA. The article said they have been talking with Google about this for 15months. From Wikipedia:
Oh the hide of them. They waited less then a month before initiating talks with Google! How dare they wait so long.
Or would you have rathered they began sueing after 6months, and let the talks be damned?
Re:Why so long (Score:2, Informative)
Re:G-Mail? (Score:4, Funny)
The letter 'G' (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The letter 'G' (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Serve the Same Market Segment
2. Possible Confusion
and perhaps
3. Intent to create confusion
A look at www.gmail.co
So in comparision we have Googles "Gm
Re:The letter 'G' (Score:3, Interesting)
A number of years ago, Walt Disney Corp sued the owners of West Edmonton Mall over trademark infringement. This is because Disneyland has a "Fantasy Land" section to their Anaheim location, and West Edmonton Mall had an indoor amusement park named "FantasyLand." The lawsuit was for $1. Disney won. The indoor amusement park is now called "GalaxyLand".
Meanwhile, West Edmonton Mall still has an attached hotel which is still called "FantasyLand Hotel".
That said, many people have heard of both DisnleyLand
Re:G-Mail? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just like you have Apple Corp. in the music business and Apple Computer in the computer business, and one doesn't play in the other's... ... oh wait...
Re:google's future (Score:2)
That's how trademarks work. From Wikipedia: They applied for a trademark, they received it. They must now defend it, or otherwise they shouldn't have applied for it in the first place.
Intellectual Property laws: helping encourage innovation of adding a G and a dash to a word.