Subscribe to this blog
Little Red Blog
Will the Middle Kingdom sinicise its latest barbarian invader?
Mar 3, 2007 22:11
Does it matter if Google can't have Gmail.cn?
Posted by willmoss
A few days ago Reuters published an article about Google's attempts to buy the Gmail.cn domain from a Chinese company. It seems Google has been frustrated in its attempts to get its hands on the domain, which was first registered back in 2003, before Google announced Gmail, by a Chinese domain registrar called ISM Technologies.
Naturally enough, ISM runs a Webmail service on the domain. It even uses a multicolored logo that, while not a direct ripoff of the Gmail logo, is certainly suggestive. But this isn't a new story.
Another report, from IDG News Service, explains that Google has been trying to get ahold of the domain since 2004:
I guess Google just hasn't named the right price. Perhaps Google should just let it go and make do with a Chinese language skin on its global Gmail.com domain for Chinese users. After all, the Chinese version of the international Google.com site remains more popular here than the local Google.cn service. There would be some inevitable brand confusion, but probably nothing catastrophic. What would be catastrophic is attempting to sue ISM for the name. For one thing, it doesn't look like Google has much of a case (although my legal opinion is not exactly schooled).
More importantly, the Chinese public tends to take a really dim view of foreign mega-corporations that sue small Chinese firms. It would torpedo Google's PR in China.
There is, of course, another option. As one waggish friend of mine pointed out, Google could use this to resurrect its Chinese brand name, Guge, which landed with something of a thud last year. If it can't have Gmail.cn, it can always launch Gugemail.cn.
Naturally enough, ISM runs a Webmail service on the domain. It even uses a multicolored logo that, while not a direct ripoff of the Gmail logo, is certainly suggestive. But this isn't a new story.
Another report, from IDG News Service, explains that Google has been trying to get ahold of the domain since 2004:
Google has long coveted the rights to the Gmail.cn domain, first approaching ISM about the domain name and its use of the Gmail name in August 2004. Those talks broke off, and the two companies fell out of contact, an ISM spokeswoman said in 2005. At that time, Google said it was still "investigating" the matter.
Google has recently stepped up efforts to acquire sole rights to the Gmail name in Web domains since opening up the free email service to any user who wants an account. The company reportedly turned to lawsuits in several European countries to enforce its rights to Gmail domain names, arguing that the owners are infringing on its trademark. Those lawsuits have not generally proved successful.
I guess Google just hasn't named the right price. Perhaps Google should just let it go and make do with a Chinese language skin on its global Gmail.com domain for Chinese users. After all, the Chinese version of the international Google.com site remains more popular here than the local Google.cn service. There would be some inevitable brand confusion, but probably nothing catastrophic. What would be catastrophic is attempting to sue ISM for the name. For one thing, it doesn't look like Google has much of a case (although my legal opinion is not exactly schooled).
More importantly, the Chinese public tends to take a really dim view of foreign mega-corporations that sue small Chinese firms. It would torpedo Google's PR in China.
There is, of course, another option. As one waggish friend of mine pointed out, Google could use this to resurrect its Chinese brand name, Guge, which landed with something of a thud last year. If it can't have Gmail.cn, it can always launch Gugemail.cn.
 |  |
| Gmail or... | Gmail? |
- Talkback
-
Gmailuk says...
Your take on this misses a very important point: Google has no claim to any rights to the Gmail domain or trademark in any jurisdiction where a company has, through it own ingenuity, effort and investment, previously (i.e. well before 1 April 2004)established a web-based email service and called it Gmail. Yet this is exactly what Google has tried to do in the US, UK & Germany (and the rest of the EC), Switzerland, Norway, and possibly Poland. There is no doubt that there would be brand confusion - how could there not be? - and no company that makes any claim to high standards of conduct should knowingly/deliberately launch its product under a name that will confuse consumers to the detriment of its competitor. Google knows this, but also knows that it has far greater resources at its disposal to defend itself through the long and costly court battles that it is forcing companies to bring against it in several jurisdictions.
Mar 04, 2007 01:03
Your take on this misses a very important point: Google has no claim to any rights to the Gmail domain or trademark in any jurisdiction where a company has, through it own ingenuity, effort and investment, previously (i.e. well before 1 April 2004)established a web-based email service and called it Gmail. Yet this is exactly what Google has tried to do in the US, UK & Germany (and the rest of the EC), Switzerland, Norway, and possibly Poland. There is no doubt that there would be brand confusion - how could there not be? - and no company that makes any claim to high standards of conduct should knowingly/deliberately launch its product under a name that will confuse consumers to the detriment of its competitor. Google knows this, but also knows that it has far greater resources at its disposal to defend itself through the long and costly court battles that it is forcing companies to bring against it in several jurisdictions.
Mar 04, 2007 01:03
BluRay says...
The domain gmail.com was created on Aug 12, 1995 by the people at garfield.com (the Fat Lasagna loving cat) to be used as a free global e-mail service called GMail (Garfield Mail) similar to what hotmail was offering.
web.archive.org...
The internet archive shows what their webpage looked like in 1998 and you can see that G-Mail is present. (E-Mail with Cattitude)
The garfield people simply never thought about trademarking the name but they did register the domain and they actively issued free GMail email accounts to anybody who registered for it. Google approached the people at garfield and purchased the domain from them in 2004 thereby transferring garfield's rights to the name going back to 1995. With the exception of the german man's trademark which was applied for in 2000 in Germany only, all the other trademark applications for GMail by people where filed for after Google announce the launch of their service which is why google refers to them as opportunist.
Someone in another group put this situation best: "Google sought out the earliest use, and paid the user in good faith. A nicety that those that now would like to portray themselves as 'victims' did not bother to observe."
Mar 04, 2007 02:52
The domain gmail.com was created on Aug 12, 1995 by the people at garfield.com (the Fat Lasagna loving cat) to be used as a free global e-mail service called GMail (Garfield Mail) similar to what hotmail was offering.
web.archive.org...
The internet archive shows what their webpage looked like in 1998 and you can see that G-Mail is present. (E-Mail with Cattitude)
The garfield people simply never thought about trademarking the name but they did register the domain and they actively issued free GMail email accounts to anybody who registered for it. Google approached the people at garfield and purchased the domain from them in 2004 thereby transferring garfield's rights to the name going back to 1995. With the exception of the german man's trademark which was applied for in 2000 in Germany only, all the other trademark applications for GMail by people where filed for after Google announce the launch of their service which is why google refers to them as opportunist.
Someone in another group put this situation best: "Google sought out the earliest use, and paid the user in good faith. A nicety that those that now would like to portray themselves as 'victims' did not bother to observe."
Mar 04, 2007 02:52
Gmailuk says...
Blueray misses some key points. First, trademark protection exists in common law; it exists by virtue of conduct, if you like. This means that if you commercially launch a product called Gmail, you have certain rights. This seems morally right to most people, too.
The product launched by the UK firm, for example, was launched in 2002 (a full two years ahead of Google's bright idea), hence enjoys those rights. Google know this: it is what led them recently to purchase the trademark rights of Precision Research, a CA-based company which had launched a product called Gmail even earlier (1999).
Registration of a trademark is very largely for the purpose of prefection of rights, not the creation of rights, and makes defence of those rights simpler. Again Google knows this and is very cynical in describing the other firms as "opportunist"for registering their rights. The fact remains: some half a dozen firms around the world launched web-based products called Gmail well ahead of Google. It is only those firms who sought to launch products after April 1 2004, when Google announced theirs, that might rightly be labelled as opportunist. For Google to make this statement about those with pre-existing products is quite possibly defamatory.
Blueray correctly notes that the German application for the Gmail trademark legitimately pre-dates that of Google. Regrettably that inconvenient fact has not stopped Google from using the trademark in Germany and forcing its owner to the expense of obtaining an injunction through the German courts. Google lost at first instance, and took the case to appeal where Google again lost and finally abided by the German Court's ruling. The same issue has come before OHIM, the EC trademark authority, and Google has again lost. Google's spokesman, astoundingly, reacted by stating that the ruling would have no impact at all on Google's use of the trademark throughout the EC.
Viewed alongside Google's defeat in Belgium and (if I recall correctly) France in the copyright cases related to news scraping; its willingness to engage with the copyright infringements that pervade YouTube; its fracas with authors associations in its venture to scan their publications - all taken together it seems that Google's fortunes lie increasingly at the shady margins of what can be considered legitimate and defensible in terms of intellectual property.
Mar 04, 2007 04:00
Blueray misses some key points. First, trademark protection exists in common law; it exists by virtue of conduct, if you like. This means that if you commercially launch a product called Gmail, you have certain rights. This seems morally right to most people, too.
The product launched by the UK firm, for example, was launched in 2002 (a full two years ahead of Google's bright idea), hence enjoys those rights. Google know this: it is what led them recently to purchase the trademark rights of Precision Research, a CA-based company which had launched a product called Gmail even earlier (1999).
Registration of a trademark is very largely for the purpose of prefection of rights, not the creation of rights, and makes defence of those rights simpler. Again Google knows this and is very cynical in describing the other firms as "opportunist"for registering their rights. The fact remains: some half a dozen firms around the world launched web-based products called Gmail well ahead of Google. It is only those firms who sought to launch products after April 1 2004, when Google announced theirs, that might rightly be labelled as opportunist. For Google to make this statement about those with pre-existing products is quite possibly defamatory.
Blueray correctly notes that the German application for the Gmail trademark legitimately pre-dates that of Google. Regrettably that inconvenient fact has not stopped Google from using the trademark in Germany and forcing its owner to the expense of obtaining an injunction through the German courts. Google lost at first instance, and took the case to appeal where Google again lost and finally abided by the German Court's ruling. The same issue has come before OHIM, the EC trademark authority, and Google has again lost. Google's spokesman, astoundingly, reacted by stating that the ruling would have no impact at all on Google's use of the trademark throughout the EC.
Viewed alongside Google's defeat in Belgium and (if I recall correctly) France in the copyright cases related to news scraping; its willingness to engage with the copyright infringements that pervade YouTube; its fracas with authors associations in its venture to scan their publications - all taken together it seems that Google's fortunes lie increasingly at the shady margins of what can be considered legitimate and defensible in terms of intellectual property.
Mar 04, 2007 04:00
To post comments, you need to become a member. It's FREE.
Sponsored links
Introducing the new LG W53 Smart Monitor
Find out how its 4 intelligent features can minimize eye strain here
Welcome to a new era for Samsung Mobile
Discover overwhelming power and performance of the new Samsung JET now
Shopping for a LG HDTV?
Get tips on getting the right one here
CNET Asia is now on Facebook!
Be part of the most happening tech community in Asia on Facebook
CNET Asia TV
Watch gadget reviews, quick tips, movie trailers and more for FREE.
Business professionals average salaries
Contribute your profile and drive our salary charts - activeBizPros
January
