Dutch Man Vs. Google

[Dave Zan]

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/05/10/dutch-domain-owner-faces-google-legal-action_1.html

Google England plans to take legal action against a Dutch man who uses the word "google" in the domain names he has registered. Marcel Van der Werf has registered a number of domains that include the word "google," such as Googledatingsite.nl, Googleonlineshop.com, Googlecommunity.nl, and Googlestore.nl. Google contends that Van der Werf is infringing on its trademark.

Van der Werf is surprised by Google's reaction. "A brand is linked to a product, but not to the alphabet. The name used in the address bar is a way to reach a computer. It is merely an indication and not a brand," Van der Werf says.

Gotta love the 2nd paragraph.

 

[AlienGG]

Tough guy

 

[typist]

Not many seem capable of taking a fresh approach to normative reasoning these day, but this guy's definitely thinking outside the box. Looks like he has chosen the wrong audience though; I don't think courts will be impressed by novel concepts. I wonder what he's trying to accomplish.

 

[AlienGG]

he forgot there is one thing called "word mark". alphabet CAN be trademarked.

 

[Duckinla]

I wonder what he's trying to accomplish.

Well, consider if he were to win. A whole new door would open. Many people might start using "google" for things other than search (google shoes, google electronics, etc) and he would have the market cornered on some prize names...Possibly.

 

[Sarcle]

I wonder what he's trying to accomplish.

Well let's consider for a moment that the word "google" is now in the webster dictionary meaning: to search

And Google's trademark is:

Telecommunication services, namely, communications via multinational telecommunication networks; telecommunications services, namely, telecommunications access services; data transmission and reception services via telecommunication means; electronic exchange of voice, data, and graphics accessible via computer and telecommunication networks; providing multiple-user access to a global computer information network; internet cafe services, namely, providing telecommunications connections to the internet in a cafe environment; providing online bulletin boards for transmission of messages among users in the field of general interest; providing online discussion groups for transmission of messages among users in the field of general interest; electronic mail services; workgroup communications services over computer networks; instant messaging services; voice over ip services; communications by computer terminals; wireless broadband communication services; mobile phone communication services.

There isn't anything in that trademark that specifies an "online store" or "store" or "dating"

So by definition his domains depending on how they are used; and not using Google's famous Logo; could mean.

googleonlineshop.com = to search online shop, or to search for online shops
googledating.nl = to search for dates, to search for dating sites.

I could see this opening a door with the right lawyer. But then I'm not a lawyer so I may just be dreaming.

 

[AlienGG]

Search is the main line of business that Google provides.
It becomes competing.

 

[MobileDesigner]

dont you think that just the word by itself should be trademarked and "not" trademark word + additional alphabets?

Example:

yes.com is trademarked but "yesterday" is not.

its as if someone were to trademark "A" then that person can trademark any word with "A" in it. It is an extreme example, but where do we draw the line on this!? :?:

Im for the Dutch Man. Big companies just cant play fair. They take all of the sand in the sandbox at the playground. :upset:

 

[mudi]

very interesting, lets see what happens!

 

[typist]

Big companies just cant play fair. They take all of the sand in the sandbox at the playground. :upset:

true.

 

[Dave Zan]

but where do we draw the line on this!? :?:

Imagine you have a unique brand (redundant, I know) called MobylDezyner to
sell electronics. One day you saw someone has registered MobylDezynerDating
com and put up an online dating site showing google ads.

What are the chances that people who see MobylDezynerDating will think you
are running that site when you're not? Would you appreciate someone making
money off your hard-earned brand without your knowledge and consent?

I don't know how it's treated in Europe. But in the US, there's what is called
"dilution".

As always, it depends on what side of the fence you choose to be on.

 

[typist]

Would you appreciate someone making
money off your hard-earned brand without your knowledge and consent?

Dave, with all due respect, your appreciation (or dislike) of others making money off your hard-earned brand is hardly a rationale for a law.

Quite contrarily, the policy rationale for intellectual property laws is to encourage innovation and the disclosure of knowledge into the public domain for the common good.

This is achieved by granting authors/inventors exclusive rights to exploit their works for a limited period (in the case of patents and copyright).

Clearly limited intellectual property protection, to stimulate innovation, is needed for the public good. Creeping intellectual protectionism to serve particular interests is not.

Here's an article addressing this topic: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=582602

 

[bensd]

Tough guy

or Stupid?

 

[Sarcle]

Big companies just cant play fair. They take all of the sand in the sandbox at the playground. :upset:

That's the truth. Google lost my respect with "do no evil" when they went after that Chinese firm for Gmail.cn. They registered this domain 8 months before the announcement or opening of Gmail. Google clearly have no rights to this just because of the letter "G"

Search is the main line of business that Google provides.

Yes, but now it is a dictionary word. And by this definition according to Webster's dictionary doesn't necessarily mean "to search from google." It just means "to search online"

 

[jberryhill]

This is achieved by granting authors/inventors exclusive rights to exploit their works for a limited period (in the case of patents and copyright).

Clearly limited intellectual property protection, to stimulate innovation, is needed for the public good. Creeping intellectual protectionism to serve particular interests is not.

Trademark law does not arise under the patent and copyright clause of the US Constitution.

Federal trademark law arises under the commerce clause. Trademark law arises under common law.

The notion that trademark protection contributes to the disclosure of knowledge (as opposed to copyrights and patents) is facially silly.

The public purpose of providing copyright and patent protection is to encourage authors and inventors to make their writings and discoveries public, so that society will benefit. By using these protections, they may retain valuable rights while making them public.

The public purpose served by trademark law is to avoid consumer confusion as to the source or origin of goods. A trade or service mark is something that is already used in public such at that it identifies the goods or services in the marketplace.

Yes, but now it is a dictionary word. And by this definition according to Webster's dictionary doesn't necessarily mean "to search from google." It just means "to search online"

This is funny in several ways. As tempted as I am to ask just whom you believe the author of Webster's dictionary to be, suffice it to say that dictionary publishers are not the arbiters of what is or is not a trademark.

I believe if I told you that I was going to print out this coment and Xerox it, then you'd understand that I was going to make a photocopy whether I used a Xerox brand copier or not.

Or if I laughed so hard I needed a Kleenex to wipe away the tears, you'd know I was using a tissue.

Regardless of whether people tend to use some trademarks like Xerox, Kleenex, Band-Aid, and a few others, and regardless of the fact that dictionaries can be prescriptive or descriptive in viewpoint, these are well-protected brands. Their use as a reference to the category of product is more a reflection of their commercial success than it is a symptom that they have become generic.

 

[typist]

he notion that trademark protection contributes to the disclosure of knowledge (as opposed to copyrights and patents) is facially silly.

Your're right. I was referring to "intellectual property", I should have specified "patents and copyrights", just as I did when I mentioned the "limited period".

The public purpose served by trademark law is to avoid consumer confusion as to the source or origin of goods.

Right, but the common public policy rationale for all intellectual property protection imho can still apply to trademarks as well: tradmark protection encourages investment (and facilitates creation of desirable products and services); ..."helps assure a producer that it (and not an imitating competitor) will reap the financial, reputation-related rewards associated with a desirable product (Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.).

Of course, the purpose of preventing consumer confusion makes things more complicated for trademark law. It's always hard to achieve several ends at once with one single instrument.

That being said, my background is in economics, not law (and definitely not U.S. law). I tend to find laws a messy affair.

Maybe this is why I like the economics-inspired analysis of Mark A. Lemley which I mentioned above ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=582602 ). From a public good perspective, freeriding isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Apart from the bigger picture, there are other interesting insights in this article as well:

“Intellectual property” is an appealing term for a variety of reasons. It is sexy: practitioners in the field will tell you that their stock at cocktail parties went up immeasurably when they began to tell people they “did intellectual property” rather than that they were “patent lawyers.”

 

[Duckinla]

Guys, how can you be against Google on an issue like this? If he were to win, companies would have absolutely no way of protecting the integrity of their brand. Other opportunists would actually take control of the word "google", and through their actions, determime what that brand means in a consumers mind. The concept of brands would no longer exist if he were to win this case.

This is why I worry about this "right to vote" thing we have in the US.

 

[jberryhill]

That being said, my background is in economics, not law. I tend to find laws a messy affair.

There's nothing messy about this situation. Some idiot registered a mess of Google names, and thinks he had a right to do so. There is nothing in economics or law that suggests he had any reason to register these names other than to attract attention to himself based upon the reputation of a spectacularly well-known trademark.

It seems pretty clear.

 

[typist]

I agree. I was digressing.

(my digression being that if one could create value through "freeriding" without harming others, and that is potentially possible with "intellectual property", an economic analysis may suggest it should be done. The discussion for trademarks is more complicated than for eg. patents though)

 

[Duckinla]

Consider this professional opinion regarding branding: "Every time you spread your brand, you diminish it". Meaning that when "coke" means "coke and diet coke", it is not as strong in the consumers mind as when it just mean "coke". Now, consider giving opportunists the power to spread and therefor dimish your brand beyond your own control. It will be valueless in a matter of years.