December 27, 2007 11:47 AM PST

Chinese court dismisses trademark suit against Google

Posted by Elinor Mills

A court in China has dismissed a trademark lawsuit filed against Google, according to a report on ChinaCourt.org that was translated into English and posted on Pacific Epoch.

A Beijing company called Gu Ge Technology sued Google China earlier this year, claiming that its Chinese name, "Gu Ge" was confusingly similar to its own name.

However, the Haidian People's Court in Beijing threw the suit out because Google China began using the name April 12, 2006, seven days before the other company registered its name.

Topics:: Search,; Google

Tags:: Google,; trademark,; China

Bookmark:: Digg; Del.icio.us; Reddit

Recent posts from News Blog: Yahoo tries to conceal lawsuit documents; HP to launch fall line of teen PC products; Hooray! Yahoo Mail ditches tagline ads; Conde Nast buys Ars Technica; Sugar Labs will make OLPC interface available for Eee PC, others

Add a Comment (Log in or register) 2 comments (Page 1 of 1)

Don't celebrate too quickly, Google
by George Riddick December 27, 2007 1:56 PM PST: Google got lucky on this one, Elinor. But I wouldn't want to be in their shoes as we enter 2008. Not after some of the copyright news we all saw in Decemeber. Here is a related article I published earlier today. A December to Remember ... a huge thank you from the copyright industries! Is anyone watching this other than me? I have a vested interest, so I have to pay close attention to this sort of thing. My livelihood depends on these copyright issues. But you should pay attention, too. I'll tell you why. If what I have been saying for eight months now turns out to be true, hundreds of millions of Internet users around the world will be impacted. And that includes you, too, if you're reading this post online. And the impact will be positive, particularly if we can continue with the momentum that led up to several major copyright-related news events this December. What a great way to close out the year! You see, back in April, we noticed something strange and unusual impacting our market (electronic graphic arts content - clip art illustrations, design templates, logos/emblems, cartoons, and animations). There was a sudden huge leap in digital piracy activity ... both in the U.S. and abroad. We began an extensive research study that continues on today. They results are disturbing. There is no end to this infringement epidemic in sight. In a nutshell, here is what has caused much of this "surge". Google. And Google's worldwide domination of the search engine business, which Google cleverly used to leverage its entry into "image search", and then "universal search", earlier in 2007. Image search facilitates widespread copyright infringement. Image search engine companies pay willful copyright infringement web site operators to run businesses that are, for the most part, totally illegal. It's that pure and simple. This activity violates our current copyright laws. It is both illegal and unethical. And it should not be allowed to continue without severe consequences. Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating the elimination of this valuable image search technology or service. I am only suggesting that it can be implemented fairly and lawfully with only minor changes on the part of those who control everything we do on the Internet. And you already know who they are. Read on. Yahoo, number 2 worldwide in search, simply cloned Google and implemented its "we're going to follow them and eventually overtake them" market strategy. Poor Yahoo. With their early lead in display advertising, they could have made the switch to lawful implementation of image search in the shortest amount of time. They didn't. Haven't they acted like an industry "also ran" candidate for the past year or so, when so many of their online services remain industry leaders, even as we speak. They are simple running afraid of Google. Wall Street has noticed. Who hasn't? Surely, Microsoft wouldn't be intimidated by Google, now would they? Read my lips, folks. Things have changed in Redmond. I know. I have been dealing with Microsoft since the mid 80s, and even before that when I was with IBM. If there was ever a company who could have implemented changes in their image search capabilities, with litle downside, and played a hero's role in their market, as well as capture significant market share both here in the U.S. and abroad, it was Microsoft in the summer and fall of 2007. They chose not to. You tell me why. But don't try to tell me they didn't understand the magnitude of the problem. Microsoft was changing their image search features and functions this year anyway to get in better sync with Vista, and try to get a leg up on Google in the new display advertsing arena. So what did they decide to do? You guessed it. Clone Google's image search capabilities and take their chances that the copyright gods might frown upon them somewhere down the road. How do I know this? It's simple. I communicated with senior executives/attorneys at Microsoft beginning in May of this past year. I explained to them the results of our initial market research. I provided them information about Google that they asked for. I demonstrated to them the extent of the copyright infringement activity that was going on via the image search engine companies in this country and abroad. Yes, we're talking huge companies, like Baidu in China, Yandex in Russia, Daum in Korea, and Alibaba/Yahoo in Japan ... let alone those in Europe and South America. Microsoft indicated to me that they were comfortable with the legal "precedent" set by the Perfect 10 case in California in early 2007 and they would not be changing their search engine capabilities anytime in the near future. Microsoft did indicate, however, that they were VERY concerned that Google had coerced several small "Warez" companies, independent web site publishers, to use terms like "freeware", "warez", "free software", "OEM versions", and "straight from the manufacturer" in the advertising they ran for their software with Google on AdWords and AdSense. According to Microsoft, sales people with Google encouraged these mis-representations by their web site partners. Can anyone hear the word "hypocrisy" in the background as I speak about Microsoft? Think about it. Since when has it been "legal" for a company to support the trafficking of illegal goods and services in this country? When did the folks up in Washington pass the new laws that allowed only the billionaires at Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL, and a few select others, to traffic and profit from illegal goods promoted and sold over their networks. Does television work that way? No. How about radio? No. Telephones? No. These industries are either self-regulated or are kept a close eye on by specific federal agencies charged with that task. The FDC, The FBI, the ITC, the Postal Service, the DOJ, Homeland Security, and others. Any judge who believes that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 included/includes provisions that allows an Internet technology company to profit from sponsoring willful copyright infringement they are aware of over the Internet, and tehr network, should not be allowed to judge this kind of complex technology case in my opinion. What do you think? And lawyers who take this position for their employers and clients should be held accountable via santions and other severe consequences, as well. Ambiguity in the wording of a law does not, and should not, open the doors of dishonesty and continued corruption. If it did, we would all be in big trouble, and I'd be the frist to recommend we all throw in the towel. December has given me some reasons to be more optimistic, however. This has been a "December to Remember for me. The fgood news has come from places yoiu would never exoect to be advocates for this cause. But here they are. It is shameful, in my opinion, that we needed to wait for our own Federal Government, a few states that are on the ball, and the Chinese to bring some of vitally these important copyright issues front and center. But, we can all be thankful they did ... before even more billions of dollars of damages take place. And those most damaged by al of this are the hard working individuals and small businesses that develop copyrightable material and convert their works to digital form, and the hundreds of millions of innocent Internet users who download these materials not knowing that their actions violate the copyright laws (often both civil and criminal) of both the U.S. and hundreds of other countries around the world, as well. Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo know this. You can bet your bottom dollar of that. They are the ones who are pocketing all of the money (tens of billions of dollars every year and growing rapidly) generated by these unlawful transactions. They do so by sponsoring the known "Pirate web site publishers" through subsidizing their illegal activities with advertising. There are ten of thousands of these rogue publishers. The huge Internet companies know who most of them are and do not do a thing to stop their infringement activities. They seel advbertsing to them. They are their "partners" in crime. The vast majority of these pirate web sites would not exist at all if it weren't for the subsidizes they are paid by the giant search engine companies and their advertisers. But someone finally listened in December ... thank goodness! 1. On December 17, 2007, it was announced that Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo agreed to pay a combined $31,500,000.00 to the government for their role in selling advertising on web sites that promoted illegal gambling here in the U.S. Supporting copyright infringement is even more damaging. Far more. 2. A class action civil lawsuit, involving these same defendants and others, is underway in Seattle (early hearing scheduled for February 2008), and claims that the amount paid to the government is but a small fraction of the billions of dollars of damages caused by this willful activity on the part of these giant U.S. based technology companies. The attorneys presenting the plaintiffs in this case are VERY experienced in this sort of matter. 3. In December 2007, an Appeals Court in China found Yahoo China guilty of willful copyright infringement by "facilitating" the widespread unlawful downloading of copyright songs and music in China. This ruling reversed an earlier ruling that supported Chinese search engine leader, Baidu. China's laws have recently been upgraded to prevent this sort of "sponsoring" activity, which, as we all know, encourages ongoing infringement. 4. There are dozens of high profile civil lawsuits either already on the dockets, or soon to be there, in federal circuits all around the Untied States, that address these same type issues. Who do you think will ultimately win? The technology people, with their hoards of fancy defense lawyers, rocket scientists, and investment bankers, who currently have all of this money ... or the hundreds of millions of developers and citizens in this country, and in countries that support copyright protection, and who believe in honesty and fair play? 5. In December of 2007, the Congress of the United States held hearings in Washington as a precursor to the passing of a new copyright enforcement act, called the PRO IP bill. It gives the government, as well as private citizens and small businesses, the tools they need to hold those huge willful copyright infringement companies accountable once and for all. It will also allow us to address the wide scale infringement and counterfeiting of our properties throughout he world with tougher trade sanctions and enforcement requirements tied to trade agreements. Pirates beware! This has been a great end to a year of serious debate and some controversy pertaining to copyrights. The good guys are going to win, however. It is just a matter of time. Those who support willful copyright infringement activities, regardless of how many lawyers they have on their payrolls, will be identified and will be punished. It sure would be nice to see one of the giant Internet companies based in this country stand tall for the protection of its customers and suppliers ... let alone its unsuspecting shareholders. It would be so easy for one or more of these companies to take the high ground for a change. Please let them know how you feel about this subject. The creative industries that have contributed to the prosperity in the country for well over 200 years need all the help we can get ... and we need it now. I hope 2008 is a great year for all of us who use the Internet to enhance our lives. Thanks for listening. George P. Riddick, III Chairman/CEO Imageline, Inc. griddick@imageline2.com; Reply to this comment