main

Google Sued Over 'Scholar'

Xen   on 14 December 2004 - 16:37 · 32 comments & 1590 views

Advertisement (Why?)
The American Chemical Society has fired off a lawsuit against Google Inc., accusing the Web search powerhouse of "trademark infringement and unfair competition" with its Google Scholar search beta.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, accuses Google of violating the Society's trademarks used in a similar search tool called SciFinder Scholar. According to the scientific society's complaint, the SciFinder Scholar search tool is used by more than 100,000 scientists, researchers, students and professors nationwide. By launching a similar tool with the same name, the suit alleges that Google is likely to cause "confusion, mistake and deception" in the market.

"They've chosen to use a name that is creating confusion in the marketplace. Our product is known colloquially as 'Scholar' and they've chosen to use the same name. We've very concerned about losing the goodwill we've developed over the last six years," ACS general counsel Flint Lewis told eWEEK.com. Google spokesperson Steve Langdon dismissed the ACS complaint. "We are confident in the use of our name Google Scholar," Langdon said. "This lawsuit is without merit."

View: Full Article
News source: Eweek


Cont...

Mobile games based on Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, and Iron-Man will be co-published with Activision, which previously optioned the rights to those properties for console games. The two publishers are planning to cross-market their mobile games with the console and film offerings.

Other important properties covered by the agreement include Blade, the Incredible Hulk, Ghost Rider, Captain America, Daredevil, and Elektra. Excluded from the deal are the rights to the Punisher franchise, which are controlled by THQ, as well as any IP associated with the Spider-Man 2 movie, which belongs to Sony Pictures Entertainment.

The current content roadmap calls for the release of mobile products associated with the movie Blade Trinity starting today. Other suites of content to follow next year will include Elektra in January, 2005, Fantastic Four in Summer, 2005, and Incredible Hulk and Ultimate Spider-Man later in 2005. Each of these content blocks will be timed to capitalize on the release of its corresponding Hollywood blockbuster, and/or its major video game release from Activision.

In a departure from normal mobile entertainment distribution strategies, Mforma is planning to group all of its products associated with a single Marvel brand into a discreet 'channel,' which can be tailored to a particular carrier's needs. During a recent interview with GameSpot, Matt Edelman, Mforma's Senior Vice President of Publishing, said consumers are most interested in their favorite brands in their entirety--so it makes much more sense to group all products related to the Fantastic Four, for instance, into a single, easy-to-access link on a carrier's deck, rather then sort them by category.

"Marvel was looking for a partner that has a global reach," said Edelman, "and Mforma can do that. Marvel really picks and chooses who they work with very carefully, and they now see mobile as an equally important part of their content strategy."

Marvel echoed Edelman's sentiment in its press release. “Mobile is a major new entertainment medium and our objective all along has been to enter this new space on a grand scale with an ambitious partner capable of putting together a holistic program across the various developing technologies and applications in the wireless space. We believe Mforma is capable of delivering on that objective and we are thrilled to be working with them,” commented Tim Rothwell, president of Marvel Worldwide Consumer Products.

Edelman also explained that the landmark agreement heralds a seismic shift in Mforma's approach to the mobile content business. "We could have gone deep into games," he said, "but instead we're moving towards a partner-based strategy."

When asked if he could discuss any other new partnerships that Mforma is currently pursuing, Edelman had no comment, other than to say that Mforma is "aggressively exploring new partnerships everywhere."

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 32 additional comments
(1 reply) #1 Rudy on 14 Dec 2004 - 16:51
that's pathetic

i sure hope google wins
#1.1 robpears on 14 Dec 2004 - 16:55
yeah it is me 2
#2 kitchenutensils on 14 Dec 2004 - 16:57
^agreed. american scientific community obviously must be low on funds so they cap a little of google... its pathetic.
#3 blu3zirux on 14 Dec 2004 - 17:03
Absolutely pathetic. I'm 100% with google.
#4 MrCobra on 14 Dec 2004 - 17:06
OMFG here we go yet again.
#5 Cyranthus on 14 Dec 2004 - 17:08
what ever happened to competition? pansies... google will win this.
#6 Klownicle on 14 Dec 2004 - 17:09
What flavor is the pie this week?
#7 krono6 on 14 Dec 2004 - 17:15
GOOGLE GOOGLE GOOGLE *runs around in a Circle*
#8 burgen on 14 Dec 2004 - 17:37
scientific literiture indexing and searching is a complicated and lengthy work. As of today most indexs are made by pubmed. If google simply takes over and copys the whole index made by others in tens of years, that is wrong. However if google started from scratch and made an index themself then it is OK, but it is probably not the case.
Google probably will not lose this time but if pubmed sue them they will lose.
#9 Divide Overflow on 14 Dec 2004 - 17:42
Isn't America great? Litigation capitol of the world! Hell yeah!

Google hasn't copied the database in question, they simply are beta testing a product with a similar name. I guess those 100,000 scientists, researchers, students and professors aren't intelligent enough to tell the difference between a tool they have been using for at least a year or more, to a seperate tool offered by Google. Hmm. . if I were a scientist, I might just be insulted.
#10 Neobond on 14 Dec 2004 - 18:09
I was just about to say 'since when is using a term like 'Scholar' illegal but then I remembered the generic term Windows.

ah well.
#11 fubarshibby on 14 Dec 2004 - 18:13
Ridiculous... I mean, think about it, you don't call Google Search just "Search," do you? No, you don't. I don't think anybody's going to be calling this Google Scholar tool just "Scholar" either.

In any case there wouldn't be any confusion; if they have a loyal enough consumer base (as they say they do ), then there shouldn't be a problem with people getting confused.
#12 C_Guy on 14 Dec 2004 - 18:58
Some cheese with that whine?

#13 trvmyr on 14 Dec 2004 - 19:43
Look at Microsoft. The have the Office Suite of products. Then there is OpenOffice, Star Office...the list goes on. Did Microsoft get all pissed off.... no. If someone has used your product(s) often then they will tend to stay with you. Unless someone offers you something better. At that point people tend to go to what's better and what's easier for them. Then in that case, you might want to put more work into your product, not b**** about another company that has a similar product with a name for it that is like your products nickname. Get real.
(3 replies) #14 Sage_Override on 14 Dec 2004 - 19:50
It's not enough that Google dominates the search engine genre with a simplistic home page that is completely user friendly to any age and anyone on the planet, but now some stupid sh*t like this? Leave Google alone you greedy money hungry pricks.
#14.1 xploit1030 on 15 Dec 2004 - 17:50
The point is it is not a similar name. It is the same name.
#14.2 Ryster092 on 16 Dec 2004 - 15:32
No it isnt....

"Google Scholar" vs "SciFinder Scholar"

Only the term describing the function (a generic term at that) is the same.
Its not Google's fault if people choose to refer to the SciFinder product as just "Scholar". They shouldnt be able to sue Google for that.
#14.3 oxonium on 17 Dec 2004 - 23:35
By that logic, Honda shouldn't be able to sue anyone that uses the name "Accord" on a car, which is utterly ridiculous. "Honda" is the brand name and "Accord" is the product name. It's the same thing here. "Google" is the brand name, and "Scholar" is the product name. "SciFinder" is the brand name, and "Scholar" is the product name. I could go on and on with examples like this that are all over the marketplace. Google did use the exact same name as a competing product.
#15 [[LuCkY]] on 14 Dec 2004 - 20:54
This is pathetic.

Last time I checked, Scholar wasn't a trademarked word...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Scholar

#16 Judge Roy Bean on 14 Dec 2004 - 21:06
I concur in that too many frog-leg bozos are sniping at the heels of the industry captains. However, sad it is to have to report it, Google is going down on this one. If you wanna see the reason why, surf here: Sting versus Michael Urvan

The main thrust: you can indeed invest rights in a common English language word. In that case, Gordon Sumner (Sting, of The Police) attempted to steal a domain name that had been in use for more than 5 years prior to his wanting it. The original registrant was a piss-ant no-name, who Sting thought he could bowl over. Short story version: Didn't happen - Urvan won, even though nobody in the public at large knew him as Sting. Read the whole thing, and I think you'll see why Google will lose.

More to the point, I see Google doing an about face. Either they'll share some of the lime-light with the ACS, or else they'll just move on to another name. And then crush the bozos at their own game. Neither side is stupid here. If anyone like me can ferret out the above case in four seconds (using Google, no less ), then their lawyers will do it, too.

So decrees


Da Judge
#17 Ivand on 14 Dec 2004 - 23:50
someone needs some cash. Let's sue google
#18 BTallack on 15 Dec 2004 - 00:37
I didn't realize that you could copyright the word Scholar.
#19 Shifty_mc on 15 Dec 2004 - 03:35
that link doesn't work...
#20 oxonium on 15 Dec 2004 - 05:46
I wouldn't blow off the ACS like you would some other companies fishing for money (*cough* SCO *cough*). The ACS is the world's largest scientific organization and they have enormous clout not just in the U.S. government but in governments around the world. They are also a nonprofit organization so saying that they are just after the money is completely off base.

The ACS has put a lot of work into the development SciFinder Scholar. I use that program on a daily basis and it is invaluable to the research community. That's not to say that Google Scholar wouldn't be valuable either. The more access to information, the better.

The ACS has a good chance of winning a case like this. As already mentioned by Neobond, "Windows" is a generic term that has a specific brand association. The same as with "Accord" and Honda or "Scotch" and 3M. Everyone I know that uses Scifinder Scholar calls it "SciFinder", not "Scholar" and I doubt any scientist would confuse Scifinder Scholar with Google Scholar. But since Scifinder Scholar and Google Scholar both target the same market (though SciFinder's is likely narrower) and the ACS has been using it for several years now, Google will probably not prevail.

Last edited by 85930 on 15 Dec 2004 - 05:57
#21 SquareSoft0 on 15 Dec 2004 - 07:51
I agree that they're in the wrong and that Google will crush them, but how did this turn into an anti-American comments section? Where do you think Google came from anyway? Grow up.
#22 russellc on 15 Dec 2004 - 08:03
what won't they sue over
#23 tiwaris on 15 Dec 2004 - 11:48
Only winners in this case will be lawyers (neither ACS nor google is going to win or loose anything from it). At max, google will be forced to use a different name (not a big deal).

I am almost certain, google will do a much better job of indexing papers (and also the citations) than ACS. They should join hands.
#24 Hills420 on 16 Dec 2004 - 03:37
total BS. Every good idea gets sued nowadays.
#25 iobilly on 16 Dec 2004 - 09:50
is it just me or are companies lining up to sue google? the bigger it gets, the more litigiations i guess, look at microsoft.
(1 reply) #26 phloid on 16 Dec 2004 - 13:48
Jez, to read over these posts you'd think Google is a sweet innocent apple-pie small business. Well they ain't - they have a bunch of cold-blooded corporate lawyers working for them just like any other major corporation. As cutting edge information brokers, they can't claim or should be embarressed to claim they didn't know about SciFind Scholar search. I'm no fan of the ability to trademark commonplace dictionary words either, BUT those are the rules of the game. Post 16 and Post 20 have it right. I bet if things were turned around and Google had got to "scholar" first, they'd be doing the same thing. What could be more free than air? Well just try naming a tennis shoe Air something and you'll think twice on that one. Hope I'm wrong, but I think we will see a time when a lot of folks wished they never heard of Google much less let them index their hard drive.
#26.1 oxonium on 16 Dec 2004 - 18:46
Exactly. I use Google pretty regularly but they are not as infallable as almost everyone here seems to make them out to be. Instead, they start ripping on a nonprofit organization trying to protect their product as if they were the bad guys. Sheesh... You can't tell me that Google and their army of lawyers didn't already know that there already is another scientific search engine called "Scholar" before they announced it. Any company worth a darn would have done a search like that beforehand to protect their property. And again, I'll point out that they stole the name frome a nonprofit organization. Google's still the best at what they do but they're no angels.

Last edited by 85930 on 17 Dec 2004 - 06:52
#27 dan0211 on 17 Dec 2004 - 22:42
I think I'll copyright the letter 'a' and sue anyone who uses it

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)