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
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."
i sure hope google wins
Google probably will not lose this time but if pubmed sue them they will lose.
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.
ah well.
In any case there wouldn't be any confusion; if they have a loyal enough consumer base (as they say they do
"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.
Last time I checked, Scholar wasn't a trademarked word...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Scholar
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.
So decrees
Da Judge
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
I am almost certain, google will do a much better job of indexing papers (and also the citations) than ACS. They should join hands.
Last edited by 85930 on 17 Dec 2004 - 06:52
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.