Saturday, March 22, 2008
Essentially Google's mark is considered to be too similar to an earlier German trademark.
"The services of the earlier mark, amongst others, are, telecommunications, particularly
services in and for electronic communication networks, like Internet or World Wide
Web, electronic mail service, dissemination of information.
The services of the contested mark are, telecommunications; communications by
computer terminals; message sending; electronic mail services.
The contested services are identical to those of the earlier right or indeed included
within the broader terms of the earlier right’s specification since they are all
The earlier figurative mark is protected in Germany. Therefore, it is the impression that
the signs make on the German public and their meaning and pronunciation in the
German language which are relevant for their comparison.
Likelihood of confusion in only one part of the Community is sufficient as a relative
ground for the rejection of the application in issue...
The Office is of the opinion that the high degree of
similarity between the marks leaves little room for small differences to be observed by
the general public. Moreover, the general public is used to companies using variations
of trade marks so they will see the contested application as a simple version of the
earlier right and believe they come from the same undertaking.
As has been discussed, the dominant elements of both marks are identical and
furthermore they are the first words to which attention is drawn. The fact that that
earlier right has additional wording is irrelevant since the relevant consumer would see
this as emphasising the “GMAIL” services due to its promotional qualities which highlight
the speed of the services concerned.
Therefore, when taking into account that the services in comparison are identical, the
Office concludes that there is a strong likelihood of confusion given the strong visual
and phonetic similarity between the marks in dispute.
Therefore, the contested CTM application is to be rejected in full due to its similarity to
the earlier German trade mark registration."
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
"The Foundation for Information Policy Research (FIPR) has today released the text of an open letter to Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner (IC) on the legality of Phorm Inc's proposal to provide targeted advertising by snooping on Internet users' web browsing.
The controversial Phorm system is to be deployed by three of Britain's largest ISPs, BT, Talk Talk and Virgin Media. However, in FIPR's view the system will be processing data illegally:
- It will involve the processing of sensitive personal data: political opinions, sexual proclivities, religious views, and health -- but it will not be operated by all of the ISPs on an "opt-in" basis, as is required by European Data Protection Law.
- Despite the attempts at anonymisation within the system, some people will remain identifiable because of the nature of their searches and the sites they choose to visit.
- The system will inevitably be looking at the content of some people's email, into chat rooms and at social networking activity. Although well-known sites are said to be excluded, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of other low volume or semi-private systems.
More significantly, the Phorm system will be "intercepting" traffic within the meaning of s1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). In order for this to be lawful then permission is needed from not only the person making the web request BUT ALSO from the operator of the web site involved (and if it is a web-mail system, the sender of the email as well).
FIPR believes that although in some cases this permission can be assumed, in many other cases, it is explicitly NOT given -- making the Phorm system illegal to operate in the UK:
- Many websites require registration, and only make their contents available to specific people.
- Many websites or particular pages within a website are part of the "unconnected web" -- their existence is only made known to a small number of trusted people.
The full text of the open letter can be viewed at:
Said Nicholas Bohm, General Counsel, FIPR:
"The need for both parties to consent to interception in order for it to be lawful is an extremely basic principle within the legislation, and it cannot be lightly ignored or treated as a technicality. Even when the police are investigating as serious a crime as kidnapping, for example, and need to listen in to conversations between a family and the criminals, they must first obtain an authorisation under the relevant Act of Parliament: the consent of the family is not by itself sufficient to make their monitoring lawful."
Said Richard Clayton, Treasurer, FIPR:
"The Phorm system is highly intrusive -- it's like the Post Office opening all my letters to see what I'm interested in, merely so that I can be sent a better class of junk mail. Not surprisingly, when you look closely, this activity turns out to be illegal. We hope that the Information Commissioner will take careful note of our analysis when he expresses his opinion upon the scheme.""Update: BBC report on same.