A Nigerian entrepreneur has launched a blistering lawsuit against American tech companies Google and GoDaddy over trademark rights relating to Youtube, and is asking for $150 million.
Chianugo Peter is asking a court in the federal capital, Abuja, to defend his ownership of an internet domain name YoutubeAudio, which he registered with GoDaddy and created an app for on Google’s Playstore.
Google owns Youtube and is arguing that YoutubeAudio infringes on its trademark rights.
Why this is important
The case raises questions about trademark rights and corporate responsibility in the digital age, and is being closely watched by tech analysts and experts.
The matter is expected to examine trademark protection and its boundaries with descriptive name usage, and should answer questions like whether domain registrants should allow registration of names similar to existing trademarks without clear warnings. It should also examine the power and responsibility of large tech companies to unilaterally take action against smaller businesses on their platforms.
YoutubeAudio or Youtube?
Mr Peter sued GoDaddy LLC and Google LLC as 1st and 2nd defendants for shutting down his channels after eight years of promotional and marketing work.
Google, in its defence, said that Mr Peter did not own the YouTube trademark nor did he have a bona fide claim to use or register any mark that incorporates or is similar to the trademark.
According to the company, the plaintiff was aware of his lack of bona fide claim because he approached it before he commenced operation “and acknowledged Google’s rights.
But in his response filed Feb. 8, Mr Peter argued that “though it is a common knowledge that Google owns the YouTube trademark”, his YouTubeAudio.com domain and business name is different and distinct from YouTube.
According to him, the followers and users of YouTubeAudio.com know that it is different and distinct from YouTube and it is not calculated to deceive them.
He said GoDaddy and Google, as well as the relevant Nigerian authorities, acknowledged that his YouTubeAudio.com domain and business name is different and distinct from the YouTube trademark.
He said he lawfully purchased and acquired YouTubeAudio.com domain name from GoDaddy without any caveat or objection that the domain name is similar or infringes the YouTube trademark.
He later registered the name as a business name with the Corporate Affairs Commission after a compulsory search, also without objections. The same was done with the Trademark, Patents and Designs Registry, Commercial Law Department, Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade And Investment, which registered the name and its logo under Class 16.
“And after the compulsory search, the Trademark Registry accepted the same for publication without any caveat that it is similar or infringes the YouTube trademark or any of the 2nd Defendant’s trademarks,” he told the court in a written statement.
“The 2nd defendant only has exclusive right over its trademarks registered in Classes 9, 41, 38, 35, 42 as listed in Paragraphs 9.1 to 9.8 of its Statement of Defence.
“None of the 2nd defendant’s trademarks is registered in Class 16 where YouTubeAudio.com trademark and logo is accepted for registration before the Trademark Registry.”
Mr Peter said in 2021, Google agreed to host YouTubeAudio.com app as “YTAudio” and its website youtubeaudio.com on Google Playstore.
“And the 2nd defendant duly approved the name and the website and hosted the same on its Google Playstore without any caveat or objection that it is similar or infringes the YouTube trademark or any of the 2nd defendant’s trademarks until 25th December 2023 when it unilaterally removed the plaintiff’s application on its Google Playstore in reaction to the plaintiff commencing this suit,” he said.
He said Google also approved and registered YouTubeAudio.com on its Google AdSense programme without a warning or objection that it infringed its trademark.
“Unmeritorious and unworthy”
Google, in its statement of defence dated Nov. 9, 2023 filed by its lawyer, Mark Mordi, had urged the court to dismiss Mr Peter’s suit “unmeritorious and unworthy.”
When the case resumed on Monday, Mr Peter, through is lawyer, Emmanuel Ekpenyong, told Justice Obiora Egwuatu the case had merit and was not frivolous.
GoDaddy.Com LLC has not been represented in court, neither has it filed any application since the commencement of the case.
The judge adjourned the case to April 18.
Discover more from Pluboard
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.