A young German entrepreneur won a legal battle Thursday against Internet behemoth Google on the use of its "Gmail" brand for free electronic mail service.

The regional court in the northern city of Hamburg ruled that Google may not use the name in Germany, upholding 33-year-old businessman Daniel Giersch's claim to have a copyright on the name for an e-mail service he has been developing for seven years.

Giersch says he has used the name "G-Mail" since 2000, four years before the US giant launched its "Gmail" product.

Eble said Google had subjected his client to a costly three-year legal marathon that is still ongoing because the company has suits pending against him in Spain, Portugal and Switzerland.

Giersch denied speculation he was trying to extort a princely sum from the company for the brand name.

"Neither G-Mail nor I can be bought," Giersch said in a statement.

Google could not immediately be reached for comment

The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles is the rightful owner of the buildings and other property of a conservative La Crescenta congregation that broke away from the diocese last year, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday.

The decision by Judge John Shepard Wiley Jr. against St. Luke's of the Mountains came more than a week after an appeals court panel in Orange County ruled in favor of the six-county Los Angeles Diocese in a similar property dispute with three other parishes.

The judge said Tuesday that he could not ignore the higher court's extensive June 25 ruling on comparable issues, but said he expected an appeal in the St. Luke's dispute as well.

"This case is far from over, but it's over in this court," he said.

In February 2006, a majority of St. Luke's congregants voted to pull out of the diocese and the 2.3-million-member Episcopal Church because of differences over biblical authority and interpretation, including the Episcopal Church's 2003 decision to consecrate an openly gay priest as bishop of New Hampshire.

The other dissident congregations — St. James Church in Newport Beach, All Saints Church in Long Beach and St. David's Church in North Hollywood — broke away in August 2004 over largely the same issues. Each has placed itself under the authority of a conservative Anglican bishop in Uganda.

The diocese sued, arguing that the congregations held their buildings and other property in trust for the diocese and the Episcopal Church as a whole. An Orange County trial judge, in separate decisions, had ruled in favor of the three parishes.

But a three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana overturned those opinions last week.

In Tuesday's hearing, Wiley said that before the appellate court's detailed, 77-page ruling, he had been leaning toward a decision for St. Luke's. But after the appellate ruling, he was obliged to defer to the higher court and its analysis of church property precedents in California and elsewhere, he said.

Outside the courtroom, officials and attorneys for St. Luke's said they were disappointed by the judge's decision, but not surprised.

"This doesn't change our decision to withdraw from the diocese and the Episcopal Church, and to uphold the decisions of the wider Anglican Communion," said the Rev. Ronald W. Jackson, the church's rector. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the 77-million-member worldwide Anglican Communion.

Jackson said he continued to believe that the St. Luke's property was owned by the congregation itself, not the diocese.

"We're a vibrant, growing congregation and we're going to continue the ministry that Christ has called us to," he said.

Eric Sohlgren, lead attorney for St. Luke's and the other dissident local parishes, said St. Luke's officials were expected to quickly decide whether to appeal. Sohlgren repeated his view that the appellate ruling was contrary to three decades of legal precedent in California and that it probably would be overturned.

But the Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, bishop of the Los Angeles Diocese, said he was happy with Tuesday's decision and eager to reconcile with St. Luke's parishioners and leaders, many of whom he has known for years.

"We want to sit down with them, to understand their pain, have them understand ours and come back together," Bruno said.

The Southern California parishes are among about four dozen congregations that have seceded from the Episcopal Church since the consecration of the gay bishop in 2003. Many of those are in similar legal struggles over church property.

Three men have admitted using the internet to urge Muslims to wage holy war on non-believers, police said, in what is believed to the first prosecution of its kind in Britain.

Tariq Al-Daour, Younes Tsouli and Waseem Mughal had close links with Al-Qaeda in Iraq and thought there was a 'global conspiracy' to wipe out Islam, London's Woolwich Crown Court was told.

UAE-born Al-Daour, 21, admitted a charge of 'inciting another person to commit an act of terrorism wholly or partly outside the UK which would, if committed in England and Wales, constitute murder'.

Moroccan-born Tsouli, 23, and British-born Mughal, 24, admitted the same charge on Monday.

The guilty pleas came two months into their trial.

Al-Daour and Tsouli, who lived in west London, and Mughal, from Kent, in southeast England, also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud banks, credit card and charge card companies.

The trial was told the computer experts spent at least 12 months trying to encourage people to follow the extreme ideology of Osama bin Laden using email and radical websites.

Films of hostages and beheadings were found among their possessions, including footage of British contractor Ken Bigley, who was killed in Iraq in 2004; and US journalist Daniel Pearl, killed in Pakistan in 2002.

CDs containing instructions for making explosives and poisons were also found, with other documents giving advice on how to use a rocket-propelled grenade and how to make booby traps and a suicide vest.

Police also discovered online conversations in which Al-Dour talked of sponsoring terrorist attacks, becoming 'the new Osama' and justifying suicide bombings.

The Moscow Arbitration Court heard opening arguments today regarding the Russian Federation's $22.5 billion claim against The Bank of New York, Inc., now the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation , for money laundering activities the Bank had previously admitted.

"We believe it is offensive and an arrogant slap in the face to the judge, the court and The Russian Federation that the Bank of New York would fail to show to a hearing they were well aware of," said Maxim Smal, a Moscow-based attorney representing Russia's Federal Customs Service.

"We feel confident in the validity and strength of Russia's claim as well as our prospective to prevail in court with or without the defendant," he said. The next hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, July 10 at noon in Moscow.

"The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled last week, consistent with prior precedent, that the Russian judicial system is legitimate and honest such that any award in Russia should be fully collectible in the U.S. where the Bank of New York does business. Therefore, the Federation remains confident not only as to receiving a successful outcome, but also with obtaining complete satisfaction of the damages sought, especially now that the merger has created a company capable of satisfying any judgment awarded," said Smal.

On May 17, the Federal Customs Service for the Russian Federation filed a lawsuit with the Moscow Arbitration Court against the Bank of New York, the world's second-largest custodian of investor assets.

The lawsuit stems from a 2005 U.S. Department of Justice investigation that ended with a non-prosecution agreement forcing the Bank to pay $38 million to the U.S. government to settle two criminal probes and admitting it failed to report $7.5 billion in illegal Russian transactions.

Federal investigators determined several accounts that existed at the Bank were part of an illegal network that allowed Russian businesses to defraud their government of customs duties and tax revenues by transferring funds in and out of Russia in violation of currency controls.

Although the suit is being heard in a Russian court, it will be tried in accordance with U.S. law. Under accepted and clear legal principles, the Bank of New York has already made signed admissions to its criminal responsibility and its officers have been criminally convicted.

There is no doubt about the unhappiness of liberals with the current court, which now bears Mr. Bush's unmistakable imprint. They were reeling last week as the court finished up its first full term with Mr. Bush's appointees, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. It was a session marked by a sharp turn to the right in a series of 5-to-4 decisions, from upholding a federal ban on a type of abortion to limiting school districts' ability to use racially conscious criteria to achieve or maintain integration.

Democrats on Capitol Hill and on the presidential campaign trail were furious, especially, some said, because of Mr. Roberts' promises of humility and respect for precedent, delivered repeatedly when he sought confirmation from the Senate. "Given what he said to us," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat and a member of the Judiciary Committee, "my Democratic colleagues and I would never have envisioned the string of decisions that he issued recently."

"He kept stressing modesty, stare decisis, not over-reaching, giving a large amount of weight to precedent, and now he sort of just flicks it off with the back of his hand," said Mr. Schumer, who voted against Mr. Roberts. "People are just shocked."

Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and who voted for Mr. Roberts' confirmation, was equally unhappy. "I am extraordinarily disappointed when I find that, in almost a cavalier way, they've thrown aside Brown vs. the Board the Education," Mr. Leahy said on NBC's "Meet the Press." (That is a characterization that Mr. Roberts, and others, would no doubt dispute.)

But venting only goes so far. People for the American Way, the liberal advocacy group, launched a fund-raising drive this week with an e-mail message sent to 400,000 core activists. "Only you and I stand between the new Supreme Court and the continued chiseling away at the rights and freedoms we Americans hold dear," wrote Norman Lear, one of the founders of the group.

Promising to match every dollar contributed, and to organize around next year's Senate and Presidential campaigns, Mr. Lear concluded, "Together we can take back the court."

Liberals have been warning of the dangers of a Bush court since his 2000 campaign against Al Gore, but it was never an easy issue to drive home, even among people who support much of the progressive agenda, analysts say.

Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who has studied public attitudes toward the court for Planned Parenthood and other groups, said it takes a long time to penetrate the public's consciousness about the importance of the nine justices.

"They don't know much about the court, they don't understand lifetime appointments, they think each president can have an impact," she added.

Mark Mellman, another Democratic pollster, said that in the past, "people had some confidence that the court was not going to change the way the country did business in dramatic ways."

In other words, liberals were often warning about potential dangers to their agenda from a changing Supreme Court. The issue was not a hypothetical for conservatives, who felt devastated, over the years, by decisions from previous courts, most notably Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case declaring a constitutional right to abortion.

Now, some Democrats and their allies say they are hearing hypothetical worries turn to outrage, and not just in the Democratic cloakroom of the Senate. "The right has always been energized on this issue," said Mr. Schumer. "The recent decisions have now energized the left."

Democratic presidential campaigns quickly weighed in, and the issue is expected to be raised in several Senate races. A prime example is Maine, which has a centrist Republican up for re-election next year, Senator Susan Collins, who voted for both Mr. Alito and Mr. Roberts.

Carol Andrews, communications director for the Maine Democratic Party, foreshadowed the fight to come, saying Ms. Collins' support for Mr. Alito, in particular, "places her squarely in lockstep with ultraconservatives, and far to the right of the center she claims to inhabit."

Steve Abbott, Ms. Collins's chief of staff, countered that the senator takes her responsibilities to advise and consent very seriously, but has no litmus test for judicial confirmations.

Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, said he believes that public attitudes toward the court are "at a tipping point." He said that the cumulative impact of the court's decisions will make it easier to make the case that "you have a court radically to the right of the American people."

Ms. Lake said she could envision an argument aimed at women in the presidential campaign — "that there's a pattern of decisions out here that are out of touch with women's lives, from pay equity to personal decision-making on abortions," she said. "It could be very powerful."

In the meantime, the activist and fund-raising networks are beginning to hum.