Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google Wins 'Typosquatting' Dispute

Posted by timothy on Sat Jul 09, 2005 02:51 PM
from the wrongful-clacking dept.
Businesses Google The Internet
JeiFuRi writes "The National Arbitration Forum has awarded Google the rights to several web addresses such as googkle.com, ghoogle.com, and gooigle.com, alleging that Sergey Gridasov of St. Petersburg, Russia, had engaged in 'typosquatting.' Business Week comments that Gridasov relied on typographical errors to exploit the online search engine's popularity so computer viruses and other malicious software could be unleashed on unsuspecting visitors."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Google Wins 'Typosquatting' Dispute 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Horraty! (Score:5, Funny)

    by tehshen (794722) <tehshen@gmail.com> on Saturday July 09 2005, @02:54PM (#13022114)
    Ghood neews fgor erveyonme!

  • glooge.com (Score:5, Funny)

    by LesPaul75 (571752) on Saturday July 09 2005, @02:56PM (#13022126) Journal
    Looks like they missed one: http://www.glooge.com/ [glooge.com] (NSFW!)

  • About time (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Krankheit (830769) on Saturday July 09 2005, @02:56PM (#13022128)
    There needs to be more action against typosquatting/registering of domain names to provide useless ad-filled "search" sites with no real content. These sites are annoying when they come up as results on Google, and when I make a mistake, like typing slashdot and then Shift-Enter (for .net) instead of Ctrl-Shift Enter (for .org) and go to some other site. Domains registration should require review of the registration request, kind of like USPTO and patents. I find it annoying when I want to register a domain for a site and find it is being used for something stupid, and I can't afford to buy it off of them.

    • Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ScrewMaster (602015) on Saturday July 09 2005, @03:02PM (#13022174)
      Sure ... and who decides? The Patent Office? Those people can't even manage to reject "improved method for swinging a child on a swing" from being patented so I hardly think they're qualified to pass on domain names. Besides, "stupid" is relative and I don't want some official "board of domain review" rejecting my application simply because they don't understand or agree with what I want to do with it. None of their goddamn business. What happens if, at some point in the future, I decide to do something else with my domain. Do I have to go back and beg for renewal? Forget it. Just deal with the annoying sites and get on with it ... or learn to make fewer typos.

    • Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by the_weasel (323320) on Saturday July 09 2005, @03:04PM (#13022181) Homepage
      Ah yes, because what the Internet really needs is MORE central regulation!

      Seriously, considering the USPTO's stellar record, what makes you think thats a decent model for dealing with such problems. Do you really think adding extra layers to the domain application process is going to make this better?

      If I want to register ilovecanadianbeavers.com should I have to submit a business case first? Will I have to prove that I am not making porn? Or is porn okay, as long as its the right type of porn? Will www.fuckgoogle.com still be okay?

      Only one way to find out I guess. Please wait 4-6 weeks for domain approval.

      Is this what you really want?

    • There needs to be more action against typosquatting/registering of domain names to provide useless ad-filled "search" sites with no real content. These sites are annoying when they come up as results on Google, and when I make a mistake, like typing slashdot and then Shift-Enter (for .net) instead of Ctrl-Shift Enter (for .org) and go to some other site. Domains registration should require review of the registration request, kind of like USPTO and patents. I find it annoying when I want to register a domain
    • > typing slashdot and then Shift-Enter (for .net) instead of Ctrl-Shift Enter (for .org)

      Isn't typing .net (or .org, .com) easier than creating rules for typosquatting?

      >I find it annoying when I want to register a domain for a site and find it is being used for something stupid

      Stupid is a relative term.
      I'm sure others also find sites registered by you being used for something stupid (in their opinion). It doesn't mean you should do anything about it, they can register and run their own stupid sites.

    • Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by booyabazooka (833351) <ch.martin@gmail.com> on Saturday July 09 2005, @04:47PM (#13022724)
      I find it annoying when I want to register a domain for a site and find it is being used for something stupid

      Dear Sir or Madam:

      You are hearby ordered to cease and desist all web-related economic activity. Under section 794B of the No Stupid Website Act, the usage of your domain has been classified as Level 8 Stupidity, exceeding the maximum acceptable Level 3 Stupidity. As your website has been deemed Stupid by our arbiters, it is no longer accepted on the Internet.

      - US Commission of Businesses I Like Only

      I'm glad you don't run the world.

    • The Internet has and allways will be an anarchy. When you go to a website, you have entered somebody's shack; you must follow all their rules, do certain things, don't do others, etc. It just so happens that there are a lot of abandoned shacks out there, or some that have stupid owners. There are many good ones, and every once in a while when you enter a shack you find that what you were looking for to begin with.

      And this is the purpose of the World Wide Web. There cannot be a universal governing system

  • C'mon! (Score:5, Funny)

    by maxrate (886773) on Saturday July 09 2005, @02:57PM (#13022137)
    C'mon, you deserve to be infested with spyware if you make a typo!

    I think Mavis Beacon should make a USB keyboard that electrifies all of the wrong keys while your typing. Probably need an external tesla coil or something, can't do it all from the USB bus I guess!

  • What about Dvorak typos? (Score:5, Funny)

    by aprilsound (412645) on Saturday July 09 2005, @02:57PM (#13022138) Homepage
    Huh? Well? what about Dvorak? gvoogle.com, gorovla.com? The possibilities are endless (and sometimes hilarious)

  • Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Saturday July 09 2005, @03:03PM (#13022176)
    Even [slashdor.org] Slashdot [slashdit.org] is [alashdot.org] affected [slasjdot.org]...

  • Slashdot? (Score:5, Funny)

    by derkyjadex (852889) on Saturday July 09 2005, @03:04PM (#13022178)
    What the hell is this crazy site? I came here looking for slushdoot.
  • This certain russkie has reportedly been a major moving factor behind joker.com.
    This guy simply needs to be shipped off to Siberia where he can freeze his 'nads off.

  • Does this mean that the http://slsahdot.org/ [slsahdot.org] domain is being given to slashdot too? I really hate accidentally ending up there when I try to type in slashdot. Finally I can simply get redirected to http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] and not need to be humiliated. Somehow, I don't really expect OSDN to bother with this.

  • Property rights in the US of A? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CyricZ (887944) on Saturday July 09 2005, @03:12PM (#13022224)
    We are seeing quite a change in the concept of property rights in the USA. Between the recent Supreme Court ruling that cities are now able to take land and buildings from one individual and basically give them to another (richer) individual or corporation without proper reparations and this, it looks like property rights in the US are undergoing a significant spectral shift.

    Every economist knows that solid property rights are the basis of a strong economy. But it looks like we're seeing a new take on it. I like to call them "anarchocorporatite property rights": you have the right to your property, unless a corporation or rich individual/group wishes to take it from you without due reparation.

    Frankly, I'm surprised that the true American conservatives, the people who realize the necessity of stringent property rights for a strong economy, aren't making a bigger fuss about these recent developments.
    • Yeah, I guess you're right. It's not like those misspellings really infringe on the Google trademark because they're different, and domain names are basically property.

      I thought having to hand over those domains was a good thing because the typosquatters are trying to make easy money using basically a negative contribution to society. Now I reallize that this sort of thing is a slippery slope.

      I guess a better (and also more truly capitalist) solution would be to create browser extensions which correct

      • Re:Property rights in the US of A? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CyricZ (887944) on Saturday July 09 2005, @03:56PM (#13022429)
        Another capitalist/free market solution would have been for Google to make a financial bid for those domain names, and to leave the courts out of it. If they valued the ownership of those domain names enough, then they would have been more than willing to pay that individual a fair price for them.
      • I guess a better (and also more truly capitalist) solution would be to create browser extensions which correct typos. If someone finds the typosquatters annoying they can just use such an extension.

        Seems like that can be taken advantage of by bribes^H^H^H^H^Hcontributions from the same companies spamming domain name space.

        Maybe they should make some kind of way I can save my favorite sites and come back to them later, like a bookmark...

    • Re:Property rights in the US of A? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Zordak (123132) on Saturday July 09 2005, @06:05PM (#13023145) Homepage Journal
      While I would hate to be seen as standing up for the Kelo decision, it does not allow the government to take your land without "reparations." Governments are not supposed to be able to take your land at all , with or without "reparations," except for some very narrow "Public Uses" (roads, bridges, schools). What the Kelo decision did was cut the last tiny, little thread that the "Public Use" clause was hanging by and say that the city could take your land whenever they want it and give it to whomever they please. They still have to give you "just compensation" (althouth that basically translates into "whatever the city decides your property is worth before they take it").

      I hate the Kelo decision as much as anybody (in fact, I haven't run into a single person who likes it), but lets not make it into a beast it's not.

  • Money equals power (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gunpowda (825571) on Saturday July 09 2005, @03:25PM (#13022276)
    Big corporations tend to triumph in these ownership situations - in a related dispute Apple was able to regain [theregister.co.uk] control of iTunes.co.uk from someone who was basically cybersquatting.

    I do wonder what a private individual would be able to do in a position where someone has registered a typo version of their own domain for malicious intent. I suspect it would be a lot more difficult.

  • I remember back in the http://www.yaho.com/ [archive.org]">good old days (1998) when 'Yaho.com' was actually forwarded you to 'Typo.net'. Then it forwarded you to Yahoo. People were nice, no one wanted to hijack your PC... *sigh*
    • That's retarded. There's nothing wrong with my HTML, so if some MOD somewhere could fix that I would appreceiate it.

      • That's retarded. There's nothing wrong with my HTML, so if some MOD somewhere could fix that I would appreceiate it.

        Moderators can't edit posts, they can only mod them up or down as needed. I'm sure Slashdot editors/admins can, but this [slashdot.org] is the only time I've heard of them intervening, and that was to delete, not edit.

        The problem here is that Slash [slashcode.com], the code behind Slashdot and several other sites, uses very old HTML, before such things as title attributes were around. You could try reporting a bug, if

    • The commercialization of the internet is probably the root of that and much of the other shit we have to put up with...
  • Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand what the *National* Arbitration Forum (emphasis mine) has to do with a dispute between Google, which is from the US, and a guy in Russia. Can someone explain that to me?

    While I certainly am in favour of the ruling itself, I don't see how a US-american organization could assert authority over handling conflicts that aren't happening in the USA. Did Russia agree to this? What are the rules for arbitrating such matters between people (or entities) from different stat
  • What if I made a car company called Fjord? With vehicle names like the Mustaung and the EFF-150? I got a pretty good idea what would happen. This should be an open and shut case.

    Not only that, but they're trying to make money off of google's name. Trying to make money and cause damage at the same time. This is illegal.

    Unless you're selling cigarettes.
    • Nothing wrong with that. The pronounciation of fjord (fee-yord), and Mustang is just a name of a horse. In fact look at a Ford Mustang site or pamphlet, notice there no trademark or copyrite. Now if you made the car look very similar or copied Fords distinctive logo, you're in trouble. As for EFF-150, that might get you in trouble, as it's very similar to a non-usual name. F-150 isn't a pre-existing word such as a Viper or Mustang or Cobra. They may still try and sue you, and probably will win since they ca
    • You might be sued by the norwegian company "Fjord 1" for doing that. It's a company that runs lots offerries and busses in the western part of Norway in case you didn't know. ;-)

      On a side note, in Norway most people earn money by hard work, not suing for stupid things such as having a name similar to another, so you could probably safely start your business and call it Fjord.

      On a second side note, by the way, a local burger shop called Mac Williams was forced tu change their font on the sign (It's not a f

  • Good thing! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dan East (318230) on Saturday July 09 2005, @03:38PM (#13022339) Homepage
    Shew, this is good news. If I had made a typo trying to access Google, and instead of Google's homepage been presented with a link to download a program, goodness knows I couldn't have resisted the urge to download and run it! It already takes a good deal of my time getting around to running all the email attachments my friends send me, plus all these messages with attached programs I get saying my email account is suspended (which is sort of strange, because I administrate my own web site and email server - I guess I keep sending emails to myself and then forget about them). Oh well, that's the cost of being a hip, computer-savvy, in-touch kind of guy.

    Dan East

  • I got got by a typosquatter in front of my boss (Score:3, Funny)

    by grolschie (610666) on Saturday July 09 2005, @04:11PM (#13022520)
    I was about to show my boss an example of cool flash animation and I accidentally typed http://homestarunner.com [homestarunner.com] instead of http://homestarrunner.com [homestarrunner.com]! All these nudies poppup up on screen and my face turned red. Man, did he give me beans over that.

  • "Typosquatting" is a crap concept. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Intellectual Elitist (706889) on Saturday July 09 2005, @04:31PM (#13022622)
    Domain names are typically short and rarely have any separation between the words in compound names. There's no capitalization, no font, no logo -- nothing to distinguish them from each other except a handful of lower case letters. In that kind of limited naming space, I think it's dangerous to start giving companies the right to claim any names that are merely close to their own.

    Was this Russian guy intentionally using typos of Google's address to generate hits? Yes. But was he infringing on their trademarks, mimicing their logos, or diluting their brand identity in the process? Not from what I can see. He may be an annoying bottom-feeder who exploits people's typing mistakes, but if he's not trying to present his sites as if they were part of Google, then I don't see why anyone has the right to yank those domain names from him.

    Does Google have the right to shut down legitimate names like googol.com or goggle.com? Or if someone whose last name is Igle creates goigle.com, could that be construed as "typosquatting" too? And what about companies with less unique names who are more likely to have "typo collisions" with other legitimate names? Is this going to be reduced to the same bullshit subjective standard as pornography, where some judge "knows it when he sees it"?

    If someone suggested applying this same sort of typo ownership standard to telephone numbers, people would think they were insane.

    • Look, let's go back to the definition of trademark violation:

      Does it cause confusion for consumers?

      And the answer here is clearly, YES! Now, if someone wants to register google-sucks.com, more power to them, because we can all tell clearly that the site is not affiliated with google.com. On the other hand, a consumer typing in gooogle.com or whatever is clearly looking for google.com. When they get the page, they think, oh good, here's google! Meanwhile, some hole in IE is being exploited in the backgroun
    • Google's case is totally different. Mike Rowe registered his domain because he thought it was a cool domain name, and he hosted his own site on it.

      This guy deliberately cashed in on Google's popularity to put viruses and spyware onto people's PCs. Google were completely justified in this case.
    • Microsoft's attempt to take the domain failed. Yet Google's case is inherently the same, yet they prevailed.

      The mission statement of the arbitration company is to arbitrate in an arbitrary manner...
    • Nobody looking for Microsoft on the Internet is going to type "mikerowesoft.com". Just isn't going to happen.
    • Fundamentally different cases. MikeRoweSoft.com is not a typo of microsoft.com. A homonym, yes, but no way a typo. Mike Rowe was playing of the similar sounds.
    • Two completely different things. mikerowsoft.com isn't anywhere near a typo, just a phoenetic similarity. Also the guy was named Mike Rowe, different as well. If the guy named his site microsofg.com or microsotf.com where common typo mistakes would be made, that seeems more of a comparison.

      Google had a valid claim because this guy registered these sites specifically for the fact that he could catch people making typo mistakes who were 100% guarenteed wanting google.com.
    • They are not the same. (incidentaly, I also sumbitted a story about MikeRoweSoft way back when that was rejected). MikeRoweSoft is a sound-alike name, but is not a likely typo for Microsoft. Someone looking for microsoft.com may accidentalyh type microsoftt.com, etc. but are unlikely to type the very differently spelled mikerowesoft.com

    • Re:My submission (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NanoGator (522640) on Saturday July 09 2005, @06:27PM (#13023245) Homepage Journal
      "My submission was rejected. Not complaing... but mine made note of the MikeRoweSoft.com site. Microsoft's attempt to take the domain failed."

      Google's case is about typo-squatting, i.e. intentionally mispelling a domain (slaashdot.org, for example) in order to send ads to people visiting popular sites. Microsoft's case was about trademark infringement. MikeRoweSoft isn't an attempt at squatting, rather Microsoft has to defend their trademarks against dilution. (Sort of like when they went after Lindows.) The stupid thing is that everybody was against Microsoft on both counts. In MikeRoweSoft's case, everybody felt MS should have just overlooked it. In Lindows case, everybody loves Linux and not Windows. There was a hope that MS would lose something very near and dear to them. (The reasons cited were to the tune of 'Windows should never have been granted as a trademark!' The reality is that Microsoft's had that trademark for well over 10 years AND it was distinctive to them. Nobody was crying over the Palm trademark even though palmtops existed well before the Palm Pilot. Everybody ignored the potential confusion caused by selling PCs with the 'Lindows' OS showing screenshots that look very much like Windows.)

      Trademarks have to be exhaustively defended. Even little harmless offenses have to be challenged. If Microsoft hadn't gone after Lindows, and another company came along and did something more evil, Microsoft would have to go after Lindows THEN the new guy. In other words, if they don't deal with the minor infringements, they risk losing their trademarks. This is true of any company, not just Microsoft.

      In any case, that's probably why your story was rejected. Prevaillance of those cases hinged on different factors.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.