Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet

Google Loses Domain Fight Over Froogles.com 284

Posted by simoniker from the googles-google-differentiation dept.
steveshaw writes "According to SiliconValley.com, an ICANN arbitration panel has rejected Google's challenge of a Web site named Froogles.com. This means that the Froogles.com name will remain with the current owner. Also, the current owner is opposing Google's attempt to register Froogle with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, contending the mark would be an infringement of his Froogles.com mark." The story also notes: "Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., has filed 18 domain name disputes at the ICANN panel, challenging names like 'googlesex.com,' 'google.biz' and 'googleme.com.' It has won every challenge but Froogles.com."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Loses Domain Fight Over Froogles.com More

Google Loses Domain Fight Over Froogles.com

Comments Filter:

  • GoogleGear (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:02PM (#9805047)
    I think the most well known case of Google winning, at least on Slashdot, would be the former Googlegear [google.com] which was forced to change its name to ZipZoomFly [zipzoomfly.com].

    In this case, though, Froogles.com was there almost 2 years earlier, AND both names are obviously related to the English word frugal. This decision is a correct one. Perhaps Google should search for similar names next time before they start.
    • <conspiracy>

      Maybe they did and purposely ignored it, banking on their size and legal girth to get their way.

      </conspiracy>

    • Re:GoogleGear (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Pharmboy ( 216950 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:09PM (#9805130) Journal
      Perhaps Google should search for similar names next time before they start.

      So many companies have relied on their size to justify their "right" to a name. Nissan.com is an example where a company called Nissan (not the car company) was forced to quit using the domain for commercial use, but didn't lose it, in what seems to be a case of "Well, it would cause confusion in the market place and they are bigger than you". Oh yea, the owner's name is Uzi Nissan, the owner of Nissan Computer Corp.

      Its nice to see the courts use some common sense on this one. I like Google, but that doesn't make them right on this one.

      • Re:GoogleGear (Score:5, Funny)

        by prockcore ( 543967 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:16PM (#9805215)
        Oh yea, the owner's name is Uzi Nissan, the owner of Nissan Computer Corp.

        Well obviously the owner should be forced to change his name, as he neither sells cars nor automatic weapons.
        • Why? He's not the one that sucks!

        • Re:GoogleGear (Score:4, Informative)

          by RedWizzard ( 192002 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @06:52PM (#9806620)
          Oh yea, the owner's name is Uzi Nissan, the owner of Nissan Computer Corp.
          Well obviously the owner should be forced to change his name, as he neither sells cars nor automatic weapons.
          Actually he did start selling cars, or at least running advertising for car related stuff. At one point 90% of the revenue from the site was due to car related advertising. That's when Nissan Motors sued him.

      • Re:GoogleGear (Score:4, Interesting)

        by orion024 ( 694922 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @05:00PM (#9805719)
        This reminds me of a story I heard on the radio a few months back. Apparently there is a pottery/ceramic shop in Detroit called You're Fired [yourefired.com]. Although the shop has been around for some time, Apparently the person who owns the shop has had some problems since good ol' Donald Trump decided he wanted to tradmark the phrase.
      • Oh yea, the owner's name is Uzi Nissan, the owner of Nissan Computer Corp.

        Oh, great -- so then he changes his company's name to Uzi Solutions, and finds Israel Military Industries [imi-israel.com] gunning for him!

      • Re:GoogleGear (Score:4, Informative)

        by demana ( 753243 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @05:07PM (#9805789)
        Not as simple as you make it sound though. Nissan didn't go after this site until he started using a lot of auto-related advertising.

        From http://www.linksandlaw.com/decisions-116.htm/ [linksandlaw.com]
        "Starting in August 1999, the defendant's nissan.com website primarily promoted automobile-related products and services, through third-party advertisements and web links, rather than the defendant's own computer products. More than 90% of the defendant's website advertising revenue is automobile-related. (Schindler Decl. re: Prelim. Inj. Ex. G.) Whether or not a visitor to the defendant's website ultimately makes an automobile purchase from an advertiser, the defendant profits from the visitor's initial interest confusion. By posting automobile-related links and advertisements, the defendant derives advertising revenue due to the diversion of a consumer's initial interest in Nissan vehicles. As in Brookfield, the defendant is improperly appropriating the plaintiffs' goodwill. Thus, in regards to its Internet-related activity, the defendant's "product" is the exploitation of customer confusion. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of the plaintiffs."

      • Re:GoogleGear (Score:3, Informative)

        by nacturation ( 646836 )
        Nissan.com is an example where a company called Nissan (not the car company) was forced to quit using the domain for commercial use, but didn't lose it, in what seems to be a case of "Well, it would cause confusion in the market place and they are bigger than you". Oh yea, the owner's name is Uzi Nissan, the owner of Nissan Computer Corp.

        Of course, Nissan (the car company) only sued Nissan Computer Corp. after the guy started putting up automotive advertisements. As a result, the courts ruled that nissan
    • [SNIP] former Googlegear, Froogles.com [/SNIP]

      Want a play on words? What about http://froogle.google.com/ that is a shopping page yet not related to Googlegear/Zipzoomfly, nor Froogles; good thing its not named froogles.google.com.
    • Ummmm ... one wonders what they are going to do about Google Girl [relaxzoolander.com] ;-)
    • Hey check this out [froogles.com]. What Google coudn't do, Slashdot did in one minute.

  • What is Google thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kemapa ( 733992 ) * on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:02PM (#9805051) Journal
    The search-engine company's loss has no immediate impact on its use of the name Froogle. But it means that the Froogles.com name will remain with Richard Wolfe, a disabled Holtsville, N.Y., carpenter who started the Web shopping site in March 2001, before Google introduced Froogle in December 2002.

    So Richard Wolfe started a web shopping site more than a year before Google ever started using the name Froogle, but Google thinks HE is infringing on THEIR rights? I don't see how that is possible. I mean seriously, I think Google is a great search engine too, but to support them trampling someone who started a service over a year before they did is just impossible for me to do. I am not very familiar with the circumstances surrounding the other domain names that the article mentions (like google.biz), but I am assuming they were created after Google existed, which I totally agree is clearly wrong. Taking advantage of the fame and success of a certain company to the detriment of consumers is horrible. But this is not an instance of taking advantage of a famous name, since Wolfe came up the domain name and website first.

    Wolfe is using a confusingly similar name in a bad-faith attempt to compete with Google's business, the judge concluded.

    I really don't see how Wolfe could be purposefully confusing consumers in bad-faith since he started his business first. Wouldn't it be the other way around? The only instance I can think of where this would be true is if Wolfe was a former employee of Google and knew about their Froogle plans ahead of time, but the article mentions nothing about this.

    ``It still amazes me that I should have to go through this at all,'' Wolfe said. ``I started my shopping service called Froogles almost two years before Google started a shopping service called Froogle. What more does anyone need to know?''

    This is exactly how I feel. How is this even an issue? And what in the world is Google thinking going after this guy? I'm sure some slashdotter and huge fan of Google is going to figure out some warped logic to show how it is ok, but it is going to take some good investigative work (at least to convince me).

    In fact, if Google (correctly) thought it was wrong of other people to use their name, or derivatives of it, such as google.biz or googlesex.com, how come they don't think it is wrong for themselves to use some other guy's name?

    I must admit that I am afraid to roll the karma dice on this one, but I really can't stand when large businesses start pushing people around. It's especially bad when said business is well liked and supported, because people might ignore such things or even find ways to justify them.
    • I imagine that what google was thinking was that anybody using a name with 'oogle' in it after they became the search engine du jour was probably influenced by their name. That's the way a lot of these things go. I am not a big fan of google and use teoma more these days (to dodge so much ad site stuff) but it doesn't take a genius to see how even a variant might be construed as infringing. The courts saw it as not close enough (unlike the other cases which were more exact in their variations) but the real
      • Of course many of us were using the name google numerically for years prior to their business venture but so goes the name wars......
        I would hope that more of us were using the correct term, "googol."

    • "I must admit that I am afraid to roll the karma dice on this one, but I really can't stand when large businesses start pushing people around. It's especially bad when said business is well liked and supported, because people might ignore such things or even find ways to justify them."

      Absolutely. He was there first, it was up and operating long before Google came up with Froogle, freakin' end of case. They should just buy him out, and if he won't sell then they should simply deal with it.

      Seems to me G

    • Re:What is Google thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nanojath ( 265940 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:27PM (#9805363) Homepage Journal
      Unfortunately there seem to be a lot of corporate lawyers who think that provided you are big and famous, it doesn't matter who "came first" or "branded a unique identity" or any crazy dumb little thing like that. And too often they win on that logic - either because the smaller fish simply can't afford litigation or simply because the infringement claims of a big name just seem more credible. This is the right decision, and google should just eat it. Try changing it to frugal.froogle.com, like it matters. It's not like its some tradition, like they call news noogle and the groups groopgle or anything, so why get uptight about it?

      Pity the winning website is such intensely boring placeholder glop, though.

      • Re:What is Google thinking? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @08:09PM (#9807192)
        ACtually, with trademarks, being big is something that is taken into account. Not big per se, but well recognised. You have more claim to a term the more unique it is, and the more associated with you it is. If your company is the number #1 producer of product X (with X being a trademark), and everyone associaties you with X, then you have a good claim to it, even if someone else was there first.

        It also depends on the actions of the other party. If they use the same name, but for something totally unrelated, then there is little likelyhood you'd win a case against them, since normal people wouldn't be confused. That was the case with Firebird the browser and Firebird the car. General Motors didn't care about the crossover because no one is going to confuse a browser for a car, there is no competition.

        So you can see why Google thought they might have a case. Both sites are similar in name and function, however Google is probably hte more well recognised name. However, as the court noted, it's not really very well associated with Google at this point, and it's a fiarly generic term, a play on frugal. That, combined with the other site being there first, lead to Google loosing.

        Being first does count for something, but with trademark law it's complecated. There isn't a sinlge factor that determines who wins and, really, you don't want their being. Imagine if some little nobody could trademark a name, get some websites and do nothing with it. Then, 10 years later when there's a huge, well known company with the same name, extort them for tons of cash. It would be the patent situation but worse.

        So there are multiple factors in trademark disputes including who was first, who is more well know, uniquness of trademerk, actions and intent of both parties, and similarity of services.

    • While I can't say for sure I think it's very likely that Froogles play on frugal is similar to Google's play on googul.

      It looks like what happened here is that this guy got the idea for Froogles before Google got the idea for Froogle (apparently--I haven't looked up the trademarks).

      IMO, I think it's fair for Froogles to do a play on Google+frugal, but then I also thought it was fair for Lindows to do a play on Windows+Linux.

  • He (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:03PM (#9805059)
    Google will become hated just like every other big corporation. Just wait.

    • Re:He (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CrankyFool ( 680025 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:06PM (#9805094)
      I'm not sure it's time for them to throw in the towel yet (nor the time for some of their fans to throw the towel in), but it is ... interesting. Google makes a big deal out of their "Don't Be Evil" directive. As they grow, mature, and become more corporatized, are they on the path to the dark side?
      Or is this particular story perhaps not accurately reflecting all sides of the issue?

      • Re:He (Score:4, Interesting)

        by XO ( 250276 ) <blade,eric&gmail,com> on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:15PM (#9805198) Homepage Journal
        i'd say it's more of a mistake on someone's part than anything.

        I think the original guy (froogles) by using that name would have been trying to invoke the good name of google, without copying them (since obviously at the time google wasn't in the esales business).. and that google thinks that he is going straight after their service.

        mistakes on both parts.

      • Re:He (Score:5, Interesting)

        by McDutchie ( 151611 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:20PM (#9805276) Homepage
        As they grow, mature, and become more corporatized, are they on the path to the dark side?

        They may not know it yet, but they arrived at that destination when they started answering to stockholders. Now it's just a matter of time before the slashbot fanboys wake up to that fact.

      • Re:He (Score:5, Interesting)

        by blueZhift ( 652272 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:21PM (#9805282) Homepage Journal
        It'll certainly be interesting to watch how shareholder pressure will change Google. And jeez, coming out at $135/share is IMHO just plain crazy and unsustainable. Google may have done some really good things for the technology of search engines, etc.., but I don't see how they can sustain a share price that high. Perhaps the Dark Side is already beckoning.

        • Re:He (Score:3, Informative)

          by Fat Cow ( 13247 )

          a $135 share price has no relation to sustainability, it's the initial market cap that is sustainable or not. they've just decided to float fewer shares than would be normal.

          i guess it has an effect on very small investors - they can't invest exactly what they would like to.

  • First we've heard about the Gmail [theregister.co.uk] trademark problems. Then there was the problem with Googles [theregister.co.uk]. Now Froogle. You think they would research these things extensively first before filing. Trademark applications are interesting in that you do not have to file immediately to obtain protection- you can obtain trademark protection from the day you first use the mark, and then more protection when you first use it in commerce.

    In the case of Froogles, they filed on September 8, 2003, but claimed their first use in commerce as December 31, 2001. Google, although they filed earlier on November 22, 2002, their first use in commerce date is December 11, 2002. Since the marks are so obviously similar, any moron trademark attorney (I consider myself a non-moron trademark attorney) would at a minimum search for the exact same term in the USPTO public database.

    In the case of a multibillion dollar search engine company with dozens, if not hundreds, of trademark applications worldwide, you would think they would perform a small federal trademark search (my firm charges $300). One would also assume that such an important mark would also have a comprehensive trademark search, checking magazine references, state trademark registries, domain names, etc.

    The failure to research this mark before proceeding with use, and filing a trademark application, shows that the Google trademark team screwed up big time. They will likely either eventually lose use of this mark to Froogles, or pay Froogles a lot of money for their mark, both of which will cost a lot more than performing trademark search in advance.

    In case someone from Google is reading, I did apply to be one of your trademark attorneys, and my webpage is number two in Google for "Who wants to work for Google?" [google.com]. I'm still interested...

    • In the case of a multibillion dollar search engine company with dozens, if not hundreds, of trademark applications worldwide, you would think they would perform a small federal trademark search (my firm charges $300). One would also assume that such an important mark would also have a comprehensive trademark search, checking magazine references, state trademark registries, domain names, etc.

      Even more ironically, since it wasn't a registered trademark, the most fruitful approach your firm probably could ha
      • Not to reveal any of our secrets for conducting a brief trademark search, let's say a search engine might be used.

        If you search for Froogle [google.com], the first 20 results (and on) show only Google's sites and references to them. Froogle is number 1. If you search for Froogles, the results show a lot of froogles [google.com] related links, but not the site froogles.com itself. Perhaps a little extra special engineering chez Google?.

  • Why did google even bother? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jomas1 ( 696853 ) * on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:05PM (#9805083) Homepage
    Here's whois info for froogles.com:

    Registrant:
    Richard Wolfe
    17 Castle La.
    Holtsville, New York 11742
    United States

    Registered through: GoDaddy.com
    Domain Name: FROOGLES.COM
    Created on: 02-Dec-00
    Expires on: 02-Dec-05
    Last Updated on: 13-Oct-03

    Here's whois info on froogle.com:

    Created on..............: 2001-Sep-11.
    Expires on..............: 2005-Sep-11.
    Record last updated on..: 2003-Dec-30 15:33:56.

    How can google hope to claim that they have more of a right to the word froogle?

  • Dr. Seuss Anyone (Score:4, Funny)

    by robespierremax ( 800417 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:06PM (#9805088)
    Does this article remind anyone of Dr. Seuss? Google, froogles, moogles, doogles...

    • Re:Dr. Seuss Anyone (Score:5, Funny)

      by Seraphim_72 ( 622457 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @05:18PM (#9805865)
      All the Froogles down in Froogville liked shopping a lot.
      But the Google Tradmark Lawyers, who lived just north of Froogville Did Not.
      Those lawyers hated Froogles with fury not calm
      Oh, yes they hated that name Froogles dot com
      No one really knows why they hated them so.
      They were a search engine, finding things for you to know.
      Some said it was thier servers all linuxy and shiny
      Some said it was that the Froogles had said to them "Kiss my heine"
      Perhaps it was GMail, all serching and gig-ish
      Perhaps it was thier own shopping site name, all slick and so piggish.
      But whatever the reason, the heine or gig-ish
      They sent off a lawsuit, all secret and quickish.
      They would get that name whether the Froogs liked it or not.
      Everyone knows that the Law likes big companies a lot
      But then an amazing thing came from froogville to thier ear.
      A sound of cheering, happiness, and slashdot melting server gears.
      The lawyers cried, "It's imposible to rule against us so!"
      "We are big, and strong with an outrageous IPO!"
      But the Froogles down in Froogville kept on singing thier Joy,
      From the Large to the small every girl and boy.
      And what happened to those Laywers of great Googlish fame?
      Why they were paid handsomely for thier lawuit , so lame.

      Apollogies to Dr Suess
  • I'd hate to live in a world where upon choosing a name for something one had to look into a crystal ball to see what name a big company might choose. The Froogles main page doesn't look like it's trying to rip off Google in any way... this guy should have a more valid complaint against Google than the other way around.

    Lot of Google stories on today...

  • Booble? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Honorbound ( 521347 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:08PM (#9805116)

    I guess the pr0n search engine, Booble [booble.com], is next! ;-)

    (Not safe for work.)
  • I think Google should have done their homework before they started their own Froogle site, and realized somebody else was already using the name. There's no reason they couldn't have just called it Google StoreSearch or whatever they wanted.
    That being said, I think the Froogles guy was probably copying Google's name.. This reminds me of all those businesses ending in "ster" that came up around the time of Napster. Even though they're probably not deceptively similar, I wonder if the trademark laws should go

  • Next targets on Google's radar (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:09PM (#9805127)
    poodle.com [poodle.com]
    noodle.com [noodle.com]
    doodle.com [doodle.com]
    kugel.com [kugel.com]
    fluegel.de [fluegel.de]
    kkk.com [kkk.com]

    (that last one just because it's always good to sue them over anything, and it feels so good too)
  • if google had a big bank account they could 'acquire' any domain name their lawyers want (c.f. 'mikerowesoft', 'lindows' et al)

  • Same abuses different company... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by UnidentifiedCoward ( 606296 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:09PM (#9805135)
    While not necessarily an abuse, this action leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. That a company like Google could stoop to claiming their rights have been infringed upon by an operation that predates their own is extremely disappointing.

    What kind of company threatens established buisness with rights disputes because it did not do due dilgence? I can think of at least two.

    Just because a company is riding its own wave of success and about to IPO does not give it right or cause to go about stomping on any attempt to infringle its "mark". Google has forgotten their hippy roots and will no doubt follow in the footsteps of other giants like Microsoft and SCO. I think their IPO has gone to their head.
    • To be fair, they pretty clearly (from looking at the domain) *are* a domain name squatter.

      I kinda agree with you -- Google should have picked up any domains it wanted and registered the trademarks *before* launching the service.

      I don't think that there's going to be *that* much confusions between "froogle.google.com" and "froogles.com", though, unless the owner tries making it confusing.

      Yahoo has had a ton of subdomains (quote.yahoo.com, biz.yahoo.com) for ages and you don't see people confusing them wit

  • And now... (Score:3, Funny)

    by BearJ ( 783382 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:10PM (#9805140)
    And now, for his winning against google, the website [froogles.com] will now be slashdotted.

  • Are we really supposed to believe that what is arguably the largest search engine company in the world didn't know about froogles.com prior to trying to take the name?

    I'm glad google lost this one, just from a pure "connect the dots" line of reasoning. Any judge had to wonder how google could have missed froogles.com, which it had to have in it's url database somewhere.

  • Booble is still up and running...

  • In related news (Score:3, Funny)

    by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:22PM (#9805294) Journal
    McDoogle's is being sued by McDonalds, Google, and Doogie Howser MD respectfully.
    • A coffee shop in Victoria, BC, called McBeans was sued by McDonalds for trademark infringement. Apparently anything starting with a "Mc" is fair game especially if McDonalds is thinking about using the name for one of it's products

      McDonalds lost, fortunately.

  • Google names allowed for API apps? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by manmanic ( 662850 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:22PM (#9805304)
    Interesting that Google don't seem to mind about API applications keeping the whole word Google in their names, from Google Fight [googlefight.com] to Googlism [googlism.com] to Google Rankings [googlerankings.com]. The Google Alert [googlealert.com] tool states explicitly on its FAQs [googlealert.com] that Google "agreed to the use of the Google Alert name and googlealert.com domain". I guess it's all about the distinction between sites that feed into Google's brand value, and those that take away from it.
  • Anyone want wirte a whois script to see what other names are registered for [a-z]oogle.com?

  • Going Public (Score:2, Insightful)

    by usefool ( 798755 )
    Since Google is going public soon, I hope their taking PR and self-control more seriously.

    I certainly do not wish to witness another good nature (we don't do evil) company going after everybody in court for controversial trademark, copyright, domain name infringements.

  • They also lost in Norway (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dracvl ( 541254 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:29PM (#9805388) Homepage

    They went to court to get google.no back, but were thrown out of court a while ago.

    This is actually one of the cases where I think Google should have won, though.

    The whois record for the domain states:

    Domain Name................: google.no

    Additional information:
    Created: 2001-02-26

    ...well after Google had started being the dominant search engine. The site in question sells cheap sunglasses for a ludicrous markup, and prints the word "Google" on them to make them a collector's item.

    Using the Wayback Machine, you can see that they had a placeholder there for half a year before they put up anything - which is a pretty common tactic if you just hope to be bought by the company in question.

    • Last I heard, the leech who registered google.no had lost the domain in a more recent court decision. The guy who owns it runs some shady mobile business, and the sunglasses thing was just a cover - he most likely wanted Google to pay him loads of money to get the domain.

      When the guy lost he came up with some lame excuse about "googles" being the English name for glasses and that's what the domain was there fore. Apparently he doesn't realize that it's "goggles" that's the right word, but that word isn't

  • and not be evil (Score:5, Funny)

    by harumscarum ( 675595 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:29PM (#9805390) Journal
    all your "oogles" are belong to us..

  • Wasted resources (Score:5, Insightful)

    by billcopc ( 196330 ) <vrillco@yahoo.com> on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:31PM (#9805411) Homepage
    It seems domain name disputes are a constant hassle these days, yet when you go to register your company name and trademark there is no dispute; it's either available or it's not. The problem with domain names is that they are global, there is no such thing as state or country jurisdiction when it comes to a domain name.

    Just like me, I'm Billco and when I popped up on the internet many many years ago, Billco.com was already taken by some graphics gig, so I said "Oh well" and registered Fnarg. I'm sure plenty of people who 'know' me have looked up Billco.com because I'm that kind of guy, a tech keystone if you will, and it sucks but the other guy was there first.

    I think similar domain names should be allowed. Froogles is not Froogle, just like Googles is not Google. If someone can't tell the difference then they shouldn't be surfing the net until they learn to read.

    What if it were a street address ? But they use numbers so we don't have much affinity for those. How many times have you missed a street address by one, and pulled up in the neighbor's driveway then backed up ? Should your friend sue his neighbor because people are likely to miss the driveway ? Same thing on the net. If I make a typo and end up at the wrong site then it's MY TYPO and it's not 'wrong' site's fault, nor is it the lawyer's job to correct it for me.

    • ...yet when you go to register your company name and trademark there is no dispute; it's either available or it's not.

      Actually, there are company name and trademark disputes, those are just less frequent.

      Part of it is that it costs a lot more money to register a company name and/or a trademark, but don't assume there are no lawsuits. The fact that there are many different juridictions in which you can register those things and the fact that there is no one centralized database with all those names mak

  • They lost this, yet M$ won lindows diuspute (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wobedraggled ( 549225 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:37PM (#9805469) Homepage
    Anyone else see something wrong?!?!?!

    • No I don't (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Spyro VII ( 666885 )
      Lindows came well after windows and was an obvious attempt to bank of off the name, while froogles.com came before google's froogle service, so unless he worked at google and had prior knowledge of froogle (which apparently isn't the cas), then it's an empty claim.

      • Re:No I don't (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Sircus ( 16869 )
        It was a pretty obvious attempt to cash in on the Windows name, but in fairness to Lindows, their argument was that "Windows" shouldn't even be a trademark. It's only since 1985 that it's had a non-generic use. It's been used (and used in the windowing-environment sense) since before that - as such, I at least half-agree that the MS trademark grant was probably wrong.

        Regarding Froogles - I'd say "Froogles" has at least as many Google-infringing letters as Lindows does Windows-infringing letters :-) The
    • MS didn't win. It never got further than preliminary motions (I don't think they even started discovery) before MS paid $20m to have them change to Linspire. MS did get some kind of preliminary judgement in the Netherlands, but that was only preliminary. In the US, MS was well on the way to losing (judge agreeing that the use of Windows as a generic word at the time of their registration in 1985 could be examined, as opposed to its use today). In conclusion, Lindows/Linspire got:

      a) Free publicity on pr

  • Well, much as I love Google, they're crazy here (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The_REAL_DZA ( 731082 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:43PM (#9805541)
    I mean, I can give them "GoogleGear", "GoogleMe", "GoogleSex" and even "GoogleMeBackToOldVirginne", but if they win "Froogle" anything it'll open the door for them to go after the "Boogles" and "Canoogles" and even the "Lollapaloogles" of the world -- soon nothing that ends in "oogles" will be free, and the last time I checked monopolies [microsoft.com] were still a Bad Thing (tm).

  • I usually don't like WIPO's decisions... but... (Score:5, Informative)

    by g_adams27 ( 581237 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:44PM (#9805550)

    It seems that far too many times WIPO (the arbritration panel) takes domains from the little guys and hands them to the big guys even if the domains weren't registered in bad faith (one of the requirements for domain transfers).

    But now and then they get it right. Here's one such example [wipo.int], which makes for some fun reading (if you can handle a bit of legalese). The domain in question was armani.com, and the Armani corporation was browbeating Mr. A. R. Mani (get it?) and demanding he turn over the domain to them. WIPO denied the request and ended by saying:

    The Panel finds the failure of the Complainant in its Complaint to set out any of the clearly lengthy background to this dispute is surprising. The Complainant or entities associated with it have been pursuing the Respondent since 1995, through various representatives. The Panel is left with a strong sense that the reason these actions have led nowhere is because they come up against the same issue as has been identified in these proceedings, namely, the Respondent's legitimate use of a variant of his own name. The Complaint states (at paragraph 20) in accordance with the Policy, that "the Complainant certifies that the information contained in the Complaint is to the best of the Complainant's knowledge complete and accurate". The Panel does not see how that could properly have been said. In the circumstances, the Panel concludes, pursuant of paragraph 15(e) of the Rules, that this Complaint has been brought in bad faith, and that it constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

    Good stuff. :-) www.armani.com [armani.com] now points to the corporate site - one can only hope that Mr. Mani made a bundle of money on the sale to a chastened Armani corporation.

  • How long before this term becomes popular and associated with google?

  • Dates (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tuxlove ( 316502 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @04:58PM (#9805695)
    I don't see how Google can claim ownership of froogles.com, or even get a trademark on "froogle". The "froogles.com" domain was first registered in December, 2000, while Google got "froogle.com" almost a year later. Tough s**t for Google.

    Strangely, the original register date for "froogle.com" is listed in the whois database as September 11, 2001. Kinda surreal.
  • It has won every challenge but Froogles.com.

    Perhaps with the IPO Google has officially jumped the shark?

  • add in the Os (Score:3, Interesting)

    by myusername ( 597009 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @05:07PM (#9805780)
    Keep adding Os in google and see what you end up with
    www.gooooooooooooooooooogle.com [gooooooooo...ooogle.com]

    This was the highest one i could find at the moment.
    It's amazing what some people will register these days.

  • In related news... (Score:4, Informative)

    by HarveyBirdman ( 627248 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @05:12PM (#9805825) Journal
    The estate of Milton Sirotta (nephew of American mathematician Edward Kasner) long known as the coiner of the term "googol" when Milton was 9 years old, is suing the pants off Google.com.

  • Wool-Mart vs Wal-mart (Score:4, Informative)

    by westendgirl ( 680185 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @05:12PM (#9805826) Homepage
    Froogles.com should win, based on prior use, no attempt to confuse the public, and the obvious truth that the name is derived from "frugals". The ICANN people obviously understood this. However, sometimes a big brand can win against even those odds. Wal-mart opened in Ottawa, Ontario in the early 1990s, just after it expanded to Canada. It immediately started litigation against Wool-Mart, a local wool store that had been around for years and years. Wool-Mart had never even heard of Wal-Mart before and, if it wasn't simply emphasizing wool, was more likely to be riding on the tails of "Woolworths". But Wal-mart won its case against Wool-Mart. Sometimes logic does not prevail.
    • But Wal-mart won its case against Wool-Mart.

      It did? The only reference [fja.gc.ca] turned up by a quick Google was the dismissal of Wal-Mart's application for an injunction against Wool-Mart. It seems like logic did indeed prevail here, unless you have other references to prove otherwise.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • What good are TLDs then? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bmcent1 ( 598227 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @06:05PM (#9806246)
    Seriously, common sense now seems to suggest that if you are Widget543Corp (TM) then you ought to control widget543corp.[com|org|net|us|tv|...]

    Waaaay too often we're seeing claims that a name might cause "brand confusion" when really the company just wants to hoard a few letters in a particular configuration and all patterns containing them. It gets worse when those letters form regular dictionary words.

    I've said it before... Slashdotters will eventually realize that just because Google runs Linux, doesn't guarantee they will stay "Good." It's one thing to say, "Don't be evil." Its a whole other thing to consistently do as you say.

  • I hate it when a popular entitiy tries to usurp and/or destroy anything that even remotely resembles it's own branding, but this Froogles.com is just pollution in cyberspace. Flotsam of ecommerce. It's an eyesore and it offers no value or substance. Most /. readers could cough up a site like this in an hour.

    It's saving is of legal significance only.

  • TLD Zone Search (Score:3, Interesting)

    by boijames ( 641781 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @07:02PM (#9806684) Homepage
    Here's a search of "ooXle.com" (case insensitive) from COM.

    OK, on second thought, I'm not. 2,956 domains. It'd just look, well, bad in a text post.. But I've posted this list [arpa.com] and hopefully the big bad slashdotters wont kill my poor wittle yewnix box grabbing it.

    Here's some more interesting ones:

    5 characters:

    ooble oodle oofle oogle ookle oonle ooole oople ootle oozle

    6 characters:

    1oogle 2oogle 6oo6le 6oogle 8oogle 9oo9le 9oogle aooale aoogle booble boodle boofle boogle bookle boople booqle bootle booxle boozle cooble coocle coodle coogle coolle cooole coople dooble doodle doogle dookle doople dootle doozle eooele eoogle fooble foodle foofle foogle foople footle foozle gooale gooble goocle goodle gooele goofle google goohle gooile goojle gookle goolle goomle goonle gooole goople gooqle goorle goosle gootle gooule goovle goowle gooxle gooyle goozle hooble hoocle hoodle hoogle hoohle hookle hoople hootle hoozle ioogle iooile jooble joodle joofle joogle joojle joople joozle kooble koogle kookle looble loodle loogle lookle loolle loople loosle lootle mooble moocle moodle moofle moogle mookle moomle moonle moople mootle moozle nooale nooble noodle noogle nookle noonle noople nootle noozle ooogle ooozle pooble poodle poofle poogle pookle poople pootle poozle qooble qoodle qoople qooqle qootle rooble roodle roofle roogle roople rootle roovle roozle sooble soodle soofle soogle soople soosle sootle sooyle soozle tooble toodle tooele toofle toogle tooile toople tootle toovle toozle uoogle uooule vooble voodle voogle voovle wooble woofle woogle wookle woople woosle woowle woozle xoodle xoogle xoomle xooxle yooble yoodle yoogle yoople yoosle yootle yooyle yoozle zooble zoocle zoodle zoogle zookle zoople zootle zoozle

    7 characters:

    0google 1google 1noodle 2doodle 2doogle 2google 3google 3poodle 4doodle 4google 8google 8noodle 9google adoodle adoogle afoogle agoogle ajoogle anoodle anoogle awooble azoogle bdoodle bgoogle biooele blooble bloogle bloomle bloople bmoogle boooble booodle booogle broodle broogle brookle broozle byoogle caoogle cbootle cgoogle choodle choogle choozle cloogle cooogle croodle croogle dgoogle dooodle drooble droogle droople droozle ebooble eboodle eboogle ecoogle edoodle edoogle edootle egoogle emoogle enoodle enootle epoodle eroogle etootle exoogle ezoogle fdoogle feoogle ffoogle fgoogle flooble floogle floozle fooofle fooogle frooble froodle froofle froogle froohle froojle froople frootle froovle frooyle froozle ftoogle fuoogle fyoogle g-oogle g0oogle g9oogle gaoogle gboogle gcoogle geooble geoogle gfoofle gfoogle ggoogle ghoogle gioofle gioogle gjoogle gkoogle glooble gloodle gloogle gmoogle gnoodle gnoogle goooble gooodle gooogle goooole gpoogle grooble groofle groogle groople grootle groovle groozle gtoogle guoogle gvoogle gwoogle gyoogle gzoogle hgoogle hooogle ibooble iboodle iboogle icoogle idoodle idoogle idootle igoodle igoogle ikoogle imoodle imoogle inoodle inootle ipoodle ipoogle itoodle itoogle jdoodle jgoogle jooogle kaoodle kdoodle kgoogle khoogle kloogle knoodle knoogle kroogle kyoodle lgoogle mdoodle mgoogle mroogle myoogle ngoogle nooodle nooogle odoodle ogoogle oooogle peoople pgoogle phoodle phoogle phoozle plooble ploogle pnoodle pooodle proodle proofle proogle proozle qgoogle qroogle quoogle reoogle rfoogle rgoogle rooogle rroogle rxoogle scooble scoodle scoogle scootle sgoogle shoodle shoogle shoople shootle skooble skoodle skoogle skootle skoozle sloogle smoodle smoogle smoople smoozle snooble snoodle snoofle snoogle snookle snoople snoozle spooble spoodle spoofle spoogle spookle spoozle sroogle stoodle stoogle svoogle swooble swoogle swoozle tgoogle thoogle tooogle tpoodle trooble troogle trootle troovle tvoogle twoodle udoodle ufoogle ugoogle vgoogle vooogle vroogle wgoogle whoodle whoofle whoogle whoople whoozle wooogle xdoodle xgoogle xxoogle yaoogle ygoogle yooogle zgoogle znoodle znoozle zooogle zvoogle

    jamie

  • And, in another news, (Score:4, Funny)

    by nusratt ( 751548 ) on Monday July 26, 2004 @08:13PM (#9807225) Journal
    Merriam-Webster has been enjoined from using floogle, flugel, bugle, canoodle, Gogol, googol, kugel, ogle, Rigel, toodle, woozle, and yodel -- except as character names in a children's book about a band of strip-mining munchkins.

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close