![Google Google](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/google_64.png)
![Businesses Businesses](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/business_64.png)
![The Internet The Internet](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/internet_64.png)
Google Loses Domain Fight Over Froogles.com 284
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."
GoogleGear (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:GoogleGear (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe they did and purposely ignored it, banking on their size and legal girth to get their way.
</conspiracy>
Re:GoogleGear (Score:4, Funny)
Besides, a Google search on the matter didn't reveal anything sketchy.
Re:GoogleGear (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Well obviously the owner should be forced to change his name, as he neither sells cars nor automatic weapons.
Re:GoogleGear (Score:3, Funny)
Re:GoogleGear (Score:4, Informative)
Re:GoogleGear (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:GoogleGear (Score:2, Funny)
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)
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)
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
Re:GoogleGear (Score:2)
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.
What about Google Girl?!? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:GoogleGear (Score:2)
Re:Google is not related to Frugal (Score:4, Informative)
What is Google thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What is Google thinking? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What is Google thinking? (Score:2)
Google needs new legal/copyright staff (Score:2)
"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)
Pity the winning website is such intensely boring placeholder glop, though.
Re:What is Google thinking? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:What is Google thinking? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:What is Google thinking? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would mispell "frugal" in that fashion because frugal.com was registered in 1995 and frugals.com was registered in 1999. Also, fru sounds just like froo. And if you really think he did this to make people think of "Google", why did he not just register froogle.com, rather than froogles.com? froogle.com was still available when he registered froogles.com.
Re:What is Google thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no law against having a similar name to an existing company, ESPECIALLY if you're not in competition. Why google would feel threatened is beyond me.
Re:What is Google thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What is Google thinking? (Score:2)
Froggles is plural. If it was an attempt then they would use the singular version, just as its Google (singular) and not Googles.
>Google didn't have a web shopping business before doesn't mean that it's ok to use a name potentially confusingly similar, without being related.
If that were true then you would be resorting to alot of non-words like Exxon. They have to be in non-related fields which don't cause confusion. Sort of like "Apple
Re:What is Google thinking? (Score:2)
Funny you bring them up: Apple Records did sue [bloomberg.com] Apple Computers, first in 1989 and then again last year.
-Sosumi
Re:What is Google thinking? (Score:2)
From your link: ``Providing both businesses stay within their particular areas, then trademark law allows them to coexist,'' said John Linneker, a partner in intellectual property at London law firm Taylor Wessing. ``It's when computers meet the music industry that the trademark conflict blows up.''
That's his point, as long as you are in a different business you can use the name. It
Re:What is Google thinking? (Score:2)
-Sosumi
Re:What is Google thinking? (Score:2)
Yes, I'm sure. Look at the logo at the top with the penny and nickel. It looks like one of Google's logos -- specifically, the tax freedom day one. Below that are graphical links nested directly under the logo that are remarkably similiar to Google's tabs.
Now, I'll grant you that a lot of the rest of the page is a rip off of Apple's designs rather than Google's.
Conclusion: Entire design is a rip off with little to no originality, and is intentionally designed to mislead people into thinking it is a part
He (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:He (Score:5, Insightful)
Or is this particular story perhaps not accurately reflecting all sides of the issue?
Re:He (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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)
Re:He (Score:3, Informative)
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.
I wonder why you never see Google people on /. (Score:2)
It really isn't all that big of a deal -- it's just interesting that someone managed to stop part of Google's services at all.
I wonder why you never see Google employees posting on Slashdot. Many tech companies occasionally do (oh, with a "my opinions are my own" thing, but they're at least there).
Ma
Google's trademark attorneys should be fired (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:Google's trademark attorneys should be fired (Score:2)
Even more ironically, since it wasn't a registered trademark, the most fruitful approach your firm probably could ha
Re:Google's trademark attorneys should be fired (Score:2)
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)
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?
Re:Why did google even bother? (Score:2, Interesting)
17 Castle La.
Holtsville, New York 11742
United States
Created on..............: 2001-Sep-11.
Re:Why did google even bother? (Score:4, Informative)
I was thinking about the unfortunate registration date, but the New York thing isn't Google's doing; that's the other guy.
Although still an interesting coincidence.
Re:Why did google even bother? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Look more carefully (Score:2)
Re:Look more carefully (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why did google even bother? (Score:2)
OMG! Google is teh terrorist!
Re:Why did google even bother? (Score:2)
There's also a chance that they'll win solely based on name similarity...if Froogles.com is primarily a search engine, it surely infringes on the name Google as the two are nearly identical. It's be like starting a shoe company called Kneebock, or a car company called Chevrolait.
Re:Why did google even bother? (Score:2)
It would depend on whether the word "Froogle" ("frugal") is considered to be obviously derivative from the word "Google" ("googol"). Since Google.com existed well before Froogles.com, and since they're similarly spelled, it could be argued that "Froogles" was an attempt to capitalize on the name "Google".
Re:Why did google even bother? (Score:2)
Domain names in the
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
GOOGLE.COM.SUCKS.FIND.CRACKZ.WITH.SEARCH.GULLI. C OM
GOOGLE.COM.HAS.LESS.FREE.PORN.IN.ITS.SEARCH.ENGI NE
GOOGLE.COM
To single out one re
Re:sept 11th (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:sept 11th (Score:2)
Re:sept 11th (Score:2)
Re:sept 11th (Score:2)
Dr. Seuss Anyone (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Dr. Seuss Anyone (Score:5, Funny)
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
Sounds about right to me (Score:2, Insightful)
Lot of Google stories on today...
Booble? (Score:4, Funny)
I guess the pr0n search engine, Booble [booble.com], is next!
(Not safe for work.)
Deceptively Similar? (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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)
the missing incentive: 40 bills (Score:2, Interesting)
Mikerowesoft went for peanuts (Score:2)
Same abuses different company... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Same abuses different company... (Score:2)
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)
Google didn't know about froogles.com??? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
has not won every contest (Score:2, Redundant)
In related news (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In related news (Score:2)
McDonalds lost, fortunately.
Google names allowed for API apps? (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone want to write a [a-z]oogle sciprt? (Score:2, Funny)
Going Public (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Going Public (Score:2)
they just do 'what they had to do'.
They also lost in Norway (Score:5, Interesting)
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:
...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.
Re:They also lost in Norway (Score:2)
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)
Wasted resources (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wasted resources (Score:2)
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)
No I don't (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No I don't (Score:3, Interesting)
Regarding Froogles - I'd say "Froogles" has at least as many Google-infringing letters as Lindows does Windows-infringing letters
Re:They lost this, yet M$ won lindows diuspute (Score:2)
a) Free publicity on pr
Well, much as I love Google, they're crazy here (Score:3, Insightful)
I usually don't like WIPO's decisions... but... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
sueoogle.com (Score:2, Funny)
Dates (Score:5, Interesting)
Strangely, the original register date for "froogle.com" is listed in the whois database as September 11, 2001. Kinda surreal.
Jumped the Shark? (Score:2)
Perhaps with the IPO Google has officially jumped the shark?
add in the Os (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Wool-Mart vs Wal-mart (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wool-Mart vs Wal-mart (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What good are TLDs then? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Normally I Root For The Little Guy... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's saving is of legal significance only.
TLD Zone Search (Score:3, Interesting)
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:
6 characters:
7 characters:
jamie
And, in another news, (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why are you promoting a scam? (Score:2)
The free ipod deal is not a matrix scam. It simply say's you have to complete a purchase and have five qualifying friends also complete a purchase to receive a ipod. This is no differen
Re:Same damned thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Your missing the point, I'm talking about freeipods.com which I believe the OP was refering to. (I can't be sure since he removed the link.) This is not the same type of thing that you are refering to in your links to Wired's article about Ebay auctions. You need to be very clear in your thinking and know the difference between a matrix scheme and a referral company. They are 2 different thing. One is illegal, one is not. Freeipods.com does not sell you the opportunity to get into the d