| 3:09 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
methinks they'll just have to pay up if they want them all. Some of those are probably registered before Google was even called Google.
| 4:01 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"Do no evil..."
Yeah, right. This is a perfect example of corporate muscle being used to bully down the little guy. They keep this up and we cna start calling them Ghoulgle
| 4:22 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Yp, google the Boy Scout company.
I'm going to register screw-u-oogle.com. Let's see what they do ;)
Why don't they buy this guy off? He'll take soem money and start with a new name. They knew or should've known that the name was already registered when Froogle was launched. This is pure scummy. Let's hope the family of the guy who came up with "Google" first sues them now, and uses their argument against them. Google can't have it both ways.
| 4:47 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Trying to take down Froogles.com is total scum. The guy was obviously there first and wasn't intending to rip off the Froogle name. That is so... Microsoftesque of Google.
I hope the guy wins and forces Froogle to change its name (or pay up).
| 5:14 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Well In this case I actuly think Google stand a good chance of loosing.
froogles Google big difference.
froogles froogle very similar
Froogles where there first so why should google be allowed to get a TM on it?
I did a search through the US patent office and fond a tm already existed for froogles.com
This will be interesting.
| 5:24 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I sincerely hope that they loose, for the better good of the entire internet.
This makes me sick, and yet also happy that I don't use Poo-gle that much anymore.
| 5:27 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I can understand partially why google is going after xyzoogle.com style domains. There are hundreds of 2 bit search engine rip off's naming themselves widgetoogle.com the widget search engine...
But I think to adhere to the "do no evil" working practices that they claim to operate under they have to understand that there are a finite number of pronouncable, short English sounding names that have to be shared amoungst a vast number of businesses and individuals. Going after those that are not trading on the back of google branding in this way will create nothing but ill feeling towards them.
| 5:37 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I can understand partially why google is going after xyzoogle.com style domains. |
Yeah but if they weren't smart enough to foreplan what domain names they wanted, then they shouldn't whine later on - tough titty that they weren't smart enough to register it before someone else did - you focus on your product and move on...
If they want those domain names, offer to buy them from the current owners, and any such other domains they might want, they should go ahead and buy them for $7.95 each from GoDaddy or wherever they get them from.
I wonder if in becoming an ICANN accredited registrar they were under the pre-supposition that they would automatically win such domain names - think again bums!
| 6:51 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google has made its billions - let a few small fry get the crumbs from the rich mans table. Its sad that this sort on nonsense goes on when they could be focusing on making their product better.
| 7:05 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Also worth noting, they're probably going to spend more money on lawyers fees trying to get those domains that they would loose by not having them - a typical way in which enterprise level companies literally waste money.
| 7:20 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Google should cut their losses and bow out. The world doesn't need another corporate bully. Shame on you Google!
| 7:53 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I show Froogles.com created on: 02-Dec-00 and I certainly don't remember Froogle being around back then.
How can you retroactively "cybersquat" a product that was yet to exist?
This is pale by comparison to Radio Shack going after every company on the planet with the word "shack" in their name as if Rib Shack would ever be confused with an electronics store.
Silly shakedown story time...
My main domain is actually my last name which I registered in '96 before most people knew the internet existed. A year later some jerk with a trademarked company name that included my last name, taken in part from the city his company resides in like "xyzcityname company inc.", from a city actually named after one of my relatives in the 1800s, had the nerve to try to shake my domain down about 6 years ago.
I probably didn't have a legal leg to stand on but I pointed out he could trademark anything he wanted but my using my family name didn't constitute "cyber squatting" and I had the genealogy to prove in fact HE was squatting on my family name which the city adopted from one of my relatives in the 1800s. No clue what his lawyer told him but I never heard from them again.
| 8:37 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|I sincerely hope that they loose, for the better good of the entire internet. |
I agree. Not cool.
| 9:01 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
you are familiar with the itunes uk case? [itvibe.com...]
very not cool
| 9:15 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
|you are familiar with the itunes uk case? |
Wow... it would seem apparent that the internet is becoming more cut-throat by the day - I'm glad to be gradually moving out of this industry!
| 10:13 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
thanks for the itunes link... very interesting
| 10:21 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
A few things that spring to mind.
Why froogle? does it make sense to open a site on a very similar domain to a site that operates within the same industry as froogle?
What then gives then the right to try and stake legal claim to it. I can only imagine Google would be sure to take action to protect them selfes if another company where to aquire "googl" and operate it as a search engine. One leter less.. same as they are doign with froogles.
I just dont think Google are very good at choosing names for their services.
Froogle: as this thread points out.
Gmail: there was already an open source email application called gmail long before Google mail appeared on the scene.
I have a fear however that will come down to who has the biggest wallet.
| 10:34 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
i think im gonna shop at froogles.com sometime soon. spend a bit of that adsense check <grin>
| 11:05 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
There must be 182 variations of Froogle that substitute 1 letter, plus 234 possible variations that add 1 letter in various positions, not counting any hyphenated domains. I'm not going to get into the numbers of domains that differ by two or three letters, but you get the idea. If Google wants to go after all of these it has its work cut out.
| 11:07 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"My main domain is actually my last name which I registered in..."
they're dozens of high profile, international companies that have the same name as me (kinda unique name;). I have myfirstname.com. Registered it since 1996 and only one (Swiss co) has asked me politely if I was willing to give to them. I said no.
All I have is a paragraph or two there now, but who knows what I'll do in the future. I explain that it is not for sale, and that this is my first name, not registered for any other reason. I hope Google doesn't introduce a new service or something with my name :)
| 11:23 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
"I just dont think Google are very good at choosing names for their services. "
these jerks (sorry but they are acting like it) have no respect for anyone else, that's all. Just like MSFT. They pick a name and go with it. Too bad if it's yours. They'll drive you into bankruptcy trying to defend your name.
Did you know that someone owned "Internet Explorer" too? [news.com.com...] . At least MSFT paid for it. Google can easily offer him $50-$100K in stock for the name, or simply leave him alone.
| 11:53 pm on Apr 17, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I think the real answer here is if you're in business to spend the $325.00 and file a trademark for your domain name so when some big company tries to introduce a new product and stomps on your name you have the backing of the USPTO office to collect from them instead. Then you spend the $35 to copyright your content which is more likely to result in theft than the domain name and in my experience a more frequent paying lottery ticket.
Seriously, $325.00 isn't that much for a lottery ticket considering most people buy $5 quick picks it's equivalent to 65 $5 quick picks with a better chance of winning :)
BTW, I've won 5 out of 6 on a lottery ticket once, so I know something about the "chances of winning". They almost had to cart me off to the ER at the point when I thought I had $20M for about 15 seconds before the fact that the last number didn't match sunk in and that was almost a separate cardiac related ER event in itself. Before I get a bunch of sticky mail it only paid about $1,500 as the 5 out of 6 prize pool had over 100 winners.
On the flipside, they almost had to cart me off to the ER from anfer when I found some idiot stole my content and made 10 clones of my web site - but he was a winning lottery ticket >:)
| 4:50 am on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I did an advanced search on GD for "google" names: criteria; Less than 15 characters, contains "google", .COM only, no numbers or hyphens.
These following came up (with no indication of "back order" or other reserved / registered status)...
ABUSEGOOGLE - could be like a "sucks" site
AUCTIONGOOGLE - self explanatory
AUCTIONGOOGLER - one who does the above
AVGOOGLE - Audio/Video search?
ACTINGGOOGLE - to act greedy and hastily
BARGOOGLE - ICANN disposition
BETTERGOOGLE - Yahoo? MSN? New kid on block?
BIBLEGOOGLE - who they gonna sue on this one?
BINGOOGLE - Osama's evil cousin's SE
BLANKGOOGLE - after everyone bans the bot
BOOBLEGOOGLE - search for Jewish grandmothers
BRITNEYGOOGLE - pop princess of SE's
BROTHERGOOGLE - defrocked: searching for little boys
BUYGOOGLESTOCK - the "short" story soon?
CHIGOOGLE - I think it's in Illinooogle
COMMONGOOGLE - seen one greedy corporation, seen em all
COOLGOOGLE - only a memory?
DARKGOOGLE - Luke Skywalker's father's SE
DEARGOOGLE - (being sued by Dear Abbey's estate)
DOGGYGOOGLE - Position #86 (#1 is MISSIONARYGOOGLE)
DOMAINGOOGLER - what I am being right now
So much fun, so little time...
Back to work!
| 5:25 am on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Use the wayback machine for froogles.com
You can see that they were a shopping site for almost one year before Google launched their "Froogle" product.
I say that Froogles.com should counter-sue Google for any monies they may have made through their "Froogle" service, and be forced to give froogle.com to Froogles.com :)
| 6:05 am on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Welcome to the world of tomorrow where corporate america owns the common:
words, colors and even letters because of trademark/patent office and WIPO stupidity.
Owens-Corning owns a trademark on all pink insulation.
UPS owns the color "UPS Brown" (Pantone 0607298).
Cadbury claims a trademark on the color purple [ipaustralia.gov.au].
The color yellow is a granted trademark of Mr. LongArm (a boom company) [fury.com].
Tiffany Blue, GI JOE green and Barbie pink are also trademarked.
Based on previous WIPO and NAF decisions, Google will win.
Doesn't Google also have a claim on multi-colored text for logos?
I vaguely remember that they C&D anyone trying to use multi-colored text.
| 6:56 am on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
Here's an idea for Google. Throw the lawyers out, build a better product and give it another name.
I ask most of my customers how they located me. Never once has one replied Froogle. I figure the same sort of shopper that shops Amazon would also shop Froogle. I don't get orders from Froogle but I get them from Amazon. Froogle doesn't work... yet. Quit doing evil and start building a better product.
And leave that man in NY alone.
| 8:08 am on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
I am actually suprised Google are bothering to go about it this way. They're almost certainly not going to win (it has already lost one such case) and it's much easier (and probably cheaper) to buy them out.
| 9:28 am on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
it's like google wants to take the web (but that's also in beta)
| 10:58 am on Apr 18, 2005 (gmt 0)|
In reading this, I am surprised that google is not more interested in going after misspellings that are more recently registered to drive traffic to a competing search engine in AU.
Maybe the owner froogles.com should jump on this too and claim trademark infringement of froogles!
| This 56 message thread spans 2 pages: 56 (  2 ) > > |