Wow! Google should have won the case against them. I can't count how many times I accidentally edded an "s" to the end of Froogle, and got to a totally different website.
No they shouldn't. Wolfe started Froogles nearly two years before Google started Froogle.
I'm all for cybersquatters getting busted, but in this case Google went around things totally the wrong way.
My thoughts exactly nutsandbolts.
Hopefully, this will just force Google to change Froogle's name to Google Shopping. Maybe then the average Joe will at least know that it's a shopping engine.
I know Froogle was the dumbest marketing idea I have ever seen. People have no idea what that is. What are they thinking?
|I know Froogle was the dumbest marketing idea I have ever seen. People have no idea what that is. What are they thinking? |
Frugal + Google = Froogle.
Makes sense to me.
I find it interesting how they're pursuing "Froogles", a site that was around before they started "Froogle".
Yet they're defending their right to use the name "Google", when Googles has raised a trademark infringement issue against them. Googles has been around longer than Google and had their trademark first.
Talk about a double standard...
No, I am glad that Google was shut down on this. They are now starting to be the next microsoft. Remember that.... I believe Google is moving away from it's webmaster routes. Just like any other company that goes public. The funny thing is, it was the webmaster community that helped Google become what it is today. Nice to remember your roots.
This case is a definite "no-brainer". Google should be ashamed.
I think in order to protect their own trademark, they are required to agressively pursue any potential infringement, or they lose the right to their trademark. So this way, if their own trademark is challanged and the basis is that they didnt pursue froogles 'infringement', they can say at least they tried.
So now I wonder if froogles might sue froogle?
In Google's defense though I have to say that this probably wasn't their idea. I'm sure a lot of their recent activity has been the decision of lawyers in preparation for their IPO. It's much better from a financial standpoint to get all matters like this out of the way before going public so they don't affect the stock price if they surface later.
My guess is that the founders of Google absolutely hate it, as it goes against the principles they've built the company on. But maybe I'm wrong and they've sold out like everyone else, who knows.
|I find it interesting how they're pursuing "Froogles", a site that was around before they started "Froogle". |
When I read the article, I thought the article itself was mis-written.
Originally, I thought the situation was that Froogles sued Google, not the other way around. Maybe what really happened was that Google asked that the case be thrown out and it was not (vs. "Google tried to get Froogles to stop using Froogles.com"). Big difference.
Yes, Google is definitely becoming more like Microsoft. I heard from a confidential source they will be releasing the NS-5 Googlebot in 2035.
> Wow! Google should have won the case against them.
|"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?" |
Indeed. "Don't be evil," my rosy, little bottom...
It's nice how froogles.com is a PR0
froogles.com is actually PR 4 (insert the www).
|I can't count how many times I accidentally edded an "s" to the end of Froogle, and got to a totally different website. |
Dude, what are you thinking? Do you often end up at Googles.com? Yahoos.com? I have never in my life accidentally added an "s" to Froogle, Google, Yahoo, or any other such site.
|This case is a definite "no-brainer". Google should be ashamed. |
Exactly. This is just the big guy trying to bully the little guy who was there two years earlier.
P.S. It took me a long time to get here today. I kept getting lost by typing in webmasterworlds.com and I don't even speak German.
|I think in order to protect their own trademark, they are required to aggressively pursue any potential infringement, or they lose the right to their trademark. |
You mean to say that if I registered a trademark then I have to permanently hire a lawyer as well to "pursue any potential infringement"? ;)
yes or you can lose the trademark.
I wonder if I can start a porno site for voyeurs called go-ogle.com.
If google sues me, maybe I can make 10M from the publicity by monetizing the traffic. :)
Not knowing all the details but I think google is offside on this one.
I was all for the little guy, until I went to visit his site...
The spammy thing maxed my browser and locked it up. I assume it was trying to display spammy ads...
I've had no trouble visiting his site - what browser are you using JuniorHarris?
Froogles has an Alexa rank of over 4 million. He must get about 10 visitors a day.
Bugger principles. If I were him I would sell out to Google and retire.
> Bugger principles. If I were him I would sell out to Google and retire.
Oh I agree. Let's hope Google does the right thing and offer him lots of green foldy stuff now.
Actually the right thing would be a slap in the face against froogles, with a restraining order and charge of frivolous lawsuit.
Who the hell is froogles? Has anyone of you ever heard about them before? Are they anyone significant enough to care about? Google is not the primary search engine of the Web; it is the Web.
Someone completely random and irrelevant is claiming that Google's Froogle is trumpeting their rights and causing damages, but, pray tell, what damages? If you were to search for "froogles" you'd probably get to Froogle, but hey, how many people in the world even KNOW who this Froogles person is?
One of the ridiculous things about the society today is that most of people, being raised on cartoons like Tom and Jerry, automatically assume that big and tough is automatically malevolent and small and poor is benevolent. That's crap. Microsoft against mickeysoft is one thing, but froogles against Google is entirely another.
I sincerely hope that this lawsuit is thrown out of court with prejudice, because I can think of one and only one reason for someone to have had filed it first place: settlement and money. This isn't about right or wrong as much as most people's judgement in this thread isn't about the merits; this is about some random guy finding himself in position to blackmail someone through the legal system for profit fully knowing that it'd be easier for them to pay off than do the right thing and slap him in the face.
|Actually the right thing would be a slap in the face against froogles, with a restraining order and charge of frivolous lawsuit. |
What are you talking about? Google started the dispute against Froogles, not the other way around. Google lost. Now that the owner of Froogles won, he's going after Google for wrongful use of his trademark. He did have it first, so what if Google is "more popular"? First come, first serve.
The pursuit of Froogles should be of little concern to Google's legal department. From a trademark standpoint, Google should be more concerned about using "Google" as a verb. This is their ultimate trademark challenge, and it will not be easy to overcome because they admit and promote the fact that the Google trademark has been diluted.
"If you're smart, you'd go to the search engine that went from a noun to a verb faster than any other product in history".
(From a the Google one-page ad in the March 2004 NYC Search Engine Stratgeies guide, page 16)
Froogel = frugal + google ?
That explains it...
I always thought it was frog + google = froogle
The shopping frog. Or the frogging shop?