Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 107.21.163.40

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

Google's Challenge of 'Froogles' Rejected

     
9:50 pm on Jul 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 20, 2000
posts:1702
votes: 0


Google Inc.'s right to use the name "Froogle" for its online shopping service came into question Friday when an arbitration panel rejected the company's challenge of a Web site named Froogles.com.

[apnews1.iwon.com...]

10:42 pm on July 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 14, 2004
posts:1043
votes: 0


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.
11:31 pm on July 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 22, 2002
posts:959
votes: 0


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.

11:54 pm on July 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 19, 2001
posts:455
votes: 0


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.

11:57 pm on July 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member from US 

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ogletree is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Apr 14, 2003
posts:4281
votes: 25


I know Froogle was the dumbest marketing idea I have ever seen. People have no idea what that is. What are they thinking?
12:26 am on July 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 17, 2003
posts:1947
votes: 0


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.

1:11 am on July 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 15, 2003
posts:1418
votes: 0


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...

1:27 am on July 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 14, 2003
posts:1140
votes: 0


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.

CompWorld

2:09 am on July 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 22, 2001
posts:2450
votes: 0


This case is a definite "no-brainer". Google should be ashamed.
2:27 am on July 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 24, 2003
posts:318
votes: 0


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?

2:30 am on July 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 15, 2003
posts:1418
votes: 0


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.

2:48 am on July 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 17, 2003
posts:1947
votes: 0


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.

2:58 am on July 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 28, 2001
posts:1380
votes: 0


Yes, Google is definitely becoming more like Microsoft. I heard from a confidential source they will be releasing the NS-5 Googlebot in 2035.
3:29 am on July 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:May 27, 2003
posts:503
votes: 0


Hey kodaks...

> Wow! Google should have won the case against them.

Why?

"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...

5:07 am on July 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 25, 2004
posts:23
votes: 0


It's nice how froogles.com is a PR0
5:15 am on July 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 28, 2001
posts:1380
votes: 0


froogles.com is actually PR 4 (insert the www).
5:16 pm on July 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 26, 2003
posts:748
votes: 0


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.

MQ

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.

11:04 pm on July 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 25, 2003
posts:418
votes: 0


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"? ;)

1:06 am on July 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:May 24, 2003
posts:814
votes: 0


yes or you can lose the trademark.
3:01 am on July 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Dec 29, 2002
posts:100
votes: 0



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.

2:43 pm on July 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 14, 2001
posts:129
votes: 0


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...

4:58 pm on July 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:May 27, 2003
posts:503
votes: 0


I've had no trouble visiting his site - what browser are you using JuniorHarris?
10:40 pm on July 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 15, 2002
posts:1199
votes: 0


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.

11:22 pm on July 25, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 22, 2002
posts:959
votes: 0


> 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.

4:20 pm on July 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 8, 2004
posts:43
votes: 0


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.

4:31 pm on July 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 15, 2003
posts:1418
votes: 0


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.

5:36 pm on July 26, 2004 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 26, 2002
posts:283
votes: 0


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)

11:22 am on July 28, 2004 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:May 8, 2003
posts:1141
votes: 0


Froogel = frugal + google ?

That explains it...

I always thought it was frog + google = froogle

The shopping frog. Or the frogging shop?