Google Asks Booble To Cease And Desist

cosmodemonic writes "The folks at Search Engine Journal have the low-down on a cease and desist order that Google has sent to the porn search engine/Google parody Booble. It seems that, although Booble is claiming to be a parody (which is protected under law), Google is flexing its muscle because of the marketability of the parody." Search Engine Journal makes the reasonable suggestion: "Recent rulings may favor Google in the case, since Booble may be trying to profit from the marketability of the parody."

Comments

Come on now...

[jigyasubalak]

I thought the folks at google had a better sense of humor.

Is it dissappearing as a result of the impending IPO?

Re:Come on now...

[kentmartin]

What I find most interesting, from an unemotional viewpoint, is why we are so fussy about trademark, copyright and patent law.

If you think about it, we (and by we, I mean, the Europeans, Americans and Antipodeans among others) enjoy a standard of life far higher than our African/Aisan/South American counterparts. Why is this so:

Certainly oil and other natural resources play a significant role, but, I think the main thing that maintains the imbalance is patent and copyright law. People in third world countries can produce things for the same prices as we can - or even cheaper, market them in much the same way and can attain similar standards of education (the privileged few initially).

What keeps them "down in the hole" is the constant flow of money back to the aforementioned "lucky countries" who hold the patents.

So, if we start to let even the hint of trademark, copyright or patent violation start to occur, we risk a slow steady slide away from out massive privilege. Governments and courts must be aware of this and I believe that in certain cases they act accordingly.

I am not casting moral judgement here, beyond to say that most cultures tend to vehemently (and often brutally) protect their privileges.

Just an interesting sociological phenomenon methinks.

Re:Come on now...

[CaptainAlbert]

(Is this a troll? I can't quite tell. Meh, what the hell.)

What keeps these countries "down in the hole" are the repressive regimes that spend billions on their own comfort while the masses go barefoot. It's the crippling multi-trillion dollar debts that make it impossible for them to invest in schools, houses and hospitals.

There is no such constant flow of money to patent holders, or if there is, it's a trickle compared to loan repayments. The third world doesn't have very many drugs manufacturing plants because their economies are too immature. In many places there is no running water, let alone high-technology industry.

It's true that strict patent enforcement doesn't help, but it's more that it causes millions of deaths from preventable diseases, than because it hurts third world economies.

Re:Come on now...

[kentmartin]

I can neither agree nor disagree with you entirely.

Certainly the oppressive regime thing is another major factor. While lavish lifestyles of those at the tops of such administrational structure are undoubtably inequatable and morally reprehensible, I find it difficult to believe that they are a significant factor in the grand scheme of things. What certainly is a massive factor if we are talking standard of life for the general populace (and not the economy as a whole) is the overwhelming military spending that occurs in spite of lack of clean water (as you mention) and lack of decent sewerage facilities, healthcare etc etc... the list goes on and on but I would consider those to be at the top of the list.

You are also correct, IMHO, on the crippling debt, but, I maintain, the money flow due to patents is a significant one - essentially they allow foreign companies own and operate manufacturing plants and whatnot in less fortunate companies and take pretty much all the money out barring a few neagre sheckels for local wages and tax. Difficult to pay your debts when you don't get the full rewards for the product you are producing.

If you don't like my principles, I have others :)

Re:Come on now...

[goldspider]

"While lavish lifestyles of those at the tops of such administrational structure are undoubtably inequatable and morally reprehensible, I find it difficult to believe that they are a significant factor in the grand scheme of things."

Without having the time to do sufficient research on the details, there's a monarch/dictator in one of the many maligned African countries spending his nation's wealth on palaces for each of his 9 wives.

Now admittedly I don't know off the top of my head how much each of these palaces is going to cost, but I am sure it would make a lot of difference to the MILLIONS of starving/impoverished citizens.

Re:Come on now...

[ichimunki]

Everyone is getting all fussy because trademark, copyright and patent law are pushing across dangerous lines. All of the above are in place to further a healthy, free competitive market.

Wrong. Copyrights and patents (which are not at issue in this case) are interference with the free market. Their only purpose is to artificially create scarcity and monopoly where none naturally exists. The reason (at least as stated in the U.S. Constitution) is not protect some inherent right of authors and inventors in works they produce, but to encourage development in these economic sectors.

Trademark, however, helps keep the market free because they promote honesty. Their real purpose is to prevent fraud-- i.e. you can sell a watch that looks like a Rolex, but you can't say it is a Rolex. In this case, I have to wonder whether Booble goes too far. Is a reasonable adult going to be confused and think Booble is a Google affiliate? Hard for me to answer since my first exposure to Booble was as a link in a /. story where it was clearly referred to as a "parody" site (what the parody or satire is, I don't see though). In my case I have no doubt that it's not a Google site. But what about people who find it on their own?

Re:Come on now...

[Anne Thwacks]

Actually, most Third World counties have vastly more resources than the Old World, especially land and minerals.

What they dont have is a viable legal system.

Without enfoceable contracts of any form, whether social or business, life is a struggle, and large social structures collapse from lack of foundations.

However, a viable legal system depends on enforceable law, and that requires the law to be a concept supported by the people. It is democracy that makes the law "something the people did for themselves", and a legacy of dictatorships and colonialism that teaches "the law is something evil people do to us".

Most people in Europe know that without contract law, there would be no food in the shops by the end of the week, so law is defended. Most people in Africa know the law is there to exploit them, so they dont respect it.

Its easy once you know ...

Re:Come on now...

[fbg111]

In the late 1800s, when Japan first embarked upon their national economic development, they sent envoys to America and Europe to figure out what made those societies so successful, and to bring that knowledge back to Japan. The most important finding? Patent and copyright law. Without it, people steal each others' valuable ideas and products, negating that value and disincentivizing (if that's a word) each other from innovating. (And before you argue that Japan doesn't innovate, they do, although not as flamboyantly as America.)

Patent and copyright law is not something the West has a monopoly on. Anyone can (and everyone should) enact it (which is part of the reason for getting China et al to join the WTO). It helps the West that we enacted it first, but in time it will help developing nations equally. There is no monopoly on human invention, and patent and copyright law can protect the originators of intellectual resources from scavengers, be they in developed or developing countries.

Movies

[CGP314]

What about parody movies like space balls? Can Lucas sue them because they made money?

--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor?

American Weblog in London

Re:Can't Beat 'em, don't wanna buy them...

[larien]

This is modded as informative?

Seriously, check out NTK which occassionally features "one of these pictures is not like the rest" links to google images searches, where normally innocent searches pull up some "interesting" results.

Number 2

[bbrazil]

From the article:
2. Take steps to transfer the Domain Name to Google;

Now what could google do with this...

Marketability of parody vs. marketability of use

[ndnet]

IANAL, but I think I see the line being drawn here.

Money can be made off of a parody, such as Spaceballs, because of the intent behind it - to make money directly from reaction to the parody.

Booble isn't doing that. Booble is using the name parody as an advertisement. They're trying to make money by using that as a pull, a gimmick, a trick.

Too bad Google probably has the name trademarked. Google now can use fair litigation to shut them down.

In other words: Google uses dark magics for good purposes, such as self-defense!

Google is a dick

[relrelrel]

What's going to happen to these others? Like xgoogle.com (irc search) etc? Hell they may as well go after www.googirl.com.ar too, pathetic.

I've already lost all confidence in Google, they're just another ecompany who's lost their way.

Value

[Popageorgio]

Wait, so a parody is okay...unless it's such a clever parody that it makes you money?

This is Really Bad, people

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do none of these comments seem to notice that this seems to be another example of a recent trend to effect a huge extention of the concept of a trademark to cover not merely the registered mark itself, but the entire family of phonetically "similar" (for arbitrarily vague definitions of similar) structures in the language? This isn't just owning a word, which is an evil enough concept. This is in effect software-patenting an algorithm for the construction of words: something very different indeed!

That law as I understand it prohibits uses of a trademark (the mark itself, not homophones like mikerowesoft) in ways that dilute the value of the mark, but permits use of the mark in unrelated contexts (which is why Yahoo! can't sue all literary works that use the word). The law seems to pretty clearly end at the mark itself: Booble is safe not because it's a parody, but because it doesn't say "Google". The cases I've heard of (standard disclaimers of legal naivete apply) where this line is burred are all organized around the concept of confusion: the contested use "might be confused" with the registered mark. This is already territory ill-defined enough for plenty of injustice. Nobody is going to accidentally go to Booble, or think "Google is running a porn site!" or anything else that might hurt their IPO (which is, after all, the Highest Law of our land).

Google's action is arrogant bullying: those guys should show some of that legendary idealism and hire some lawyers more secure in the potency of their tools.

So you only allowed ot parody if it's unsuccessful

[theLOUDroom]

That is just a bunch of B.S.

It's obviously a parody. Google's basic argument is that it's a successful parody. So you're not allowed to parody a website unless no one visits it?

What a stupid viewpoint. Do that mean it's only ok to make jokes about corporations as long as no one laughs? After all, funny jokes are marketable, crappy one aren't. (Except here on slashdot.)

Re:Can't Beat 'em, don't wanna buy them...

[damballah]

Isn't it time that Google got it's own icon at /.? They are fairly popular now. What do you guys think?

How could you hate porn?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it wasn't for Porn, you wouldn't enjoy the benfits of the VCR or the Internet.

No joke. Porn drives most of the geek stuff that we want. It drives the cost down so regular folks can afford it.

We joke about spin-offs from the space program (i.e. Teflon, velcro), which turns out *just aren't true*.

But the spin-offs from porn are real, and we use them daily. And you badmouth it?

Besides, I don't get why you get so offended about sex. You mom and dad did it. Maybe you'll get it some day, and your children will do it.

Its as much a part of the human condition as eating, shiting, sleeping or anything else.

Google - New Site for P0rn Search

[Anonymous Coward]

While doing a search on Google for the NAED (National Association of Electrical Distributors), Google's first response:

Did you mean: Naked

How right Booble was in pointing out that Google tarnishes its own reputation more than Booble does...

On another note, I think it's completely ludicrous that Google, in their letter, wanted Booble to transfer the domain name to them. They have absolutely NO business asking for something like that. The two words are completely different. But hey, this is the world we live in now...

Re:If this is the law now...

[Robotech_Master]

Another somewhat (in)famous parody, Mark Jonathan Davis's "Star Wars Cantina," can't be sold (though this hasn't stopped it from getting a lot of radio airplay) due to Barry Manilow's lawyers threatening to sue. Even though it's a parody and protected under law, it's the old problem of the expense of a lawsuit trumping the rightness of it. He's taking donations for a legal defense fund against the time he might be able to try it anyway.

Parody doesn't apply to trademark law

[ScottSpeaks!]

The parody defence under "Fair Use" only applies to copyright. Google's cease-and-desist letter is all about their trademarks, which are a rather different beast from copyrights. Using someone else's trademarks (or something "confusingly similar", and I expect that's how this would be judged) on a similar product/service is almost certainly going to put you on the wrong end of a court ruling.

Also, Google really doesn't have much choice but to go after Booble, even if they had enough sense of humor to tolerate it. If they fail to "defend" their trademarks like this, their trademark protection would lapse, and every other sound-alike or look-alike variation on their trademark would also be availble for anyone to use.

Google has no case, here's why.

[HTH NE1]

Google has developed a distinctive layout and design for its Google website. Over the years since its inception, Google has invested considerable time and money establishing exclusive rights in this layout and design.

Hey, Google, I use a userContent.css client-side stylesheet in Mozilla to override aspects of your distinctive layout, including suppression of all your Sponsored Links, creating an unauthorized derivative work visible only to me. Wanna sue me?

Anyway, to the story: Booble is only confusingly similar to Google because Google itself is confusing their own trademark with Froogle and other alterations of their trademark. If you mangle your own trademark, you have less grounds to object when someone else does. (This is the reason one of TiVo's representatives gave when TiVo eliminated the "Sad TiVo" logo in their Blue Screen of No Signal (BSoNS).)

They've weakened their own trademark by their own actions. They should be serving cease & desist orders on themselves first before going after other sites.

As to their objection that the pornographic searches of Booble damages Google's reputation, perhaps then Google should discontinue Google Image searches that allows searches for boobies which turns up bare female human breasts at all three levels of their Safe Search settings.

And the site does parody Google as it comments upon Google's own dilution of their trademark, such as Froogle. Google opened the door to parody with Froogle. Google has no case. (At least, so long as Booble doesn't sell real Sponsored Links or otherwise accept advertising money.)

They do however have the money to pay lawyers through lengthy litigation. Booble will need to solicit aid from EFF and/or other sources willing to foot their legal bill.