Google Loses Domain Fight Over Froogles.com

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."

Comments

GoogleGear

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the most well known case of Google winning, at least on Slashdot, would be the former Googlegear which was forced to change its name to ZipZoomFly.

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

[stinkyfingers]

Maybe they did and purposely ignored it, banking on their size and legal girth to get their way.

</conspiracy>

Re:GoogleGear

[Pharmboy]

Perhaps Google should search for similar names next time before they start.

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

[stecoop]

[SNIP] former Googlegear, Froogles.com [/SNIP]

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.

Re:GoogleGear

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody forced them to change their name to ZipZoomFly, they could easily have chosen a non-stupid name!

Re:GoogleGear

[prockcore]

Oh yea, the owner's name is Uzi Nissan, the owner of Nissan Computer Corp.

Well obviously the owner should be forced to change his name, as he neither sells cars nor automatic weapons.

Re:GoogleGear

[Rude Turnip]

Why? He's not the one that sucks!

Re:GoogleGear

[slthytove]

Of course, how many of us Gmail-account holding, Google-bar using, overall Google addicts are willing to believe that?

Besides, a Google search on the matter didn't reveal anything sketchy. ;-)

Re:GoogleGear

[Enigma_Man]

Mitsubishi and Mitsubishi Cars went through the same kind of name ownership struggle. However, Mitsubishi group (not the car company) won out in that case.

-Jesse

Re:GoogleGear

[FuzzyShrimp]

I can assure you that Uzi and Amnon(his older brother) have had their names 50 to 60 years or so. In fact Amnon was setting up web sites when most of us were joining BBSes and before the name Nissan was a car to be bought. Nice guys if you ever get the chance to meet them.

Re:GoogleGear

[tarp]

The web didn't exist until around 1994, so how could he have been setting up websites before Nissan existed? Nissans were around at least as far back as 1988.

Not that I agree with Nissan's corporate bullying..

Re:GoogleGear

[ahaning]

Interesting.

I always wondered why the company had their name on cars and on RAM chips.

Re:GoogleGear

[orion024]

This reminds me of a story I heard on the radio a few months back. Apparently there is a pottery/ceramic shop in Detroit called You're Fired. Although the shop has been around for some time, Apparently the person who owns the shop has had some problems since good ol' Donald Trump decided he wanted to tradmark the phrase.

Re:GoogleGear

[Stephen Samuel]

Oh yea, the owner's name is Uzi Nissan, the owner of Nissan Computer Corp.

Oh, great -- so then he changes his company's name to Uzi Solutions, and finds Israel Military Industries gunning for him!

Re:GoogleGear

[demana]

Not as simple as you make it sound though. Nissan didn't go after this site until he started using a lot of auto-related advertising.

From http://www.linksandlaw.com/decisions-116.htm/
"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

[stephanruby]

Hey check this out. What Google coudn't do, Slashdot did in one minute.

Re:GoogleGear

[nacturation]

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.

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.com couldn't be used for *any* commercial content. The guy shot himself in the foot with that one. Had he stuck to computer-related content, there wouldn't have been any issue.

Re:GoogleGear

[one4nine4two]

And who can forget that logo, the lima bean?

Re:GoogleGear

[Anonymous Coward]

Cars, RAM, and tuna, you mean.

Re:GoogleGear

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent is referring to a quote from the movie Office Space

Re:GoogleGear

[RedWizzard]

Oh yea, the owner's name is Uzi Nissan, the owner of Nissan Computer Corp.

Well obviously the owner should be forced to change his name, as he neither sells cars nor automatic weapons.

Actually he did start selling cars, or at least running advertising for car related stuff. At one point 90% of the revenue from the site was due to car related advertising. That's when Nissan Motors sued him.

Re:GoogleGear

[dissy]

> 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.

Its also nice that google never took this to court at all.
You'll note these requests were put before the ICANN arbitration panel to follow all of ICANNs rules, not the legal systems rules.

Re:GoogleGear

[Somegeek]

What are you talking about? Misubishi group owns Mitsubishi Motors, the car company. Why would they fight over a domain name? There was a domain name squabble between misubishi group and some guy who had registed Misubishimotors.com, but he was a squatter.

Re:GoogleGear

[kasperd]

which was forced to change its name to ZipZoomFly.

Ouch, what a horrible name. If that is the kind of punishment you get, you'd better avoid infringing on anybody's trademark to start with.

Re:GoogleGear

[Anonymous Coward]

You were dropped as a child, weren't you?

Re:GoogleGear

[Anonymous Coward]

AND both names are obviously related to the English word frugal

AND frugal is a french word ;-)

What is Google thinking?

[kemapa]

The search-engine company's loss has no immediate impact on its use of the name Froogle. But it means that the Froogles.com name will remain with Richard Wolfe, a disabled Holtsville, N.Y., carpenter who started the Web shopping site in March 2001, before Google introduced Froogle in December 2002.

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?

[XO]

Obviously, "Froogles" was an attempt to make people think of "Google", otherwise why would you misspell "frugal" in that fashion? Same reason why google wanted to use "froogle".. because it makes it obvious that it's related to google.

Just because 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.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[letchhausen]

I imagine that what google was thinking was that anybody using a name with 'oogle' in it after they became the search engine du jour was probably influenced by their name. That's the way a lot of these things go. I am not a big fan of google and use teoma more these days (to dodge so much ad site stuff) but it doesn't take a genius to see how even a variant might be construed as infringing. The courts saw it as not close enough (unlike the other cases which were more exact in their variations) but the real question would of been, would this guy have named it as he did if google had not existed? Of course many of us were using the name google numerically for years prior to their business venture but so goes the name wars......

Re:What is Google thinking?

[kemapa]

Obviously, "Froogles" was an attempt to make people think of "Google", otherwise why would you misspell "frugal" in that fashion?

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?

[SatanicPuppy]

I don't buy it. Thats like saying Google has a trademark on the idea of putting two O's in something.

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?

[jhunsake]

So, in other words, you're saying the five-letter sequence "oogle" is now owned by Google, Inc.?

Re:What is Google thinking?

[GoofyBoy]

>"Froogles" was an attempt to make people think of "Google"

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 Computers" and "Apple Records".

Re:What is Google thinking?

[nanojath]

Unfortunately there seem to be a lot of corporate lawyers who think that provided you are big and famous, it doesn't matter who "came first" or "branded a unique identity" or any crazy dumb little thing like that. And too often they win on that logic - either because the smaller fish simply can't afford litigation or simply because the infringement claims of a big name just seem more credible. This is the right decision, and google should just eat it. Try changing it to frugal.froogle.com, like it matters. It's not like its some tradition, like they call news noogle and the groups groopgle or anything, so why get uptight about it?

Pity the winning website is such intensely boring placeholder glop, though.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

So are you claiming that "Froogles" is confusingly similar to "Google" or not?
Yeah, it's confusingly similar to "Froogle", no doubt about it, but what has that to do with anything?

Re:What is Google thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because this is the American way of business! It does not matter if it's right or wrong morally. If they think they can win the case through the legal system they will attempt to do so. Corporate America is morally bankrupt and has no cuth whatsoever.

You're trying to analyze this MORALLY, not LEGALLY. American corporations care nothing about morals, it's a cut-throat business. The general idea is that if you don't have the conviction to do something immoral, yet legal then you're going to be the source of your own demise.

Google is just like any other corporation... If they think they can take anything of value from anyone else and get away with it they will. This is the foundation of our capitalist society, accept it already.

Of course, this is only my opinion and I could be wrong.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[Trillan]

This is exactly how I feel. How is this even an issue?

Because Froogle is a play on both Frugal and Google. While Mr. Wolfe may have started Froogles before Google started Froogle, he started it well after Google started Google.

That Mr. Wolfe is attempting to use a confusingly similiar name in a bad-faith attempt to compete is obvious, given the layout of the Froogles web site.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course many of us were using the name google numerically for years prior to their business venture but so goes the name wars......

Yeah, we called you Art Majors. The rest of us used googol.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[mph]

Of course many of us were using the name google numerically for years prior to their business venture but so goes the name wars......

I would hope that more of us were using the correct term, "googol."

Re:What is Google thinking?

[cft_128]

Sort of like "Apple Computers" and "Apple Records".

Funny you bring them up: Apple Records did sue Apple Computers, first in 1989 and then again last year.

-Sosumi

Re:What is Google thinking?

[3263827]

Are you sure you didn't accidentally visit froogle.google.com instead of Wolfe's www.froogles.com? When I visit the latter, I see a site that looks right out of the mid '90s. There's absolutely no similarity between the two sites in layout or style.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[adric]

The first thing I thought was that he must be selling frog-goggles... i.e. frog-gles.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[Short Circuit]

Then why spell it "froogles" instead of "froogals"?

Re:What is Google thinking?

[Mr Guy]

Yes, when they crossed the line from computers to music, which IS the same business (You did read your own link, right?).
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's pretty clear Google is infringing on his name, once they entered the price searching business.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[cft_128]

Yes, I did read it, that is why I pointed it out. It went to backing up the points raised, but was not directly mentioned (The Apples were brought up as an example but the actual suits were not mentioned)

-Sosumi

Re:What is Google thinking?

[Trillan]

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 of Google.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[sik0fewl]

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?

[XO]

I'm not saying that it's confusingly similar, or not.

I'm saying that it's likely the guy that owns it, wanted to invoke thoughts of Google.

Really, he should be after Google for using Froogle, but I don't think that he should win that one, either, since froogle would be an obvious for google to go into.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[nanojath]

frugal.google.com rather. It has a good ring, I think.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[rsmith-mac]

Basically, yes. I think we can all agree that in the minds of the public, anything with *oogle in it on the internet must be related to Google, so Google has a vested interest in making sure no one uses that mindset to cause problems - and in American trademark law, that means everything must be protected.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

That boogles the mind.

But seriously, I disagree. Google existed before Froogles. Froogles is an attempt to index good deals on the web. You know - find stuff == Google, find cheap stuff == Froogles?

The fact that Google added a shopping section of its own website and picked the same name afterwards doesn't mean that Froogles was correct to begin with, it just reinforces the concept that people link the Froogle/Google terms.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[Jeff85]

That's like saying Mozilla can't use the five-letter sequence "zilla"!

Re:What is Google thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and the six-letter sequence "indows" is now owned by Microsoft.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[autopr0n]

>"Froogles" was an attempt to make people think of "Google"

More likely, it was an attemp to get a domain name that sounded anything like the word frugal. I mean come on, have you ever tried to get a relevant domain name? I really wish there was an easier way to query owners of unused domains to see if they'd be willing to sell.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[Sycraft-fu]

ACtually, with trademarks, being big is something that is taken into account. Not big per se, but well recognised. You have more claim to a term the more unique it is, and the more associated with you it is. If your company is the number #1 producer of product X (with X being a trademark), and everyone associaties you with X, then you have a good claim to it, even if someone else was there first.

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?

[Trillan]

No, the first suit long predated Apple's music business.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[EvilSS]

The problem is that the way trademark law in the US is, a trademark holder MUST persue enforcement of its trademark rights or else face loosing those rights. It creates an unfortunate situation where a company may not want to be asshats about their trademarks, but they are afraid that they will loose their rights to it if they don't.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[Demonspawn]

What they were thinking:

We have a trademark on Google. We _MUST_ defend the trademark or else the courts will say is has fallen into common useage (e.g. Xerox, Kleenex). Therefore, we unfortunatly must challenge this guy in court.

Trademark law is evil in nature.

--Demonspawn

Re:What is Google thinking?

[LnxAddct]

Like a post below mentioned, Froogles didn't file their trademark claim until September 8, 2003, just a few months ago. Google filed their trademark for Froogle on November 22, 2002, well over a year before then. That means that when Google was trademarking Froogle, and they researched anythign similiar, they came up with nothing simply because nothing else like it was trademarked at the time. So they were right in trademarking it, there was no similar trademark. Then over a year later Froogles decided to file for a trademark. The catch is, technically a trademark is valid from the date it was first used in commerce, so it is retroactive. For instance I could sell you something on ebay and tell you I call my company CoolComputingDevices. Then 5 years from now, some big company could start up, search for CoolComputingDevices and find nothing, so they use it as their name. At that point I trademark my name and *bang* all the sudden its been in affect for the past 5 years. Trademark law is one of the most confusing areas of the law. So techincally in this case both parties have their arguments. They are essentially, Google trademarked it first and had a big business built around it right away, but Froogles was supposedly in business for over a year prior(although that could have simply meant one sale that whole year) and then tradmarked their name over a year later after Google. Its interesting and we'd all need more details to come to a real conclusion, but considering Froogles filed in September, and the decision was made recently, that means Google's lawyers probably picked it up right away, took it to litigation and has been on top of its game.
Regards,
Steve

Re:What is Google thinking?

[TeraCo]

Well, google didn't start doing the special day icons until last year - Maybe he stole it from them by going into the future! [in Japan!]

Re:What is Google thinking?

[FLEB]

Fr-----s? Fr'dashs?

Re:What is Google thinking?

[John Courtland]

Sadly...

Re:What is Google thinking?

[Trillan]

Google's been doing the special day icons for several years. They didn't start *archiving* them until last year, though.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[Thomas Miconi]

"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.

Read the article again. Google claim that the carpenter in question used a name (Froogles) that was deceivingly similar to the *Google* name, not to the (then-unregistered) Froogle name.

In other words, they suspect that he called his business "Froogles" in order to benefit from Google's popularity. The third judge agreed with this. The two others did not.

It's not really clear cut, but the ruling seems reasonable to me.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

GP: "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"

Parent: "Obviously, "Froogles" was an attempt to make people think of "Google", otherwise why would you misspell "frugal" in that fashion? Same reason why google wanted to use "froogle".. because it makes it obvious that it's related to google.

Just because 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."

Re:What is Google thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't; they are claiming that they have a trademark on the idea of putting "oogle" in something.

So be careful the next time you stare at a pretty girl; you are violating a Google trademark.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's ogle, you stupid fuck.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mom!?!?!

Re:What is Google thinking?

[dillon_rinker]

"That means that when Google was trademarking Froogle, and they researched anythign similiar, they came up with nothing simply because nothing else like it was trademarked at the time"

So your theory is that researching trademarks means absolutely, positively NOT typing www.trademarkedterm.com? I think any junior trademark attorney would rip you to shreds on that point.

Re:What is Google thinking?

[blueskies]

"I'm saying that it's likely the guy that owns it, wanted to invoke thoughts of Google."

That's why he has a prominent search field on the front page?

"since froogle would be an obvious for google to go into."

First of all how is this obvious? Second, why does it matter if it was obvious if they lost the race to use it? Companies should be allowed to own everything even remotely related to their names?

Re:What is Google thinking?

[bill_mcgonigle]

I don't buy it. Thats like saying Google has a trademark on the idea of putting two O's in something.

No, Yahoo! has that trademark. ;)

Actually 'Google' was meant to be in the same vein as 'Yahoo' - a silly-sounding word with 'oo' in it for a search engine from Stanford. It also happens to be apropos for looking though tons of data.

So maybe Yahoo has a case against Google.

He

[Anonymous Coward]

Google will become hated just like every other big corporation. Just wait.

Re:He

[CrankyFool]

I'm not sure it's time for them to throw in the towel yet (nor the time for some of their fans to throw the towel in), but it is ... interesting. Google makes a big deal out of their "Don't Be Evil" directive. As they grow, mature, and become more corporatized, are they on the path to the dark side?
Or is this particular story perhaps not accurately reflecting all sides of the issue?

Re:He

[St. Alfonso]

I don't know about "hated", but their PR dept. sure knows how to spin:

From CNET.com story on google outage

"Google representatives confirmed that the MyDoom worm affected performance of the search engine, but, despite numerous e-mail complaints received by CNET News.com, said the attack had a limited impact."

"At no point was the Google Web site significantly impaired, and service for all users and networks is expected to be restored shortly," the company said in a statement.

I guess to google's marketing shills it all depends on the meaning of the term "significant" ...

Re:He

[XO]

i'd say it's more of a mistake on someone's part than anything.

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

[McDutchie]

As they grow, mature, and become more corporatized, are they on the path to the dark side?

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

[blueZhift]

It'll certainly be interesting to watch how shareholder pressure will change Google. And jeez, coming out at $135/share is IMHO just plain crazy and unsustainable. Google may have done some really good things for the technology of search engines, etc.., but I don't see how they can sustain a share price that high. Perhaps the Dark Side is already beckoning.

Re:He

[Biogenesis]

Maybe they should appease the masses by actually putting a site at googlesex.com. Yes, I checked it before reading the comments...indeed before reading the article or even the rest of the /. summary!

Re:He

[Fat Cow]

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.

Google's trademark attorneys should be fired

[lothar97]

First we've heard about the Gmail trademark problems. Then there was the problem with Googles. Now Froogle. You think they would research these things extensively first before filing. Trademark applications are interesting in that you do not have to file immediately to obtain protection- you can obtain trademark protection from the day you first use the mark, and then more protection when you first use it in commerce.

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?". I'm still interested...

Re:Google's trademark attorneys should be fired

[Anonymous Coward]

your not ranked 2nd, you are ranked #1

Re:Google's trademark attorneys should be fired

[0x0d0a]

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.

Even more ironically, since it wasn't a registered trademark, the most fruitful approach your firm probably could have used for this would have been to, y'know, Google it. One would hope that whoever does legal stuff for Google actually, y'know, uses their search engine. :-)

Re:Google's trademark attorneys should be fired

[lothar97]

Not to reveal any of our secrets for conducting a brief trademark search, let's say a search engine might be used.

If you search for Froogle, 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 related links, but not the site froogles.com itself. Perhaps a little extra special engineering chez Google?.

Re:Google's trademark attorneys should be fired

[zip159]

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?". I'm still interested...

Congrats... you are now #1!

Re:Google's trademark attorneys should be fired

[joggle]

I would try this (came up #3):

froogles -google

It wouldn't have been so hard in the first place before google went public with their own Froogles service.

Re:Google's trademark attorneys should be fired

[autopr0n]

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).

Wow, I wish I could charge $300 for doing a quick search here

Re:Google's trademark attorneys should be fired

[lothar97]

We do more than just look up their term. It includes often looking through several hundred registrations/applications, for various terms, synonyms, and combinations. We also research registrations we find, plus provide an analysis of the search results. We do a consultation about the results and discuss what might come up after filing an application in light of the results. Our search fee is flat rate, and I often spend more time working on it than is dictated by my hourly rate. We're a small firm with startup clients, not ambulance chasers and over-billers, thank you very much.

Re:Google's trademark attorneys should be fired

[Rich0]

FYI - as somebody who works in an industry where trademarks are VERY important, I can vouch that $300 is no big deal for something like this. My company probably actually employs trademark attourneys for stuff like this (happens so often), and when a new product comes out marketing comes up with a long list of names, and each and every one is checked out. Then when a short list is prepared of a few likely ones, those are researched even further.

Besides checking trademarks in just about every country of significance, they also do things like making sure the future brand name isn't a swear word in a language of significance, and stuff like that.

The last thing you want to do is spend millions of dollars promoting a product and find out you have to change its name...

Re:Google's trademark attorneys should be fired

[jschottm]

Is it really that clear cut? It would seem to me that froogles, while used first, was a clear attempt to capitalize on the google mark. Google is a mispelling that (so far as I know) is unique other than a passing reference in a Douglas Adams book. Given that Froogles is essentially a search engine, albeit on an intentionally limited set of data, I would see this as a clear attempt to use the goodwill that google has generated even though I don't see a lot of chance that the average user would confuse the two.

The logo also appears to be derived from the google logo - there's enough differences to prevent being nailed for it, but if you switched the font to serifs and added the colours, I'd bet that a fair number of people would mistake it at a casual glance.

I'm not saying that I disagree with the court's decision (don't know enough about the case to make a judgement), but I don't think it's black and white.

This guy has the right idea.

[harlingtoxad]

``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?'' Hope you can keep your site or get a big payout buddy.

Why did google even bother?

[jomas1]

Here's whois info for froogles.com:

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

Created on..............: 2001-Sep-11.

He is obviously a terrorist, and should be locked away.

Re:Why did google even bother?

[Mz6]

What a weird day to regsiter a website and even considering his location... which is in Long Island. Richard Wolfe
17 Castle La.
Holtsville, New York 11742
United States

Created on..............: 2001-Sep-11.

Re:Why did google even bother?

[Bombcar]

Here's whois info on froogle.com:

Created on..............: 2001-Sep-11.

OMG! Google is teh terrorist!

Re:Why did google even bother?

[dasmegabyte]

Well, one of Google's trademarks is the elongated "oo." Purposely misspelling a word to include somebody else's trademark would certainly be claimworthy, though it's a long shot.

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?

[mblase]

How can google hope to claim that they have more of a right to the word froogle?

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?

[jomas1]

Because you said that google.com existed for a while before froogle.com, I got curious and did a whois on google.com. I don't understand some of what I got back as a response. Here's a portion of it:

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
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 .THAN.SECZY.COM
GOOGLE.COM

To single out one record, look it up with "xxx", where xxx is one of the
of the records displayed above. If the records are the same, look them up
with "=xxx" to receive a full display for each record.

Re:Why did google even bother?

[IronMagnus]

I am not sure which is worse... the people who read this post and think Mr. Wolfe, not Google registered on September 11th (like it matters...) or the mods who mark an alarming number of such posts up while the posts clarifying the situation are getting marked down.

Re:Why did google even bother?

[Al Dimond]

Well if Froogles to Google is considered enough name similarity to sue over, then the person that invented the iThis and iThat naming scheme would be cleaning up.

Re:Why did google even bother?

[suwain_2]

Froogles is the guy in New York. Froogle (no s) is Google, on Sept. 11th.

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?

[IronMagnus]

This is not "interesting", this is "not reading properly"

Re:Why did google even bother?

[Jason1729]

It's be like starting a shoe company called Kneebock, or a car company called Chevrolait.

Both these names are still available as .com's. Now that they've been mentioned on slashdot, we'll see if they get taken in the next few days.

Jason
ProfQuotes

Re:Why did google even bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends whether you consider the stupidity of the average slashdot poster or the stupidity of the average slashdot moderator to be worse :)

Re:Why did google even bother?

[Kiryat Malachi]

Better yet, a car company called Cafeolet. I bet they'd do great in the Seattle market.

Dr. Seuss Anyone

[robespierremax]

Does this article remind anyone of Dr. Seuss? Google, froogles, moogles, doogles...

Re:Dr. Seuss Anyone

[Seraphim_72]

All the Froogles down in Froogville liked shopping a lot.
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

Why are you promoting a scam?

[Anonymous Coward]

The free ipod scam?

Re:Why are you promoting a scam?

[harlingtoxad]

It isn't a scam. The company behind the site is registered with the Bester Business Bureau. It is essentially a pyramid scheme but no money is spent to join. You just get some spam.

Re:Why are you promoting a scam?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Federal Trade Commission disagrees with you.

Re:Why are you promoting a scam?

[harlingtoxad]

Apologies for being off topic here. I took down the sig link. I didn't know it can be a scam if no money is exchanged, but that article says it's a scam regardless.

Re:Why are you promoting a scam?

[bluekanoodle]

Sorry the FCC says nothing of the sort in regards to the Free Ipod deal. They are talking in generalizations about buyers clubs on ebay. The OP was refering to www.freeipods.com I believe Nowhere in the Wired article does any member of the FCC proclaim that this particular website is a scam even if no money changes hands.

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 different then the car dealer down the street offering you 100 bucks for each friend you refer to him that buys. Companies do this legally all the time. Free ipods is a kickback from companies for doing business with them and referring friends. It is quite different then a buyers club.

Now if I tell you send me 40 bucks, I'll put your name on a list, when I get 5 more names after yours on the list, I use the money that those last 5 sent me to buy you an ipod, so on and so forth, THAT IS A MATRIX SCAM.

I am not an employee of freeipods.com nor am I taking part in their program. I just wanted to point of the difference between the 2.

Sounds about right to me

[Al Dimond]

I'd hate to live in a world where upon choosing a name for something one had to look into a crystal ball to see what name a big company might choose. The Froogles main page doesn't look like it's trying to rip off Google in any way... this guy should have a more valid complaint against Google than the other way around.

Lot of Google stories on today...

Re:Sounds about right to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Well there's the thing with the o's. He uses them in a manner not too dissimilar from the way google does. He probably did want to be similar to google, and had them strongly in mind when he launched his business. Similar enough to evoke a bit of that goodwill google enjoys, but not so similar he'd be mistaken for them.

I think he probably hit his mark. Which is a little *cheap*, but there's no reason to turn his business upsidedown over it.

But worse things have happened to better people too. The US congress in its questionable wisdom gave all rights to the word(s) "Olympic(s)" to the governing body of the Olympic games. Despite the fact that in the northwest there's an Olympic pennisula, with an Olympic mountain range, and no shortage of businesses touting this fact.. So every now and then, when a northwest business grows up it has to change it's name.

sept 11th

[bdigit]

anyone else find it strange this guy was registering a domain on september 11th?

Re:sept 11th

[Fishstick]

I noticed that too, but then wondered if that was the date the registration was completed.. ie he submitted his registration on 9/7 and it just happened to have been procesed on 9/11?

Kind of reminds me of the guy that got held up at the airport because his ticket had been purchased 9/11 -- the day before the attacks he had arranged travel, and the tickets were actually issued the next morning. He had booked several weeks in advance, and there was no reason not to travel by the time his flight date came around.

I don't remember all of the details, but seems like there were other issues/circumstances that kept him off the plane at the time?

Re:sept 11th

[digitalsushi]

rumor has it that quite a few normal day activities transpired on that particular date.

Re:sept 11th

[FictionPimp]

My girlfriend and I were having sex when I looked up to see a burning building and went "That must of sucked" then wait back to having sex. It wasn't until afterwards that I realized what happened. Fortuantly the media replayed the entire event over and over for a year or 2, so I didnt' miss anything. At least it makes a great "where were you" story to tell my children.

Re:sept 11th

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice of you to put the TV on while having sex. Must be damn boring for your girlfriend otherwise.

Re:sept 11th

[cruelworld]

Where did he say anything about watching it on TV?

Re:sept 11th

[addaon]

Not in New York.

Re:sept 11th

[mooingyak]

I was reading a book on a train headed into downtown Brooklyn, and had a similar reaction. I looked out the window, saw the towers burning, and thought "that sucks, I wonder what happened", and then went back to reading my book.

Re:sept 11th

[ezzzD55J]

"Where did he say anything about watching it on TV?"

and where, indeed, does he say anything about them having sex with each other ;-) ? (in "My girlfriend and I were having sex")

Re:sept 11th

[TheLink]

"At least it makes a great "where were you" story to tell my children"

How about: "Me and Momma were busy making you..."

Re:sept 11th

[Ranma-sensei]

Well, I was watching TV (I live in Austria), and I was way angry 'bout them interrupting my favourite TV series for a burning building... Well, at least I didn't miss out on an interesting topic (not that I couldn't have heard about it later...) Ya ne, Ranma

Booble?

[Honorbound]

I guess the pr0n search engine, Booble, is next! ;-)

(Not safe for work.)

Re:Booble?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that and www.goggle.com

Re:Booble?

[Dav3K]

I appreciate the warning, thanks :)

Re:Booble?

[Mark_in_Brazil]

I guess the pr0n search engine, Booble, is next! ;-)

Well, yes, it just might be.

--Mark

9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

What an odd day for Google to go registering domain names. I realize they sort of came to a conclusion they had an "obligation" to help the internet users on that day, and news.google is a result, but Froogle's registration on that day just seems odd.

Deceptively Similar?

[stevemm81]

I think Google should have done their homework before they started their own Froogle site, and realized somebody else was already using the name. There's no reason they couldn't have just called it Google StoreSearch or whatever they wanted.
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 govern these businesses that are obviously copying the names of famous companies. I guess it gets even trickier with "ster," though, since we already have hipsters, gamesters, mobsters, etc as real words.

Re:Deceptively Similar?

[BattleTroll]

Since the guy was using the name 2 years before google, I don't see how "the Froogles guy was probably copying Google's name". Google probably thought since the guy wasn't big time, it'd be pretty easy to roll over him.

Re:Deceptively Similar?

[greenegg77]

And don't forget all of those "-soft" companies that are copying Microsoft, or all of the "Inn" hotels that are copying (you figure out who came first there).

Next targets on Google's radar

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

poodle.com
noodle.com
doodle.com
kugel.com
fluegel.de
kkk.com

(that last one just because it's always good to sue them over anything, and it feels so good too)

Re:Next targets on Google's radar

[Neil Blender]

they have a lot more people to sue

Re:Next targets on Google's radar

[Neil Blender]

Sorry, wrong link in parent. 4752 registered domain names with google in them.

Re:Next targets on Google's radar

[Anonymous Coward]

kkk.com

(that last one just because it's always good to sue them over anything, and it feels so good too)

Obviously a Gnome user.

Re:Next targets on Google's radar

[Anonymous Coward]

hahaha, awesome

Re:Next targets on Google's radar

[Poeir]

Don't kount on it.

Re:Next targets on Google's radar

[Trailwalker]

On page at kkk.com

This site is best viewed with MS Explorer. Please reload if needed.

Somehow, it figures.

the missing incentive: 40 bills

[ch-chuck]

if google had a big bank account they could 'acquire' any domain name their lawyers want (c.f. 'mikerowesoft', 'lindows' et al)

Same abuses different company...

[UnidentifiedCoward]

While not necessarily an abuse, this action leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. That a company like Google could stoop to claiming their rights have been infringed upon by an operation that predates their own is extremely disappointing.

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...

[0x0d0a]

To be fair, they pretty clearly (from looking at the domain) *are* a domain name squatter.

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 with quote.com or biz.com.

Re:Same abuses different company...

[UnidentifiedCoward]

Which even goes more to the core of the issue. Google is about to IPO, they are now forced to do due diligence in order to satisfy their investors. Just take a look at the Google IPO and you will see that the company's previous "everything is groovy" attitude got dumped for the "got to think about our shareholders" motto.

How many companies had to recall their options because they were illegally issued, whoops. So they have unleashed their houds, I mean lawyers and letting anybody and everybody have it with both barrels. Your example of Yahoo just goes to show you how easy it is to coexist. Cybersquatter or not, it would be a simple matter for Google to simply buy their solution rather than be so heavy handed about it. As countless have show, the guy was their first.

Re:Same abuses different company...

[Sanity]

That a company like Google could stoop to claiming their rights have been infringed upon by an operation that predates their own is extremely disappointing.

Indeed, I find it terribly hard to believe that a company endorsed by the Slashdot groupthink could possibly do anything bad.

Re:Same abuses different company...

[UnidentifiedCoward]

By all means you are correct. Microsoft and SCO are not the only ones. However, on this forum they are the most heavily targetted. Apple too has gone around doing very evil things in attempt to consolidate its market share.

My point is that events like these usually mark a change in the guard sort of speak, when a company shift gears from empowering its consumer base to impairing it.

They Missed One

[WitfulThinking]

http://booble.com/ is still in operation.

And now...

[BearJ]

And now, for his winning against google, the website will now be slashdotted.

You're mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

Wolfe registered froogles.com on 02-Dec-00. Google registered froogle.com on 2001-Sep-11.

Re:You're mistaken

[Anonymous Coward]

google are UnAmerican!! no, wait, that's crap.

What about Google Girl?!?

[xmas2003]

Ummmm ... one wonders what they are going to do about Google Girl ;-)

Re:What about Google Girl?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're looking at her arms, you must be batting for the other team.

Admit it and you just might get a date on Saturday night for the first time in over a decade.

archive.org says it had content Jan-2002

[Anonymous Coward]

so, they've got a serious up-hill battle.

Google didn't know about froogles.com???

[PythonCodr]

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.

Re:Google didn't know about froogles.com???

[SithLordOfLanc]

Sure, it may be in their database somewhere, and yes, google is a search company. But how much server space do you think google has?

Re:Google didn't know about froogles.com???

[ryanmfw]

With supposedly 100,000 computers, the RAM alone could store the links to all of their indexed pages. Well not really, but you get my point. :-)

Re:Google didn't know about froogles.com???

[PythonCodr]

Sure, it may be in their database somewhere, and yes, google is a search company. But how much server space do you think google has?

Enough to cache both the URLs they collect and the textual content of the pages when they collected it so it's available when you click that handy little cached link?

Google needs new legal/copyright staff

[MooseByte]

"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 Google should be concerned more with their public image vs. squabbling in the courts after the fact. Maybe if they hired a new law firm. And for that matter some new copyright researchers to avoid this in the future.

They could've quietly bought this guy out even before they launched the Froogle beta. Yeesh! Leave the poor guy alone, it's not his fault you screwed up!

Re:Google needs new legal/copyright staff

[Anonymous Coward]

And for that matter some new copyright researchers to avoid this in the future.

Great advice there. Did you know that copyrights and trademarks have very little in common.

has not won every contest

[XO]

Booble is still up and running...

Google is not related to Frugal

[TiggertheMad]

"Google" is based off the word "Googleplex", a very large number.

Googles claim to fame is that they index a large number of pages, although not quite a googleplex (yet). It is not related to the word 'Frugal' in any way I can connect. 'Froogle' seems to be a bastardization of 'Frugal' and 'Google'.

If Google really wanted the domain name gone, couldn't they make a claim of Trademark infringment?

Re:Google is not related to Frugal

[Siva]

actually, the number is spelled Googol, and there has been some disagreement over Google's use of it.

Re:Google is not related to Frugal

[Anonymous Coward]

I never said Google was related to Frugal, but Froogle is clearly is, as is Froogles.

Re:Google is not related to Frugal

[Anonymous Coward]

sigh. someone mod parent (-1, Stupid).

The number is 'googol'. The larger number is 'googolplex'. 'Google' is a deliberate misspelling of the former, not the latter.

Re:Google is not related to Frugal

[hunterx11]

Not quite yet? There aren't a googol atoms in the universe. There isn't enough matter in the universe to create a physical representation of a googoplex.

Re:Google is not related to Frugal

[Twilight1]

Actually, "Google" was more of an accidental misspelling of "Googol".

Had a spell-checker been handy at the moment, google.com would probably have been googol.com. (And then sued by the greedy family of the person who coined the word "googol" who are suing anyway.)

- Twilight1

Really...

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have googled "froogle" first

In related news

[Archangel Michael]

McDoogle's is being sued by McDonalds, Google, and Doogie Howser MD respectfully.

If Google's challenge of Froogles.com is rejected.

[Anonymous Coward]

..The terrorist have already won!

Google names allowed for API apps?

[manmanic]

Interesting that Google don't seem to mind about API applications keeping the whole word Google in their names, from Google Fight to Googlism to Google Rankings. The Google Alert tool states explicitly on its FAQs that Google "agreed to the use of the Google Alert name and googlealert.com domain". I guess it's all about the distinction between sites that feed into Google's brand value, and those that take away from it.

Someone want to write a [a-z]oogle sciprt?

[stecoop]

Anyone want wirte a whois script to see what other names are registered for [a-z]oogle.com?

Re:Someone want to write a [a-z]oogle sciprt?

[usefool]

Every [a-z]oolge.[com|net|org] has been taken except:

aoogle.net
aoogle.org
eoogle.org
ioogle.org
ooogle.net
ooogle.org
roogle.org
uoogle.org

Re:Someone want to write a [a-z]oogle sciprt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aoogle.net! I've been waiting forever for that to free up!

Re:Someone want to write a [a-z]oogle sciprt?

[sploxx]

Hey, only a true nerd is lazy enough to not repeat similar DNS queries 26 times...! :)

Re:Someone want to write a [a-z]oogle sciprt?

[stecoop]

I think I should to say thanks?

I wonder why you never see Google people on /.

[0x0d0a]

I have not had problems with ordinary Google searches all day -- I have discoverd a single sitesearch that Google happens to barf on for the day, but that's it. I've also been steadily using Google all day.

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).

Maybe it's just so much fun to work at Google that they can't spare the time to ever look at Slashdot. :-)

Re:I wonder why you never see Google people on /.

[TheGreatGraySkwid]

Maybe it's just so much fun to work at Google that they can't spare the time to ever look at Slashdot. :-)

Or maybe it's because whenever one identifies himself, his Inbox is immediately flooded with requests for "Hey, can you get me a job there?"

Going Public

[usefool]

Since Google is going public soon, I hope their taking PR and self-control more seriously.

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

[gl4ss]

no company ever does 'evil'.

they just do 'what they had to do'.

Nope.

[DAldredge]

Bet they had to do SOMETHING that day and registering domains was something simple.

You have to keep the PHB's happy.

Re:It happened with googlegear.com

[Anonymous Coward]

I think also, Google won against googlegear.com which has since changed its name to zipzoomfly.com.

They also lost in Norway

[dracvl]

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:

Domain Name................: google.no

Additional information:
Created: 2001-02-26

...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

[hkmwbz]

Last I heard, the leech who registered google.no had lost the domain in a more recent court decision. The guy who owns it runs some shady mobile business, and the sunglasses thing was just a cover - he most likely wanted Google to pay him loads of money to get the domain.

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 even used about sunglasses in the first place.

His real site is smsfun.net or something like that.

and not be evil

[harumscarum]

all your "oogles" are belong to us..

Wasted resources

[billcopc]

It seems domain name disputes are a constant hassle these days, yet when you go to register your company name and trademark there is no dispute; it's either available or it's not. The problem with domain names is that they are global, there is no such thing as state or country jurisdiction when it comes to a domain name.

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

[stephanruby]

...yet when you go to register your company name and trademark there is no dispute; it's either available or it's not.

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 makes the system prone lawsuits

Re:Wasted resources

[Epistax]

I find the solution incredibly obvious. As per the example given by another persson, Nissan vs Nissan, the car company should have simply taken www.nissancars.com or www.nissancorporation.com etc, to more specifically match. Instead of trying to hassle the true owner of the name, ask them to provide a link to your site and offer to pay for the bandwidth they incur due to the name match to compensate.

As for people who take names sounding/looking like a company after that company has its established web presents, that's known as using the company's name without [dang I can't remember the word... something like 'respect'?] and should also be stopped-- unless the domain has its own reason to exist, such as Mike Rowe, although his use of "soft" is pretty conspicuous.

Re:Wasted resources

[kronsrepus]

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.

Well your analogy is a bit off base, we have numbers on the internet - IP addresses. People get those wrong all the time and don't complain, they find the correct one.

You're right one the rest tho, if I look in the phonebook and drive to the wrong address its my fault not the business with the simalar name's fault.

What about...

[Trolling4Dollars]

...booble.com?

They lost this, yet M$ won lindows diuspute

[wobedraggled]

Anyone else see something wrong?!?!?!

Re:They lost this, yet M$ won lindows diuspute

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh. No.

In both cases the product that existed first, won.

Re:They lost this, yet M$ won lindows diuspute

[Sircus]

MS didn't win. It never got further than preliminary motions (I don't think they even started discovery) before MS paid $20m to have them change to Linspire. MS did get some kind of preliminary judgement in the Netherlands, but that was only preliminary. In the US, MS was well on the way to losing (judge agreeing that the use of Windows as a generic word at the time of their registration in 1985 could be examined, as opposed to its use today). In conclusion, Lindows/Linspire got:

a) Free publicity on pretty much every tech site
b) Some sympathy
c) $20 million

MS got:

a) -$20 million
b) To not have their trademark examined (and posssibly anulled) by the court
c) Lindows to change their name to Linspire

Overall, I'd say Lin[dows|spire] won.

Re:They lost this, yet M$ won lindows diuspute

[Kevinb]

froogles.com predates froogle.com. The later company lost the dispute.

Windows predates Lindows. The later company lost the dispute.

Seems perfectly reasonable and consistent to me.

Re:They lost this, yet M$ won lindows diuspute

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else see something wrong?!?!?!

Yes, "dispute" is spelled with only one "u."

Re:They lost this, yet M$ won lindows diuspute

[mdfst13]

"b) To not have their trademark examined (and posssibly anulled) by the court" ...in that case. Microsoft bought their way out of that particular mess, but they set a precedent that they will buy people out without fully testing the legal issues. I'm still waiting for SCO to release SCO Windows.

Re:In related news

[puppetman]

A coffee shop in Victoria, BC, called McBeans was sued by McDonalds for trademark infringement. Apparently anything starting with a "Mc" is fair game especially if McDonalds is thinking about using the name for one of it's products

McDonalds lost, fortunately.

Look more carefully

[ZeLonewolf]

It's Froogle.com (by Google) that created the domain name, and besides, 9/11 occurred roughly around lunch time on the west coast besides.

Re:Look more carefully

[Anonymous Coward]

try again. if it was 9:30 am on the east coast, that translates to 6:30 am on the west coast.

Re:Look more carefully

[JPelorat]

For values of 'lunch time' that approximate '6AM', perhaps.

Re:Look more carefully

[Anonymous Coward]

Lunch time? Then I shouldn't feel so bad about calling my parents and waking them up. Those slackers.

Re:Look more carefully

[proj_2501]

you have your time zones backwards. 9am eastern = 6am pacific

Re:Look more carefully

[Anonymous Coward]

It was actually around 8:46 but your point is valid. The other poster did the wrong math.

Re:Look more carefully

[syrinx]

actually I think "9/11", like most dates, occured all day.

Re:Look more carefully

[ZeLonewolf]

Ooops :)

Well, much as I love Google, they're crazy here

[The_REAL_DZA]

I mean, I can give them "GoogleGear", "GoogleMe", "GoogleSex" and even "GoogleMeBackToOldVirginne", but if they win "Froogle" anything it'll open the door for them to go after the "Boogles" and "Canoogles" and even the "Lollapaloogles" of the world -- soon nothing that ends in "oogles" will be free, and the last time I checked monopolies were still a Bad Thing (tm).

I usually don't like WIPO's decisions... but...

[g_adams27]

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, 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 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

[FerretFrottage]

How long before this term becomes popular and associated with google?

heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Always amusing to see slashdot readers/posters who will never, ever have sex with a non-inflatable woman pointing out trivial flaws in women they have no chance of scoring with anyway. Like you'd trade in your Huffy for a Ferrari if only the radio knobs were bigger.

Newsflash: Your Dorito crumb-infested beard, Mountain Dew-stained LUG tee shirt (two sizes too small) and semen-encrusted Dockers with the balloon seat all wrapped around a pasty, unwashed poster child for sloth is a far more gruesome sight than a little arm hair on a woman like that.

Re:heh

[Finuvir]

I bet she has pointy knees

Dates

[tuxlove]

I don't see how Google can claim ownership of froogles.com, or even get a trademark on "froogle". The "froogles.com" domain was first registered in December, 2000, while Google got "froogle.com" almost a year later. Tough s**t for Google.

Strangely, the original register date for "froogle.com" is listed in the whois database as September 11, 2001. Kinda surreal.

Re:Dates

[bill_mcgonigle]

What's even more surreal is that the guy who registered froogles.com didn't register froogle.com. I mean, surely he understood the play on words - so why go for the obscure instead of the obvious?

I'd also like to know how much Google offered him for the domain. I mean if they're going to have 4 billion dollars soon, surely they could have bought froogles.com for little more than what it'll cost to litigate it?

Ah, so that means the lawyers were behind it.

Mikerowesoft went for peanuts

[westendgirl]

True. But Mikerowesoft went for an Xbox and a set of MCSE courses. What's that worth? Maybe $10k, and it was all in-kind. Maybe Google could give away free searches and gmail. Oh, uh... :)

Jumped the Shark?

[superultra]

It has won every challenge but Froogles.com.

Perhaps with the IPO Google has officially jumped the shark?

add in the Os

[myusername]

Keep adding Os in google and see what you end up with
www.gooooooooooooooooooogle.com

This was the highest one i could find at the moment.
It's amazing what some people will register these days.

Re:add in the Os

[mikael]

You could try going to www.googolplex.com and www.googolplexian.com

There are plenty of 00000000's there.

Re:add in the Os

[xYoni69x]

Please note the "etc" at the end of the number. A googolplex of the byte '0' (not to mention a googolplexian) is probably several times the capacity of your HD.

Let's see, a googolplex is 10^googol. The amount of bits in a number x is log2(x) (round and give or take 1), therefore the amount of bits in googolplex is log2(10^googol) = googol * log2(10) = ~3.3219 * googol.

The amount of bits in a terabyte is 2^43... Somewhat smaller.

So there probably aren't plenty of 0's there - just a plenty of googols.

Re:It happened with googlegear.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't zipzoomfly.com used to be googlegear.com?

In related news...

[HarveyBirdman]

The estate of Milton Sirotta (nephew of American mathematician Edward Kasner) long known as the coiner of the term "googol" when Milton was 9 years old, is suing the pants off Google.com.

Re:In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

and those greedy fuckers (the estate) should have their pants taken off them and make them run the new york marathon naked.

Wool-Mart vs Wal-mart

[westendgirl]

Froogles.com should win, based on prior use, no attempt to confuse the public, and the obvious truth that the name is derived from "frugals". The ICANN people obviously understood this. However, sometimes a big brand can win against even those odds. Wal-mart opened in Ottawa, Ontario in the early 1990s, just after it expanded to Canada. It immediately started litigation against Wool-Mart, a local wool store that had been around for years and years. Wool-Mart had never even heard of Wal-Mart before and, if it wasn't simply emphasizing wool, was more likely to be riding on the tails of "Woolworths". But Wal-mart won its case against Wool-Mart. Sometimes logic does not prevail.

Re:Wool-Mart vs Wal-mart

[Just Some Guy]

But Wal-mart won its case against Wool-Mart.

It did? The only reference 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:Wool-Mart vs Wal-mart

[westendgirl]

Oops. I moved away from Ottawa in late 1994, so I guess maybe I was remembering the court case and not the verdict. I had thought the company had re-emerged as Wool-Tyme: (Wool-Tyme 190 Colonnade Road, Nepean, ON). I am pretty sure that's the same location as for Wool-Mart. But maybe they were bought out or went bankrupt and a new company came in. Sorry.

No I don't

[Spyro VII]

Lindows came well after windows and was an obvious attempt to bank of off the name, while froogles.com came before google's froogle service, so unless he worked at google and had prior knowledge of froogle (which apparently isn't the cas), then it's an empty claim.

Re:No I don't

[Sircus]

It was a pretty obvious attempt to cash in on the Windows name, but in fairness to Lindows, their argument was that "Windows" shouldn't even be a trademark. It's only since 1985 that it's had a non-generic use. It's been used (and used in the windowing-environment sense) since before that - as such, I at least half-agree that the MS trademark grant was probably wrong.

Regarding Froogles - I'd say "Froogles" has at least as many Google-infringing letters as Lindows does Windows-infringing letters :-) The name's also clearly based on the word Google (he started before Froogle, but after Google). I don't hold any strong opinion either way about who should have won, but I do think it would have been a hell of an amount easier/quieter for Google just to buy the guy out...

Half a story is worse than no story at all!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Yeah, well, maybe if you told the whole story, it wouldn't sound outlandish. Nissan the car company didn't go after Nissan the computer company until Nissan the computer company started advertising car-related items, clearly trading on the Nissan the car company's name.

Hey, you wouldn't happen to be Michael Moore, would you? He tells stories just like you do!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

What about bitoogle

[dalleboy]

http://www.bitoogle.com/ - the torrent file search engine.

booble.com

[john_smith_45678]

Google has also been unsuccessful in getting booble.com taken down.

http://booble.com/legal.html

Re:Let them know how you feel...

[Anonymous Coward]

i feel good.. why not link to the jackass at froogles.com, hes a retard and should give the domain to google

Same damned thing

[Scott Richter]

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 different then the car dealer down the street offering you 100 bucks for each friend you refer to him that buys. Companies do this legally all the time. Free ipods is a kickback from companies for doing business with them and referring friends. It is quite different then a buyers club.

The difference is that your "friends," in this case, actually get the car they buy in your example. Selling your friends the opportunity to get $100 if they sell the same opportunity to other people is a pyramid scheme.

The fact that people technically are making a purchase (a $40 CD, for example, that never actually ships) does not make this legal. That's the only difference between the ipod scam and a classic, naked pyramid scheme. No one is buying the $40 CD to get the CD (or whatever), it's to get the pyramid ipod.

This is in fact a pyramid scheme as defined by US law, as the FTC has declared. You might not like that, but it's the case nonetheless

Re:Same damned thing

[bluekanoodle]

Way OT - But...

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 deal. . Instead the are a referal service. Companies partner with them to get people to try their products.

Using numbers I pull out my Azz, let imagine a hypothetical situation. In exchange for delivering 1 customer who signs up for the DVD deal though Columbia House, the company behind free ipod.com receives $10 from Columbie House.

Freeipods then is betting that only 1 out 20 people may actually follow through and get 5 other people to sign up and purchase. More likely somebody will follow through and on average refer 3 other people. That means that out of 20 people that sign up each one will bring in on average $30 worth (3 referral's x $10) of revenue in the form of Kickbacks from the "partners," for a total of $600. Now since only one of those 20 actually got 5 people to sign up, they send him an ipod, (cost 300) and make 300 in profit. This is the same kind of thinking that goes into manufacturer rebates. The bet that most people won't take the time to follow though completely on the process.

What good are TLDs then?

[bmcent1]

Seriously, common sense now seems to suggest that if you are Widget543Corp (TM) then you ought to control widget543corp.[com|org|net|us|tv|...]

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.

Bah. Read the actual decision here.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's at: http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/275419. htm

The truly amazing thing here is that there was one retired judge who actually dissented, even though the guy had froogles.com for two years beforehand!

Fie on google.com for even bringing this up. They've lost whatever credibility they used to have with me, and are just another huge corporation run by a bunch of greedy blood-suckers.

Re:In related news

[Anonymous Coward]

"McDharma's", a vegetarian fast food place, in Santa Cruz WAS actually sued by McDonald's. Case was settled with McDonald's paying McDharma's to change their name to "Dharma's". Apparently, they received enough money to build themselves a whole new restaurant...

Google won a case in Norway recently

[Anonymous Coward]

But /. didn't care to mention that when I submitted the story the same day.

Google wins battle for '.no' domain

If /. is waiting for many submissions of the same story, then I really don't get the purpose of this site.

What about...

[Anonymous Coward]

has the owner of bugle.com received his cease-and-desist letter yet?

Re:even better

[Anonymous Coward]

www.booble.com/google.html

Obvious difference

[Anonymous Coward]

froogles.com pre-dates froogle.com. The Lindows trademark obviously came after Windows became a well-known brand. (Granted, words already in the dictionary should not be trademarkable. "MS Windows" yes, but just "Windows" no.)

indeed

[N3wsByt3]

Big corporations have the tendency of thinking they own everything that they lay there eyes on. It's the age-old 'power corrupts' thingy: a corporation is a multitude richer (thus, more, better lawyers) then a simple civilian - which basically means more power.
And paople and entities alike, misuse the power they get, and the more they get it, the more they abuse them.

More then anything else, that's why people don't like the biggest players in the field, be it corporations or countries.

'Anti-americanism' as it's called has many of it's causes there too: while some of the americans may call it 'envy', it's a bit deeper then that. Anti-americanism (at least in europe) is not merely due to the fact that the USA is a 'big player' with lot's of influence on itself, it's more that they are very powerful, and are very badly misusing that power.

It's not limited to one particular country or company, but the fact remains that the more power one has, the more arrogant and abusive one becomes. This can be seen with companies such as MS, and countries/empires that have get immensily powerful (roman empire, british empire, current emperialistic USA...)

Popup Warning. Just a domain placeholder site. NT

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

Normally I Root For The Little Guy...

[rinkjustice]

I hate it when a popular entitiy tries to usurp and/or destroy anything that even remotely resembles it's own branding, but this Froogles.com is just pollution in cyberspace. Flotsam of ecommerce. It's an eyesore and it offers no value or substance. Most /. readers could cough up a site like this in an hour.

It's saving is of legal significance only.

Re:Normally I Root For The Little Guy...

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't even read the actual decision did you? The ONLY reason Google brought this was because this guy had the NERVE to challenge their trademark. He even has the letter from Google's attorneys saying that if he doesn't drop the trademark challenge, then they'll take his domain name away.

This is sheer strong-arm tactics by Google. See my posting with the link to the decision above; search for the title "Bah ..." for the link to the actual case.

Anyway you look at it, Google's actions here are disgusting.

Re:Normally I Root For The Little Guy...

[Anonymous Coward]

In that case...

Your website sucks. Damn I hope someone takes it from you :(

TLD Zone Search

[boijames]

Here's a search of "ooXle.com" (case insensitive) from COM.

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 and hopefully the big bad slashdotters wont kill my poor wittle yewnix box grabbing it.

Here's some more interesting ones:

5 characters:

ooble oodle oofle oogle ookle oonle ooole oople ootle oozle

6 characters:

1oogle 2oogle 6oo6le 6oogle 8oogle 9oo9le 9oogle aooale aoogle booble boodle boofle boogle bookle boople booqle bootle booxle boozle cooble coocle coodle coogle coolle cooole coople dooble doodle doogle dookle doople dootle doozle eooele eoogle fooble foodle foofle foogle foople footle foozle gooale gooble goocle goodle gooele goofle google goohle gooile goojle gookle goolle goomle goonle gooole goople gooqle goorle goosle gootle gooule goovle goowle gooxle gooyle goozle hooble hoocle hoodle hoogle hoohle hookle hoople hootle hoozle ioogle iooile jooble joodle joofle joogle joojle joople joozle kooble koogle kookle looble loodle loogle lookle loolle loople loosle lootle mooble moocle moodle moofle moogle mookle moomle moonle moople mootle moozle nooale nooble noodle noogle nookle noonle noople nootle noozle ooogle ooozle pooble poodle poofle poogle pookle poople pootle poozle qooble qoodle qoople qooqle qootle rooble roodle roofle roogle roople rootle roovle roozle sooble soodle soofle soogle soople soosle sootle sooyle soozle tooble toodle tooele toofle toogle tooile toople tootle toovle toozle uoogle uooule vooble voodle voogle voovle wooble woofle woogle wookle woople woosle woowle woozle xoodle xoogle xoomle xooxle yooble yoodle yoogle yoople yoosle yootle yooyle yoozle zooble zoocle zoodle zoogle zookle zoople zootle zoozle

7 characters:

0google 1google 1noodle 2doodle 2doogle 2google 3google 3poodle 4doodle 4google 8google 8noodle 9google adoodle adoogle afoogle agoogle ajoogle anoodle anoogle awooble azoogle bdoodle bgoogle biooele blooble bloogle bloomle bloople bmoogle boooble booodle booogle broodle broogle brookle broozle byoogle caoogle cbootle cgoogle choodle choogle choozle cloogle cooogle croodle croogle dgoogle dooodle drooble droogle droople droozle ebooble eboodle eboogle ecoogle edoodle edoogle edootle egoogle emoogle enoodle enootle epoodle eroogle etootle exoogle ezoogle fdoogle feoogle ffoogle fgoogle flooble floogle floozle fooofle fooogle frooble froodle froofle froogle froohle froojle froople frootle froovle frooyle froozle ftoogle fuoogle fyoogle g-oogle g0oogle g9oogle gaoogle gboogle gcoogle geooble geoogle gfoofle gfoogle ggoogle ghoogle gioofle gioogle gjoogle gkoogle glooble gloodle gloogle gmoogle gnoodle gnoogle goooble gooodle gooogle goooole gpoogle grooble groofle groogle groople grootle groovle groozle gtoogle guoogle gvoogle gwoogle gyoogle gzoogle hgoogle hooogle ibooble iboodle iboogle icoogle idoodle idoogle idootle igoodle igoogle ikoogle imoodle imoogle inoodle inootle ipoodle ipoogle itoodle itoogle jdoodle jgoogle jooogle kaoodle kdoodle kgoogle khoogle kloogle knoodle knoogle kroogle kyoodle lgoogle mdoodle mgoogle mroogle myoogle ngoogle nooodle nooogle odoodle ogoogle oooogle peoople pgoogle phoodle phoogle phoozle plooble ploogle pnoodle pooodle proodle proofle proogle proozle qgoogle qroogle quoogle reoogle rfoogle rgoogle rooogle rroogle rxoogle scooble scoodle scoogle scootle sgoogle shoodle shoogle shoople shootle skooble skoodle skoogle skootle skoozle sloogle smoodle smoogle smoople smoozle snooble snoodle snoofle snoogle snookle snoople snoozle spooble spoodle spoofle spoogle spookle spoozle sroogle stoodle stoogle svoogle swooble swoogle swoozle tgoogle thoogle tooogle tpoodle trooble troogle trootle troovle tvoogle twoodle udoodle ufoogle ugoogle vgoogle vooogle vroogle wgoogle whoodle whoofle whoogle whoople whoozle wooogle xdoodle xgoogle xxoogle yaoogle ygoogle yooogle zgoogle znoodle znoozle zooogle zvoogle

jamie

Re:TLD Zone Search

[Anonymous Coward]

spoogle.com - your pr0n search engine

"been t here" vs. "used"

[autopr0n]

froogles.com has an alexa ranking of more then four million, which means almost no one uses it. froogles.com may have been there longer, but almost no one uses it.

Not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to use the domain. But he obviously isn't making to much money off of it.

Well

[autopr0n]

Google dosn't have a trademark on 'oogle' and the only other 'oogle' serice they have is froogle. In fact, the reason this site is called "froogles" is probably because most other variations were taken.

Re:Well

[Maserati]

So how much trouble am I in for ogling the images you link on autopr0n.com ?

Not to mention ...

[Anonymous Coward]

jigle.com

Not just a referral service. OT but who cares!

[Scott Richter]

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 deal. . Instead the are a referal service. Companies partner with them to get people to try their products.

From freeipods.com:

1) Participate in one (1) online offer.
2) Refer some friends to do the same.
3) We'll ship out your order for FREE!

First, if it was just a referral service, it wouldn't require YOU to take part in the same deal you're getting my friends in. Second, it wouldn't necessarily require me to find more than one friend to get paid. By definition, anything that requires me to sell the same deal I bought to more than one person is a pyramid scheme.

This is easy to pick apart. First, deals can't work without either 1) an ever-expanding base of participants or 2) the deal itself, between one person and the company, being profitable for the company. Clearly it's not profitable - I take part in one "offer," and that's not worth hundreds of dollars to the company.

Since the deal itself - for one person - doesn't make sense the company, then this has to be in the first category - it depends on a widening base to work. And inevitably, you run out of suckers, and the exponential growth stops. Put another way, there has to be a bottom of the pyramid. Eventually, everyone who will ever sign up for this thing will do so, and then the bottom rung will be unable to find enough friends to get their free stuff.

That's where the problem comes in. They don't have to guarantee you that you'll find enough friends to get your ipod. But they do have to give you the ipod when you get enough friends. And that's the catch - they give you an ipod (worth $250) for basically 5 "deals" - which are NOT worth $50 each to the company. At this point, there are only two ways this works. Either they make their profit out of whatever fraction of people can't get 5 friends to sign up, or the pyramid eventually collapses and they can't send out ipods to all the people who have them coming.

If it's the first case, like they claim, they're ok but shady. If it's the second, they're illegal. Personally, I doubt it'll work, because if it were me, I'd sign up 5 fake names for that BMG crap, and do the deal myself. Since that's so easy, I can't believe people won't be smart enough to bankrup their asses, crashing the pyramid.

But

[bootedcat]

Google still hasn't got a chance to take back google.com.cn and google.cn, the only international domain names it doesn't have...

And, in another news,

[nusratt]

Merriam-Webster has been enjoined from using floogle, flugel, bugle, canoodle, Gogol, googol, kugel, ogle, Rigel, toodle, woozle, and yodel -- except as character names in a children's book about a band of strip-mining munchkins.

Fuckoogle Youoogle!

[Anonymous Coward]

no message. Move along.

Re:Not just a referral service. OT but who cares!

[bluekanoodle]

Ahh, but theres the rub. They count on people not fulfilling their requirements, so statistically speaking, they know they are not going to be giving out ipods to each and every person. So there is a profit in it for them. As long as the "partner" is willing to pay for those leads, they will make money. My guess is that is why ancestry.com dropped out of the program, or were dropped, because the company was losing money on that particular deal.

On top of that they also can make money my selling these email address's and physical address' that people willingly give them, to direct marketers.

I'd put this company in your first category, which was "OK, but shady" Nothing illegal though.

In regards to your last comment:

"I can't believe people won't be smart enough to bankrup their asses, crashing the pyramid"

You underestimate how stupid people are. If too many people start exploiting a particular capaign of theres, they can take the loss, end the promotion and start another one. The do put some checks and balances in their system to keep people honest, such as only letting you sign up with the same physical address (No PO Boxes) once. You can refer a member of your family so, but they cannot use the same address as you. People can make up a million email address to use, but after a while it's harder to spoof physical address's if you ever want to see your stuff.

They've also been around since 2000, so I would imagine they are making money doing it. Kind of like the games at the Carnival. Sure they are rigged, but in most places it's not illegal. People know this before playing, but they play anyway. Some people do win the big stuff teddie bears(ipod). They make so much money of the ones who don't win (qualify), that they can afford to give away a few prizes. Last time I checked, carnivals games have been around for decades.

To wrap it up. A pyramid scheme involves getting people to send you money/or other tangible in exchange for a larger promised amount/prize at he expense of people in the bottom of the pool. The sole purpose of the scheme is to collect the money with out ever paying out towards the bottom of the pyramid. A referall marketing program collects intangible information, passes it on to interested "partners". In exchange for purchasing an item from said partner & refering a friend, you acrue points towards a prize from the referer. This advertising partner is the one paying the costs of the promotions. I guess the easiest way to explain it would be that in a pyramid scheme, the consumer is the one paying the cost and the ones who would get hurt if said pyramid collapes. In an affiliate program the "partner" companies willing agree, in a legal contract, to pay the costs of the promotions.

Don't be evil?

[sonamchauhan]

``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?''

So much for Google's philosophy: "Don't be evil"

The love of money...

"Your Rights Online"?

[Halfbaked Plan]

Shouldn't this be a YRO story? Putting it under the 'Google' topic header makes it seem like it's a Google-owned issue.

I hope it isn't.

funky google whois output

[braindead]

• Because you said that google.com existed for a while before froogle.com, I got curious and did a whois on google.com. I don't understand some of what I got back as a response. Here's a portion of it:

  Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information.

  GOOGLE.COM.SUCKS.FIND.CRACKZ.WITH.SEARCH.GULLI.COM GOOGLE.COM.HAS.LESS.FREE.PORN.IN.ITS.SEARCH.ENGINE .THAN.SECZY.COM GOOGLE.COM

  (...)

I didn't believe it, so I checked... and it's true, that text DOES show up (among other more informative text, to be perfectly honest).

This trick is apparently possible becaus e there are several whois servers (?)

Re:funky google whois output

[sparcv9]

This trick is apparently possible becaus e there are several whois servers (?)

Not quite. It's because several different record types are being returned to you that match "*GOOGLE.COM*". The long ones are nameserver records for hosts in the GULLI.COM and SECZY.COM domains. There's nothing fishy about the extraaneous records - they are perfectly valid results.

$ whois google.com

Whois Server Version 1.3

Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.

Server Name: GOOGLE.COM.SUCKS.FIND.CRACKZ.WITH.SEARCH.GULLI.COM
IP Address: 80.190.192.24
Registrar: GANDI
Whois Server: whois.gandi.net
Referral URL: http://www.gandi.net

Server Name: GOOGLE.COM.HAS.LESS.FREE.PORN.IN.ITS.SEARCH.ENGINE .THAN.SECZY.COM
IP Address: 209.187.114.130
Registrar: INNERWISE, INC. D/B/A ITSYOURDOMAIN.COM
Whois Server: whois.itsyourdomain.com
Referral URL: http://www.itsyourdomain.com

Domain Name: GOOGLE.COM
Registrar: ALLDOMAINS.COM INC.
Whois Server: whois.alldomains.com

etc...

Norton AV shows bloodhound.exploit at froogles.com

[Bellhead]

I tried to visit froogles.com, and Norton AV quarantined bloodhound.exploit.

Someone else, please verify and notify froogles.com if true.

Google / googol?

[gwoodrow]

Obviously Google didn't have the same name respect when they clearly lifted the title of their company from the math term Googol.

google, smoogle

[Curunir_wolf]

What's that 3, 4 google stories in one day? Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about Google and gmail and all the rest.

Not that Google does not have a prominent place in my daily on-line interaction, but still... they are starting to seem very mainstream big media company-ish lately. I guess that happens to every corporation when the IPO fever hits.

And then, of course, I spend half the day getting nothing from Google but a -27 error.

Ok, end rant.

Somewhere, the king of Figaro weeps.

[slumpy]

God, I hope they don't go after the Final Fantasy series...because I love Moogles.

I was denied a trademark by the USPTO

[jodo]

in the early eighties for the mark Gadgette's. The reason given was that it was too similar to the real word gadget. And that if I was given the mark then I could control the use of the word gadget. That was my plan.
So I don't see how Wolfe or Google could get a mark on the word frugal/froogal.
I do think Wolfe is entitled to keep the domain name froogle because it was a clever multi-pun that he got to first.
Why don't the billionaires just buy it from him? Geeez.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it..

[DraKKon]

Remember the whole eToys etoy crap that when down in 2000? Did google forget that? I mean, I lost my job because of that (and other issues like a dumb fsck CTO..) Shame on you Google..

Re:Those who forget history are doomed to repeat i

[base3]

I remember that--buying toys online and watching the stock plummet as an "Internet company" proceeded to piss of just about the whole Internet. But Google has much more cred to burn and many apologists. They'd have to try darned hard to be another eToys.

Search for "froogles"

[Kiyooka]

www.froogles.com, Google's thorn, comes up somewhere on the 3rd page. Of course, this may be due to the sudden profusion of news sites covering this story, but still. A search for "froogles" should definitely show www.froogles.com somewhere on the first page.

"Do no evil", huh? but if it's in the shareholders interests for you to do evil, its illegal not too...

Goodbye, Google, my old love. You've changed too much. It's like I don't even know you anymore. *sniff*

that's a lot of bulls, sir

[bathmann]

Come on, since when are domain name disputes trade mark disputes? "In the real world", when you are to register a trademark your rights are limited to a territory and a class. There are 42 classes (click me).
Now with domain names there is no such class and a name is "global". But -hey!- why bother? As long as you can trick big companies into believing their names are subject to some kind of "universal" trademark and you can generate a nice amount of litigations from that belief, go for it! Give me the money, honey! Now, the Wipo (World Intellectual Property Organisation) endorsing this kind of behaviours and providing arbitration for something that is pure legal bullshit is a different matter...

Final Fantasy

[pommiekiwifruit]

So should squaresoft relinquish the right to "Moogle" then?

Re:In related news

[Anonymous Coward]

This froogle guy should have registered froogol and then he could have been sued both Google and that silly bint who thinks she owns the word googol.

Harrods

[pommiekiwifruit]

When Harrods started suing every shop in the world whose owner was called "Harod" or "Herod" etc. the town of Otorohanga in New Zealand renamed itself to Harrodsville...

Actually, they WON recently.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google wins battle for '.no' domain

Google Inc WON round two in court. The offender has till the 29th this month to turn over the domain.

mmmmm...... arm hair....

[KnarfO]

Go natural!

Re:Those who forget history are doomed to repeat i

[DraKKon]

So what you are saying is that it's ok for google to go after froogles.com, but not for eToys to go after eToy, because Google has geek cred? Thats horse shyte.

Microsoft.com going after microsofts.com = bad?
slashdot.org going after slashdots.org = good?
froogle.com going after froogles.com = good?
linux.com going after linuxs.com = good?
etoys.com going after etoy.com = bad?

I guess its bad when the plural of the domain goes after the singular of the domain or if Microsoft is involved.

AND, I highly doubt that when eToys went after Etoy.com that it "proceeded to piss of just about the whole Internet " I know a ton of people that never heard of etoy and most of them were eToys target market.

Your argument "sucks" by the way..

Re:Those who forget history are doomed to repeat i

[base3]

Hey, simmer down. I didn't say it was OK; I just said that that's the way it is.