Slashdot Mirror
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."
actually, the number is spelled Googol, and there has been some disagreement over Google's use of it.
Keyboard not found.
Press F1 to continue.
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.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
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.
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."
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.
--- Ban humanity.
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.
-- SYS 64738 --
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.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
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.
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.
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.
stay frosty and alert