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."
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...
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?
http://nyamenation.org/
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.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
if google had a big bank account they could 'acquire' any domain name their lawyers want (c.f. 'mikerowesoft', 'lindows' et al)
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
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.
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.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
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.
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.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
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.
rumor has it that quite a few normal day activities transpired on that particular date.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
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:
...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.
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.
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.
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.
Here a Sig There a Sig Everywhere a Sig Sig...
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.
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.
I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
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.
"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...
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.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
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:
6 characters:
7 characters:
jamie
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*