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."
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.
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.
Google will become hated just like every other big corporation. Just wait.
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/
Does this article remind anyone of Dr. Seuss? Google, froogles, moogles, doogles...
I guess the pr0n search engine, Booble, is next!
(Not safe for work.)
"I'm not, like, that smart. I, like, forget stuff all the time." -- Paris Hilton
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)
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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.
Stand clear of the doors. The doors are now closing.
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
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.
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.
all your "oogles" are belong to us..
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.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Anyone else see something wrong?!?!?!
Ubuntu- Linux for human beings.
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).
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
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.
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.
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...
actually I think "9/11", like most dates, occured all day.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
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 --
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.
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.
"Hey Albert, Good luck exploring the infinite abyss."
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
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.