Court Tells Disney to Pull Go.com Logo

dkh2 writes "Today on ZDNet: A U.S. District Court has denied a request by Disney, InfoSeek and others to stay a preliminary injunction against their familiar green and yellow logo. The injunction orders Disney to remove the logo immediately from all broadcast and internet media and gives them 60 days to remove it from other more solid forms." And Disney/Infoseek has started to comply. You can see the change at Go.com right now.

Comments

Now there's a thought...

[Serk]

Perhaps if some of the larger mega-corporations get slammed with stupid Trademark infringement cases, they'll loosen up on smacking around the little guys with them. Than again, it could just make them that much meaner about the issue. We'll see...

Re:Now there's a thought...

[gorilla]

Actually, I think this is one of the less stupid trademark cases.

goto.com has a green circular logo on a yellow background.

go.com had a green circular logo on a yellow background.

www.goto.com has an portal page with links to catagories like auctions, real estate and small business.

www.go.com has an portal page with links to catagories like auctions, real estate and small business.

Obviously these two companies are in the same line of business, and the two logos are similar, so this to me looks like a reasonable trademark case.

Re:Now there's a thought...

[LordXarph]

Actually, I think this is one of the less stupid trademark cases.

I wholeheartedly agree. They both came on the scene at the same time, and I remember it took me months to get the two of them separate in my mind. For the longest time I was thinking "why is ABC advertising a search engine in all their shows?"

-Lx?

Re:Now there's a thought...

[Skim123]

I think it was ignorant of Infoseek/Disney to choose the name Go, especially since there was already Goto.com, who got the stock name GOTO, while the GO network still uses Infoseek's symbol, SEEK.

Re:Now there's a thought...

[pen]

I agree. I actually did think that they were the same thing. Of course, I have little use for portals, so I didn't bother finding out,..

--

They /are/ way too similar.

[jshare]

Well, damn. How could they not have made them pull it?

Re:They /are/ way too similar.

[BamaPookie]

So a big green circle is a trademark infringement. I guess the next step is for goto.com to sue every state, county, and municipality for having green traffic lights.

Re:They /are/ way too similar.

[CaptainSuperBoy]

The problem with that argument is that nobody would mistake a green traffic light for a web site. This isn't one of those frivolous suits, this is a genuine case of where people could mistake one company for another.

Re:They /are/ way too similar.

[Inspector]

Also, were goto to sue a textile company with a very similar logo, they would most likely lose the suit, because the key here is "similar industry". Logo copywrite law was instantiated to prevent business A from stealing business B's clients by misrepresenting themselves as business A, which disney HAS (unintentionally) done.

goto.com should be happy.

[JohnG]

Goto.com claims that the go.com logo is too much like their own. I say they should be happy about that fact. The go logo is everywhere, you can't turn on the tv hardly anymore without seeing the go logo on a commercial. If people associate goto.com with such a big well branded name, then I would think that that is a good thing.

Re:goto.com should be happy.

[Ross C. Brackett]

If people associate goto.com with such a big well branded name, then I would think that that is a good thing.

No, you see, now goto.com gets all that inadvertent name recognition like before with the added advantage of go.com losing it. Of course once go.com starts their new ad campaign, goto.com will probablly get eventuall lost in the clutter of all-the-same portals, so in the end Yahoo wins because their site is A.) Clean and easy to use, B.) Has major name recognition and C.) Has that commercial with the guy with a 'fro.

Ah, white guys with 'fros. It works on so many levels.

Re:goto.com should be happy.

[fcd]

I agree. What I don't understand is why Disney decided to use that logo in the first place. While there is the obvious "green light means go", I would think they would notice the similarity and not want to use there name recognition to help another company. Its kinda like Microsoft deciding to make their logo look like BE's. It just doesn't make sense.

Re:goto.com should be happy.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Ah, white guys with 'fros. It works on so many levels.


You know, I think this is the first time I've laughed out loud at a Slashdot comment.

Re:goto.com should be happy.

[Artagel]

This kind of thing is called "reverse confusion", that is, the little guy was first, and got swamped by the big ad campaign of the later, bigger company. The problem that causes is that practically everyone forgets that you, the little guy, exists. Your business identity gets swallowed up in mega-advertising which does nothing to lead people to you. They might think better of you once they find you, but the problem is that they may never think to find you or that you exist. Distinctiveness of identity is so important where a marketplace is going to have a lot of players equally accessible by customers. That describes the internet in spades. If GoTo is right, it had every reason to be unhappy.

And to think....

[SgtPepper]

I actually /did/ think the two were connected somehow, and i must say, i do agree with what someone posted earlier, i like to see the courts slamming on the big boys for a change, maybe if they get a black eye they'll see how it feels. Maybe? Possibly? We can hope and pray right?

The system is a crack whore

Re:And to think....

[BoogieGod]

Agreed. I also thought they were the same, not that it made any difference to me. I'm not going to start using goto.com due to some naziesque allegiance to Disney. I really don't care either way. While I'm not a huge fan of government poking their nose around on the internet, I'm glad to see the big boys get one on the nose.

Low-Go

[I Am Come]

It seems that some companies just slap that on their sites, and then automatically become associated with the "Go" setup feels a dire need to tout it. It's not a HUGE deal that they have the logo out there... indeed... but throwing it on everything.... yeah, I see grounds for infringment.

Why?

[The Wing Lover]

I agree that the logos are similar, but they're certainly differnt enough that anyone with an IQ higher than an old pair of socks should be able to tell the difference.

The GoTo.com logo is essentially "GoTo.COM" in white on a green circle background. The Go Network logo is "Go" superimposed on a traffic light.

Sooner or later there will be no acceptable logos left.. the courts will rule that Westinghouse's "W" logo is too close to the McDonald's "M" logo. After all, it may confuse someone if one is just an upside-down version of the other.

- Drew

Re:Why?

[mithrandr]

"We are gratified that the court has once again upheld GoTo's rights to our logo, and the right of consumers not to be confused in the Internet marketplace,"

And to answer the question of "Why?", I think it all goes back to Sunday's User Friendly.
And people are always asking my why stupid people shouldn't be allowed to breed....What was that song about how they should all have to wear a sign?

Re:Why?

[TheKodiak]

Trademarks aren't for situations like Sesame Street where you have two GoTo logos and one GO logo and you're supposed to tell which doesn't belong. They're for when you go to the store and you see a pair of jeans called "Primo Levi's" and you think, "Wow, I've always liked Levi's - they're the brand that fits!" so you buy the "Primo Levi's", even though they're actually just named after an author completely independently of the OTHER jeans manufacturer. And of course they don't fit, and now all you'll buy is Guess because Levi's SUCK.

The GoTo logo is essentially a more stylized version of the Go logo, aside from the change in words. The fact that they are in exactly the same business, using names that are nearly identical, makes a lot of difference. The word "Albatross" in a traffic light would probably have been fine. "Allez" might not have been, qui sait?

Re:Why?

[eries]

Not true. Trademarks and copyrights don't usually apply accross industries. Thus, McDonald's hardware store would probably not have trouble, unless they for some reason tried to dupe people into thinking they were selling burgers, fries, and cardiovascular disease.

Since Westinghouse is not even close to a McD's competitor, there is no risk. The issue here is that Go and GoTo are direct competitors.

Re:Why?

[DHartung]

winglover writes:
>I agree that the logos are similar, but they're certainly differnt enough that anyone with an IQ higher than an old pair of socks should be able to tell the difference. The GoTo.com logo is essentially "GoTo.COM" in white on a green circle background. The Go Network logo is "Go" superimposed on a traffic light. Sooner or later there will be no acceptable logos left.. the courts will rule that Westinghouse's "W" logo is too close to the McDonald's "M" logo. After all, it may confuse someone if one is just an upside-down version of the other.

It's not whether you can tell the difference, it's whether the average consumer might be confused. There's also a question of whether they're in the same "trade" (hence the term "trademark"). There would be no confusion between McDonald's and Westinghouse because they are in different industries; but if Westinghouse decided to start selling, say, the home-burger-and-shake-machine with a big "W" on the side, you might get an objection.

GOTO.com had been using their logo for over a year when Disney came up with the GO.com logo. They were both in the same business (net portals) and were using similar names (GO/GOTO) and were playing off the same motif (green traffic light). I think this was a clear failure of Disney's lawyers to properly research the market.
----
Lake Effect, a weblog

Re:Why?

[SEE]

Sooner or later there will be no acceptable logos left.

Later. Much later. (Note number names herein correspond to the American system, but I've also provided "e" notation.)

Let's assume all logos can be defined by eight colors (say red, yellow, green, blue, white, black, purple, and brown) as "blocks" on a 10x10 grid.

Then lets's assume that trademarking any one logo prohibits anyone from using the one septillion (10e24, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) logos most similar to that one.

That means there are then 2.037035976 x 10e66 trademarkable logos in the world, while there have been fewer than 4 x 10e9 people, in all of history.

Okay, let's modify this. Let's say that all trademarkable logos can be defined in two colors (black or white) on a 10x10 grid, and that trademarking any one bars the one sextillion (10e21) closest logos from being used. That still leaves 1.2676506 x 10e9 logos, or one for every four people alive today.

Now, that means with an artifically and tightly constricted subset of logos, there are still more logos around than would be needed, and most would be so obscure nobody would ever find out about the accidental duplication of most of them.

So, we don't need to worry about running out of logos. The only risk is running out of "meaningful" logos, but not protecting them eliminates the utility of having a "meaningful" logo in the first place.

Re:Why?

[hope]

Trademark law works on the premise (pretty much) of "confusingly similar". If the average schmoe would be confused, it's assumed that the marks are in conflict and the one that has been in use longer has precedence. If the products offered are the same or similar, that just adds fuel to the fire.

Let's think about the average schmoe. Think real hard - these are the same people who need to have "for external use only" printed on hemorrhoid cream.

I worked as a private researcher for several years in the USPTO's Trademark Search Library in Arlington, VA. As a trademark searcher, there's no doubt in my mind that I'd cite the Disney GO logo against the GOTO logo. The similarities are as follows (according to signifigance):

1. Big green circle
2. The yellow outline
3. The word GO in prominent letters

and, this is what would solidify my decision,

4. Both logos are for Internet services

(Bad word) yeah , I'd snag the Disney logo in a search. Remember this too, a good chunk of design research is still done by hand, from the (uncoloured) paper records at the PTO.

As far as the McDonald's situation - I know people who were hired by McDonald's to check every single "Mc" and "Mac" application that came in to the USPTO. Remember that the golden arches are a separate trademark registration. Some companies are terribly protective and litigious.

Sometimes though, it does get ridiculous. There was a case a few years back when Chevrolet claimed trademark infringement and defamation on a guy who owned a bar called "Jeep's". Now, Jeep really was this guy's nickname since the 1930s. Lucky for him, his mom had an old photo that had his name and the date on the back. It's an interesting case.

Is it really that similar?

[prestan]

The logos really don't look that much the same, what's the big deal?

Wow, I fell for it.

[afniv]

I've never looked at either of the two web sites, but seeing on of the logos on TV (ESPN or ABC I think), I always associated the two. I never noticed the distinction between GoTO.com and go.com. Now, I'll have to investigate what goto.com is all about. Free advertising. Then again, I guess the lawyers aren't all that free.

~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"

Re:Wow, I fell for it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it completely comical that just a little bit above your post, people are claiming that any damn fool would instantly know the two logos were different and for different companies. :-)

Let's just say the damn fool is not the person I'm replying to.

What's the deal?

[helleman]

Umm... who's the one with the trademarked Stoplight?

Who's pushing the change?

Re:What's the deal?

[helleman]

Ooops! Goto and Go. Now I see. Yep. That could be a problem.

Re:When You Wish Upon A Star...

[prestan]

Sorry, #8...better luck next time.

Neither should own it

[DanMcS]

They're both a play on the familiar traffic signal design, which is yellow, with a green circle signifying go. How can goto claim to own a traffic signal design? If someone used a similar label for a site called stop.com, would they sue over that? Craziness.

Re:Neither should own it

[jpr1]

i agree, blame all the lawyers of this country. living in the united states has become an embarassment

Re:Neither should own it

[Negadecimal]

The issue here is consumer confusion. I doubt anyone will confuse stop and go, but Go and GoTo.com, both with similar traffic light logos, are another thing....

Re:Neither should own it

[um... Lucas]

How did that become insightful? No offense... But if someone made something called stop dot com with a yellow traffic light and a big red circle, that would probably be a violation, or dilution, or something, seeing that they're in the same market.

Disney was quite worse though... Their's endless variations of the word go... but they had to choose a traffic light??? Sorry if i sounded like Steve Jobs there, but honestly... Let's see, an arrow for starters. A zooming word go. I'm sure i could figure out 50 more in the next hour if i wanted to.

Re:Neither should own it

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? What did the lawyers do that makes living in the US an embarassment? Goto.com sees the Go.com logo as infinging on their valuable property. They are convinced that real money is at stake. They hired lawyers to get them temporary relief from our justice system. Go.com wanted their side to be heard and they hired lawyers to tell it. What alternative course of deciding these issues do you suggest?

Re:Neither should own it

[cpt kangarooski]

Clearly, the Thunderdome is in order here.

(two go in, one comes out ;)

Re:Neither should own it

[Artagel]

How a word can be a trademark depends on what it is used on. A classic example is APPLE. If you try to apply APPLE to the fruit as a trademark you can't -- everyone needs to use the word apple for apples. That's called genericness. At the other extreme, if you use the word APPLE for a computer... apples have nothing to do with computers. Nobody needs to use APPLE to sell computers, so the world isn't poorer for letting someone do it. There is a spectrum. APPLE for vitamins is in-between because of the old saying. Naturally, you are best off making up a name, such as Exxon or Xerox. Just don't get too successful where your name becomes the word for the thing. (THERMOS and ASPIRIN for example). I think that a stoplight is a lot closer to using APPLE on a computer than on the fruit.

Re:Neither should own it

[DHartung]

danmcs says:
How can goto claim to own a traffic signal design? If someone used a similar label for a site called stop.com, would they sue over that? Craziness.

Once again showing the pure ignorance that passes for "insightful" on slashdot! Trademarking of common items has always been acceptable: Apple Computer, Eagle Foods, Lighthouse Films. But if the "common item" in question is part of the industry the company is in, getting exclusive use is more difficult. (For instance, many landscaping firms will probably use an emblem of a tree in their logo.) In this case, the emblem has metaphoric value in regards to the purpose of the company, but certainly isn't directly related. The prior usage is by Goto.com, and it was clear from the beginning that Disney was trying to outlawyer them, to make up for their woefully inadequate research. (Any IP lawyer with an ounce of sense would have advised them to trash GO.com on seeing the other logo.)

I think a general rule of thumb should be: Don't get your Intellectual Property legal advice from anybody on Slashdot. Some days, it's appalling.
----
Lake Effect, a weblog

Go Logo Contest

[Chemical]

I noticed a couple days ago that TV adds for sites on the Go network had the green light logo removed. This is a shame, because Go's logo looked cooler than Goto's.

Anyways, I think Go network should have a contest to get a new logo, because frankly, the new one on Go's website sucks. The logo should indicate "going" somehow, like the greenlight did. But this time try and stay away from logos similar to other companies.

I'm surprised Lucent hasn't sued every company out there with cirular logos. Or Debian suing Sega over the Dreamcast logo. This whole lawsuit craze is ruining this country.

Re:Go Logo Contest

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely OT conspiracy theory post...

Sega is planning a new game platform using the Crusoe chip from Transmeta (note Transmeta swirl logo) which will run Debian.

(just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me!)

Re:Go Logo Contest

[Cy Guy]

I've been thinking they should have something like the green flag they wave at the start of a car race. This has also likely been done before so they will have to take more care to distinguish it.

I think they could have gotten away with the green traffic light idea if they had just made it part of a 3-way traffic. Having it just be better drawn than the GoTo logo (Which really just looks like a green spot on a yellow square, rather than GO's single light green traffic light with 3D shadowing) wasn't enough differentiation.

Re:Go Logo Contest

[Cy Guy]

I had another idea for a logo. Now that Disney has completed their takeover of Infoseek/GO they could change the logo to be a green Mickey Mouse sillouette on a yellow background. Instead of one circle it would be three (Head and 2 ears).

Re:Go Logo Contest

[cpt kangarooski]

Will it involve both hypnosis and time travel?

Re:Go Logo Contest

[JPelorat]

Dunno about that - I'd look at that and probably think, 'Ewww, looks like ol' Mickey is about to puke up his boxers..'

Both of those logos are (very slightly) reminiscent of those Mr. Poison stickers we used to get in elementary school, remember those? =)

GO (call 911!!)
GOTO (the fridge and drink lots of milk!!)

It looks better without it.

[MrEfficient]

Personnaly, I think both logos are ugly. The go.com site looks a lot better without it. Disney should be grateful.

Honest Query, not flame: Who cares?

[Kisc]

Honestly, who cares? I mean, good for GoTo... bad for Disney, right?



But does it actually matter?

Failure is not an option.

Taste of Their Own Medicine

[Telamon]

Considerring all the crap Disney has been stirring up to keep their pattents on things like "Steamboat Mickey" around for over 50 years, I'm glad they finally got bitten. I just wish that they were fined enough so that they could no longer afford to buy the votes needed to extend copyright limits. :)

Re:Taste of Their Own Medicine

[JPelorat]

Err, well.. that's Steamboat Willie, actually =)

Not Updated Everywhere

[Mignon]

You can still see the old logo on their so-called G-rated jokes page. I suppose the jokes are funny if you're about 4 years old.

Re:Not Updated Everywhere

[Laith]

also at http://www.gocostore.com/

Let's all play Spot the Violations of Court Order!

Re:Not Updated Everywhere

[Harlequin]

Yup, it's still in a lot of places on the site (ie http://guides.go.com/). I'm sure it's pretty difficult to track down all the instances of their logo over a number of servers. I'm sure they have tons of images in multiple places to sort through.

Chris

They've Already Changed

[IanO]

It appears that http://go.com and all the affiliates (espn, abc, etc.) have already changed from the old go.com logo. The new one is pretty uninspired.

------
IanO

Re:They've Already Changed

[shinji]

Good chance this logo is just a quick "lets change it and not get sued'. They are probably paying someone millions of dollars to come up with a new one. I'll do it for $100K. A green OVAL with the words GO on a yellow TRIANGLE

Re:They've Already Changed

[Wah]

to earn my 50k I'll add that it should be an UPSIDE DOWN triangle, gaining that "real world traffic sign" quality that is so very important to driving internet traffic.

Re:They've Already Changed

[Head Louse]

If you go to disney worlds web site www.disneyworld.com you can see that they have gone to just using some aliased text. They used to have the logo. They most definately have some new one in the works. thank god because that last one was really ugly.

Re:They've Already Changed

[Anonymous Coward]

What in the world is an "upside down" triangle? Doesn't that presuppose the existence of the concept of a "right-side-up" triangle?

Re:They've Already Changed

[JPelorat]

Nah, leave it pointing up, it gives overtones of Illuminati influence that way. =)

McDonalds already files lawsuits over names

[Chemical]

In the town I live in, McDonalds sued a local coffee house called McCoffee. They had to change their name to M.Coffee. Rediculous.

My friend told me that in Scotland there is a ban on McDonalds for fear that they would file lawsuits against any businesses with family names in them that start with Mc. I don't believe that. That is a little too rediculous.

Re:McDonalds already files lawsuits over names

[whammo]

This McDonalds suit is an example of Big Corporation going after the little guy. Makes you wonder how Disney would have responded if they had beaten GoTo to that logo.

Re:McDonalds already files lawsuits over names

[jbrw]

In Berlin, at the Zoologicial Gardens train station, there's a "shop" their called McClean - they may well have even been a chain. They provide clean toilet/shower facilities to weary travellers.

Surely they're asking for a law-suit?

Re:McDonalds already files lawsuits over names

[zsmooth]

If McClean sold fast food, then yeah, there may be a problem. The McDonald name (and prefixing products with 'Mc') are only valid relating to fast food items. I could open a McDonalds Computer Store if I wanted and McDonalds (the fast food chain) couldn't do anything about it. Anyway, like most of us, IANAL.

(I realize the parent post was probably more tongue-in-cheek than serious, but it seemed a good place to make this point.)

Re:McDonalds already files lawsuits over names

[RallyDriver]

> The McDonald name (and prefixing products with 'Mc') are only valid relating to fast food items.

...and "Mc" is definitely not trademarkable under Scottish law, when about 5% of the population have it in their name. It is a contraction of the Gaelic "Mac" meaning son; the correct form for unmarried females is "Nic" but it is never used in English. The usage is much like the Icelandic "-sson" and "-djottir" suffixes, but the name is a clan one rather than the father's forename.

Fast food joints are never called "restaurant" outside North America, but subject to minor factual errors the story about the village takeaway owner is genuine.

Scotland has many quaint feudal laws which still operate, and a clan cheiftan really would have a chance of having the name pulled from every golden arched burger joint in the country. To set it in context, legal recognition of clans in Scotland dates back to when you guys were a few British, French and Spanish colonies :-)

Re:McDonalds already files lawsuits over names

[mcolin]

In Germany, every third store is being Mc'ized right now. We have McClean, McPaper, McSoftware, McEverything&Anything. I'm just waiting for the inevitable McDiscountBroker, McSexShop, McChurch, McHospital, McFireFighters, McPolice and McShelterForTheHomeless.

Time for Disney to sue GoTo.com

[Anonymous Coward]

.. because if you rotate the GoTo.com logo clockwise 135 degrees, you get the Disney logo being struck with an ice-pick.

go.com /.'d?!?!?!?!

[TheFitz]

I can't believe my eyes. Is it just me, or is go.com not responding?!?!?!?! I get a DNS error when trying to go to it. Slashdot, guys, if you can take down a big sight like go.com with your wave of people, I feel sorry for little guys you post =P

Re:go.com /.'d?!?!?!?!

[Negadecimal]

Try refreshing your DNS. Go.com has more bandwidth than Slashdot.

Re:go.com /.'d?!?!?!?!

[TheFitz]

Well, it was apparently an issue with our up-pipe ISP. We had several problems for a while there with going anywhere :)

Odd vision.

[technos]

When I saw the headline, for a fleeting moment I had a vision:

Mickey Mouse, shorts around his ankles, being spanked over Janet Reno's knee.

Didn't Go.com's 'Executive-Vice-Weenie' type get busted for interstate traffiking in kiddie porn?

That explains it.

[Juggle]

I noticed the missing logo earlier today while doing a little searching on infoseek. I still refuse to use infoseek.go.com and still type infoseek.com just out of pure stuborness.

The only thing that bothers me is I though go.com was going after goto.com for the similarity. I didn't realize it was the other way around. Or did the courts just turn around and bite the guys who brought the suit up in the first place?

Instead of arguing...

[jd]

Let's list the similarities and differences, then tot them up at the end. If the number of similarities exceeds the number of differences, then they're guilty. Otherwise, they're innocent.

I'll start off the lists...

Similarities:

• Identical font
• Portals targetting similar audiences
• Playing off same theme
• Similar names
• Similar colour schemes
• Resemblance in shape
• Name entirely enclosed by inner segment of logo

Differences:

• Different shades of colour
• Disney uses a traffic light, GoTo does not

Re:Instead of arguing...

[cancrman]

Exactly. I'm just surprised that this didn't come sooner given the cut throat nature of "eBusiness" these days. Does anyone know exatly when this suit was brought against Disney? It doesn't say in the article.

Pete

Re:Instead of arguing...

[CaseyB]

Differences:

• Disney uses a traffic light, GoTo does not

I wouldn't even give you that. Green-circle-on-yellow-background says 'traffic light' to me. With embossed shadows or not.

Re:Instead of arguing...

[stang]

Does anyone know exatly when this suit was brought against Disney?

The suit was filed the day go.com went live.

Ha ha!

[Urmane]

Urmane writes "Today on SlashDot: A U.S. District Court has denied a request by SlashDot and others to stay a preliminary injunction against their familiar green and white lettering. The injunction orders Slashdot to remove the lettering immediately from all broadcast and internet media and gives them 60 days to remove it from other more solid forms."

"You can see it yourself - the letters 'g' and 'o' in the word 'logo' in the story's title is clearly a trademark infringement. We want it stopped."

ya right

[Anonymous Coward]

Who ever heard about goto.com anyway. and who would get those logos mixed up. What a fucked up country we live in. Sue, sue sue....
I'm movin'

Not to let my personal feelings into this but...

[cancrman]

it's about time someone stuck it to the Mouse Machine. With this (albeit minor) win against Disney and the (major) FoF against Micros~1 is seems that the times might actually be a-changin when it comes to corporate welfare and general overloardness (does that make any sense to anyone? I hope so). True there is still much injustice and stupidity in the system (think patents). But is just seems that some people that actually have a bit of brains to go along with their power have decided to use a bit of common sense for once. Jeeze who knows what may happen next. Dare I ask?

(Yea, it's just as easy to bash the mouse as it is to bash the bill but it makes me feel better after a long day at work)

Pete

Slow getting the news out this week?

[YeOldeGnurd]

I saw this news item a couple of days ago, thought about it for a while, and managed to create a satire that made it to Segfault before the real story made it to /.

What's the problem, too much free beer at Comdex?

Bravery, Kindness, Clarity, Honesty, Compassion, Generosity

A note from the inside... and a question

[Anonymous Coward]

I work for one of Go.com's major competitors and am relieved to finally see this happen. We recently went through a rebranding ourselves and used the same agency [USWEB/CKS]. I pointed out the similarity to one of their senior designers and a creative director [both were peripherally involved in the go.com branding] and their jaws hit the floor.

Strangely, branding is supposed to involve research into similar logos. Given the level of competency we found on the agency's end, [not a whole lot] I find this not at all suprising.

Which leads me to my question:

Are there any design agencies who actually 'get' the internet?

I have worked with many of the biggest agencies [meta, sapient, CKS, Luxon-Carra, etc] and have yet to actually encounter one who knew [technically] what they are doing.

Re:A note from the inside... and a question

[Hanno]

> Are there any design agencies who actually
> 'get' the internet?

Allow me to advertise a friend of mine: Manfred Spiller.

He's a German screen designer who actually knows what he's doing. He got the German art directors' award for his work and has done some of the more prominent web sites in Germany.

------------------

Re:goto.com should NOT be happy.

[scrain]

The reverse is the problem. Disney spends a WHOLE lot more ad dollars than little goto.com makes in a year probably. (I could be overexaggerating, but you get the point)

If people see the go.com logo more than the goto.com, they associate the symbol and design with them, not with goto.com. They're doing the right thing by fighting for it.

Weird.

[TheKodiak]

This is actually the first notice I've received that Disney did not actually buy GoTo.com and take the To out of their name. Sure, the logo is obvious, but its ability to confuse is (to me, at least) obvious - I honestly believed that the GO network logo was just a revamped GoTo.com logo.

Yeah, sure, maybe they came up with it independently, and that sure would suck - but they are directly competing, younger, and someone who is not looking at them side-by-side is very likely to be confused.

Re:Weird.

[darrenford]

You are not the only one. I couldn't figure out why a company would sue itself.

Headline should have read:

[Carbon Blob]

goto.com considered harmful

Sounds like...

[Robert S Gormley]

... the 'validation' method for fingerprinting :)

copyright doesn't discriminate against bad design

[Dandre]

Although I'm for the little guy in this case, the goto.com logo is much interesting and less catching than the go.com design. If I had to choose one, it'd be go.com. But, copyright law protects good and bad design alike. Just because the goto.com logo isn't as effective at evoking the go streetlight symbol as is the go.com logo doesn't mean that it wasn't there first. It's obvious that the two are similar, and goto.com obviously felt like they were being harmed by the similarity. Goto.com is harmed each time a user mistakenly types go.com and doesn't find their search engine. Besides, the publicity of winning the case certainly helps them -- it appears that their site is /.'ed.

cheers,

dandre

Because...

[JPelorat]

Sure, they're obviously different - when you put them side by side. Trouble is, that would rarely happen on a website or any other medium. The design elements (rectangular yellow border, green circle, white lettering of 'GO', hell, the font is the EXACT same) are such that Disney's version could indeed cause confusion, if only one logo is seen.

People rarely consciously 'see' advertising anymore (what ad banners have you seen during your current surfing session? Name them all, the companies and products they're pitching, please. See?) - it's all taken in as vague patterns, and used to recognise or remember a certain item later when it's seen again. Guaranteed, if you walked past 30 billboards in a day, each with one or the other of those logos in the corner, at the end of the day, you would *not* be able to tell how many of each there were - all you would remember would be a square border, green circle, and something about 'GO' in it... and the associations you make with the logo and the content of the boards may not be something that GoTo.com wants you to make.

That's what all this is about. Consider - it wouldn't be any different from the GoTo/Disney situation if I came up with a logo that had a very realistic-looking burger bun surrounding the words 'Burger Town' in the Burger King colors and font. I'd get my ass sued off, and rightfully so.

Re:Because...

[Cramer]

what ad banners have you seen during your current surfing session?

Umm, those damned eye magnet X10 Camera banner ads. And the banner ad(s) at the top of the /. pages as it's the only thing viewable (for ages) until the </table> is processed.

Sue this, appeal that...

[blakdeth]

Blah... Blah... Blah...

Every where I turn, someone is either suing or appealing (and I don't mean they're cute ).

I just don't care anymore.

BD

Sue this, appeal that...

[blakdeth]

Blah... Blah... Blah...

Everywhere I turn, someone is either suing or appealing (and I don't mean they're cute ).

I just don't care anymore.

BD

I'm surprised

[Negadecimal]

The "replacement" Go logo was obviously thrown together in a very short amount of time. Was Disney so sure of victory that they didn't even consider working on a backup logo?

This is what happens when a company has too much faith a justice system that often yields to money and power, but not every time...

Re:goto.com should be happy.(ot)

[Wah]

My first day was rather trying too....

Oh, Please...

[humphrm]

About 20 years ago, I was talking to a commercial artist about designing me a logo and he said that this idea, which is pure bunk, has been floating around for about 80 years.

Saying that there will be "no acceptable logos left" is like saying there will be no acceptable artwork after this piece is done, no acceptable music after this one, or on a less artistic plane no more inventions after this one. Please, any creative commercial artist worth his weight will always be able to come up with a new logo design that hasn't been protected yet. Please.

Disney Arrogance, and Some Precedent

[Effugas]

The biggest joke in the entire Go v. GoTo war is that Disney probably could have gotten away with a small font change, a more pronounced traffic signal, and a black-with-white-outline backdrop instead of the yellow that GoTo used.

The reality is that Disney figured, heh, we're Disney and they're just some little company using Inktomi's database to sell a few banners. Screw 'em.

That they refused to budge--at all--probably created a more vicious response from the judge than they might have already gotten.

Incidentally, choosing logos and naming companies isn't entirely that simple. Back when I was still convention hopping(sigh why am I not at Comdex right now?) Infospace, the software company, was quite royally peeved at Infospace, everybody's favorite personal and business info search engine.

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

I agree

[Nodatadj]

In fact,
I never even knew there was a difference between goto.com and go.com
I thought they were the same company, just with multiple URLs.

Oh well, live and learn.
iain

Watch out...

[SIGFPE]

...you all have 60 days to desist from use of the word 'go' which has now been trademarked. Apparently, although 'go' was thought to have been in general usage, it has never actually been trademarked. This left the word wide open for such action. The owners have already started legal proceedings against microsoft for using "Where do you want to *go* today?" Attorneys acting for microsoft's defense argue that only the imperative 'go' has been trademarked and that the infinitive 'to go' is public domain. Expert witnesses are being called in to determine whether or not this infinitive may in fact be split into 'to' and 'go' or whether 'to go' is in fact a distinct entity. If 'to go' is found to be analysable into its component parts we may expect further action to determine whether or not 'went' is a derivative work...

What's next?

[puppet10]

Maybe now they should sue Disney, etc. for cybersquatting on an overly similar URL address.

Re:about time

[Anonymous Coward]

what the heck does that mean?

This suit is valid!

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, I hate foolish patent and trademark suits as much as anyone, but the fact that people really do confuse the logos makes a difference.

If I were logged in right now, you'd know from my previous postings that I hate the way IP law is strangling everyone but big corporations and patent vultures.

I work for a semi-obscure part of Disney's empire. I myself had to pull logos from web pages, and as I was doing so, I remembered the day I realized Go.com and Goto.com were not the same.

When you see the logos side by side, the difference is fairly obvious, but consider this. Goto spent money on plenty of ads in the period before Go came out; by the time the Go logos were plastered everywhere, I had virtually forgotten the existence of Goto, thinking I was just confused when I saw the Goto ads. Of course I know better (it is now my job to know better), but watching the less aware parts of my brain almost get mixed up by the logos is enough for me.

What's good for Mickey is good for the Mouse. High time the frozen head got some of its own medicine.

Re:Irony

[Ozwald]

Being from Alberta, I remember when Disney threatened to sue the owners of West Edmonton Mall because its amusement park was called "Fantasy Land". This always annoyed us because you can't accidently end up in West Edmonton Mall when you really wanted to go to Disney Land.

Ozwald

McDowell's

[Loualbano2]

Remember the movie Coming to America? The guy who ran McDowell's didn't get sued because: McDonald's used a sesame seed bun, Mr McDowell used a plain bun. McDonald's had the Golden Arches, McDowell's use golden arcs. If these are good enough to keep him from getting sued, I think they should prolly lay off Disney. LouAlbano

Re:McDowell's

[copito]

In the real world McDowell would have had his ass sued off by McDonald's, so your point is moot.
--

Re:McDowell's

[Anonymous Coward]

In the real world the movie's producers were sued for stealing Art Buchwald's idea. McDowell's avoided a lawsuit but not the movie itself! :-)

efnet #nit 0wnz j00 t00

[Anonymous Coward]

1 d0n'7 uNd3r574nd 4nY 0f 7h0z3 j0k35 - c0ulD 5umb0dy 3Xpl4n3 7h3M 70 m33?

efnet #nit 0wnz j00 all, w0rd uP to all muh B1shes... g3rb1l, t055p0t, SpuDbRaNe, Cis-C, etc etc.

Let me get this straight...

[E_Let]

So now that Goto.com has secured it's right's to it's bland green circle-yellow square logo, they could always upgrade to the traffic light in the future, couldn't they? Hell, Disney won't be using it. Maybe nab a few people to their site who mistook it for the old disney go logo. Pretty much now goto won a free logo from this, the traffic light disney used. This case reeks of bullshit. Yeah it's good to see a big co falling to a little co for a change, but seriously, those logos are different. Shame on you goto.com for abusing the system.

McDonalds in Scotland

[copito]

What happened in Scotland was that McDonalds threatened to sue someone who had a restaurant named McDonald's Restaurant, but backed down when they found out that this was the McDonald of the clan McDonald and that by Scottish law he could probably prevent them from taking the name.
--

the ones that don't blink

[hawk]

>what ad banners have you seen during your current
>surfing session?

Only the ones that don't blink :) I've blocked pretty much all of the rest with junkbuster.

They missed a spot... =)

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.go.com/Personal/edit?ps_page=clean_info &ps_title=Search+with+GOguardian

Been playing quqke3?

[Bill Currie]

prpbably get marked down, but tough:)

Re:McDonalds in Scotland: Urban Myth?

[deprecated]

This McDonald's in Scotland story has characteristics of an urban myth.

Re:Odd [But Wrong] vision.

[ecampbel]

That was an Infoseek vice president, not someone from GoTo.com. Also, Janet Reno had nothing to do with this court decision.

Re:Irony

[ecampbel]

But you could think that it was either a Disney property or someway endorsed by Disney.

It's not JUST the logo

[RatBastard]

Well, if I started a comapany called "Lucian" with a logo that looked almost the same as the Lucent logo I'd expect to get sued.

I mean, not only does the (defunct) go.com logo look almost the same as goto.com, the name is almost the same.

Did they really expect to not get sued?

Trademark Confusion law

[DHartung]

Here's a useful overview of the law surrounding trademark confusion. I recommend that Slashdotters read it before posting uninformed opinions.

It's not mentioned here, but there's a new law (the Trademark Anti Dilution Act of 1999) addressing this issue, that gives more protection to so-called "famous marks". This has been cited before in regards to domain names, which seems to be one of its main thrusts.
----
Lake Effect, a weblog

Whatever

[RatBastard]

And when toy start your own company and some giant corporation comes along and starts a competing company with almost identicle (sp?) names and logos, you'd sue them to protect your business, wouldn't you?

Or would you just roll over and let them bury you?

www.STOP.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Red disc in yellow box, with the word stop in the middle.

You could also tradmark other things like:
Stopsign
Highway exit sign
Yellow light.

I surf with images off.

[Anonymous Coward]

So I don't see any ad banners.

And actually I seem to read newspapers/mags with "banners off" too.. My mind automatically ignores most ads, unless they look like articles.

Apple was in trademark suit, too!

[Anonymous Coward]

A loooong while ago Apple Records sued Apple Computers. It seems that Apple Computer could use the name only if they stayed out of music. Along came QuickTime, etc., and ...

Re:McDonalds in Scotland: Urban Myth?

[copito]

It sounds like an urban myth, but in this case it actually happened. Here's a
news storywith links to others.
--

disney buys goto.com

[supton]

Why not? They could. the ultimate in an out-of-court settlement: stock swap! Not that I'm a fan of Disney (evil megaconglomerate mass-culture factory), but it seems like the logo is worth billions to them, they might as well buy out goto.com. And while they're at it they should also buy gogo.com gotohell.com and other valuable family-oriented portal domain names and sites... ;)

Why goto.com had to sue, and sue now

[unitron]

If goto.com hadn't sued Disney then eventually Disney would have sued them and their (goto.com's) failure to protect their trademark, copyright, whatever would have left them on the losing side of the Disney-initiated suit.
Disney came up with the logo that goto.com should have perhaps, but that's a separate issue that has no real bearing on the suit as Disney didn't do it first.

People are stupid, they will confuse the two

[TuxMelvin]

I have a lot of customers that want listed on goto.com, and I happen to be more than willing to help them. These customers are admittedly computer illiterate. They use AOL. They don't get the web. These people wouldn't see the difference between /. and my server logs. They also are ALWAYS confusing Go and Goto.com. Some of you may be bright enough to see the difference. I happened to make a nice killing on the GOTO IPO, so I'm admittedly biased. But the average idiot out there can't tell the difference. And despite the fact that WE are the ones who brought (and still bring) the internet to the world, the idiots make up the majority, and are definitely the target market of most of these portals.

Re:Irony

[sunya]

Yeah, right. You could probably say the same for Thailand.

Disney pulling logo

[sassy.webgrrl]

Re the report of new logo on go.com .... which is true ... however, the main Disney site still has the offending logo: http://www.disney.com/ .. how many others? kathy