Google -- OOGLE - Who oogled first?

[deadserious]

Google is still on its seek, destory, and own Froogles.com mission. Well maybe they just want to own the name, but if that was the case I'd think they would offer the guy who owns it a nice big chunk of money rather than doing what they are.

Story here:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/local/ny-bzgoog0415,0,6745661.story

 

[Ringr]

Looks like Google is trying to be a pain in the arse for yet another innocent webmaster.

 

[GJ]

OMG, How stupid!

 

[Zeeble]

"a battle is not one by the size of the guns, but by the size of a purse" sad thing is that google will probably win this...... they will put him out of biz because he will be unable to pay the lawyers fees.

 

[Veolus]

Nice quote you have there, Zeeble :D

 

[primacomputer]

Wow! What a stupid PR plunder. In one quick step they have gone from being the “not Microsoft” company to being just another big corporation trying to screw the little guy. I hope they loose in a horrifically costly and painful way.

 

[slipondajimmy]

This is just retarded . Makes me think If I want to use any of googles services now

 

[marisolblue]

wow, let the little guy be. They are trying to be the next Bill Gates

 

[Dave_Z]

It's all about interests.

 

[slipondajimmy]

yeah the interests of a company whos stocks are ended trading friday at $185 USD a share.

Do you think that this froogles site would even put a dent in googles cash flow? It all about google flexing there muscle because they can

 

[marisolblue]

yeah the interests of a company whos stocks are ended trading friday at $185 USD a share.

It all about google flexing there muscle because they can

Well stated

 

[PoorDoggie]

i hate that... its like the recent post about itunes.co.uk... its just a big company trying to look "bigger". Makes me mad. *put disgruntled smiley here* <-- we do need more smileys! *put "grr" smiley here*

 

[nametrekker]

very sad -- but there are two sides --- I can understand Google's and Froogle's, ah, huh, hm,, Froogles's, position(s) -- Google wanting to protect the valuable "oogle" brand -- Froogle wanting to stay open for biz --- too bad both sides couldn't have solved this amicably --- the winners will the lawyers. Any predictions? You still have to love Google -- continual innovation --- just seems they're having a few trademark glitches, which I'm sure they'll work out --- I remember when Google was first starting out when I was in the Valley. They've come a long ways --- and the web is their oyster! or is that "oogle"ster!

 

[LeeRyder]

boy thats some scary stuff.

Imagine, according to the article..and if google goes that route and wins..the precident would be set for:

Cars.com being sued by Scars.com
IP.com being sued for flip.com
hell..anything .com being sued by a predecessor entention of .com would be viable.

big, bad and scary.. which is why i use msn.com for searches now. At least Bill knows the difference between right and wrong.

 

[broke-r]

i hate that... its like the recent post about itunes.co.uk... its just a big company trying to look "bigger". Makes me mad. *put disgruntled smiley here* <-- we do need more smileys! *put "grr" smiley here*

:lol:

 

[sunken]

G should have thought of that before they named their service Froogle. It seems to me that they liked the name, so they just decided that they were big enough to crush whoever had it or anything close to it. You can't claim under the trademark law that you own a partial part of a name just because you use that partial part the most. Coke can't claim that they own everything that ends in oke because they own the Coke trademark. Trademarks are very specific in their nature or there would be chaos as Lee said, not just in domains but in the real world as well. Even ICANN couldn't justify the transfer, and they are usually quick to grant them. Unfortunately, what G I think plans to do is force this Worth guy to give up the domain or the trademark objection or basically ruin him financially. Even if Worth wins and that I would think would be likely, getting there would be an incredibly difficult and financially destroying journey. It can be done, just not sure if he can do it. But then you never know, I'm sure there are many other interests in a case like this that would be glad to pick up the tab for the defense of this. Domain registrars in particular. Will be an interesting case indeed.

 

[primacomputer]

You still have to love Google -- continual innovation

Well that's what the press releases say. Id be happy if they could innovate some search results that weren't 90% spam.

There are plenty of lawyers who would take this on without a penny up front. It's a sure fire win, and google will be stuck paying legal fees. This is a prefect example of why we have SLAP laws

Perhaps Kasner and Newman should sue Google claiming they own goog.* ?

 

[mole]

You can show support to the guy here on his forum at

http://www.froogles.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8&st=20

You don't have to register. Just post as 'Guest' and signoff with your nickname

 

[nametrekker]

Hello Mr. Mole, I like your tagline from Seneca - my favorite philosopher!

and Mr. Primacomputer, I'm not a Google apologist, but you have to admire what the company has been doing. This is certainly one of the great companies of our times - like them or not. Now let's see if they can continue to take risks, without worrying about "market cap", etc --

I was reading the forum from the Froogles guy, and someone mentioned the "wayback machine" - if this shows he was using Froogles before Google was using Froogle, it seems he's got a good case. I realize Google wants to claim "oogle" --

BTW -there's an article in Internet News today about the case, which also mentions the Gmail trademark imbroglio. Has anyone used the wayback machine with the Gospel organization and the other applicants?

I hope Froogle's attorney is working on contingency; if not, he better mortgage the house to pay legal bills because Google has a whole lot of cash in its treasure chest.

 

[slipondajimmy]

well to stir this up and continue it a little . the way back machine shows Froogles.com first real use here http://web.archive.org/web/20020125191916/http://froogles.com jan, 5 2002


shows Froogle.com here...lol as a kids site in 1998 and shows google using it as a beta in Feb 2003 here http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://froogle.com

also google owns the Trademark to Froogle . if they were so concerned why didnt they Trademark Froogles as well at the same time? Froogles seems to be owned by the person that owns Froogles.com . although it wsa trademarked after Froogle why would google hold the rights to Froogles as well .....??

I dont have the slightest clue myself. Maybe JB can help me out here


OK also another question since Gmail was brought up. I know cencourse filing date was March 31, 2004 and Googles was April 2, 2004 and it seems several other people Filed for a Trademark to Gmail as well. Why would Google be able to retain the trademark when the Domain it self has been used for various services since 1996

 

[Dave_Z]

also google owns the Trademark to Froogle . if they were so concerned why didnt they Trademark Froogles as well at the same time? Froogles seems to be owned by the person that owns Froogles.com . although it wsa trademarked after Froogle why would google hold the rights to Froogles as well .....??

Even if Google was able to trademark froogles and used that as an attempt to
wrest control of Froogles.com, they could lose and get a reverse domain name
hijacking ruling against them.

Lookup the UDRP for mess.com. You'll get the idea.

OK also another question since Gmail was brought up. I know cencourse filing date was March 31, 2004 and Googles was April 2, 2004 and it seems several other people Filed for a Trademark to Gmail as well. Why would Google be able to retain the trademark when the Domain it self has been used for various services since 1996

Retaining a trademark and a domain name are 2 different things. :D

 

[nametrekker]

The way back machine is pretty cool. very useful.

About Froogles/Google - that's a really interesting case. One for the law schools and resident IP specialists. I suppose Google's argument will be Mr. Froogles should've filed a trademark earlier and/or he was leveraging the "Google" brand to provide its "frugal" shopping search, hence, Froogles. Same time Mr. Foogle was using Froogles before Google was using Froogle. So, will this all come down to whether Google gains "oogle" hood. If so, goodbye, Mr. Doogles, Mrs. Oogles, Miss Woogles, and Broogles and Broogles. Google vs. Froogles - and a way back machine. Sounds like something out of Harry Potter or Dr. Seuss.

About Gmail. Can't help you. Maybe the way back machine, the USPTO know, and the Gmen know? Golly-Gee. Just one "S" ( Froogles/Froogle), and let's make a federal case out of it, why don't you? And a little "G". Now if someone gets the trademark on "G", can one usurp all the G-marks of the world? Just "G"idding

 

[slipondajimmy]

hahah well . IM pretty clear about the trademarks and such I think . but The only issue im having is the Froogles case the site was already being used long before froogle came to be regardless of a trademark or not.

Couldnt Mr. Froogles argue that Google was acting in bad faith by reg. that Trademark and trying to capitalize on the idea that was started by Mr.Froogles? IM sorry if I sound dumb to all of this but well ......I am ...lol

Now back to Gmail...hahaha its seems odd that Cencourse Filed thier trademark just days before Google. AS if they got wind of Googles plans and decided to beat the to the punch.

 

[nametrekker]

Poor Mr. Froogles- well, maybe he will prevail against the Green Giant spelled with a captal "G".

as far as Gmailers, which has intrigued me from the outset, maybe Centcourse, or rather, Cencourse, caught wind or they got caught in the "when" of the way back machine, way back when. Say "when", somebody. And maybe the Gospel Guys can say when, ah, uh, I mean Amen too--- but I believe Google filed after April 2 for a TM, did that not?

who wants a zoogle, or a noogle, or a loogle, or a ....
pop goes the "oogle"

 

[slipondajimmy]

yeah Cencourse filed March 31 2004 and Google filed April 2 2004

and the rest goes like this

APPLICANT) Giersch, Daniel INDIVIDUAL FED REP GERMANY Harvestehuder Weg 16a Hamburg FED REP GERMANY 20148 November 11, 2004

APPLICANT) Smith, Shane Karen Griffith, British; Shane Smith, British TRUST London 24 Lock Keepters, 117 Brunswick Quay London SE16 7PW London UNITED KINGDOM April 3, 2004

APPLICANT) Gospel Music Association CORPORATION TENNESSEE 1205 Division Street Nashville TENNESSEE 37203 April 8, 2004

and Google again on April 7 2004