Googleous.com

[Genialnames]

I am not an expert and most of the thing I know now about Domain Names I have learned here (great Namepros!)

I am very careful when it is matter of TMs and before I reg googleous I followed a reasoning.

I also read many post about tm issues and it seems to me to have understand that to incour in serious trouble it mostly depend from the use of a name.
So the thread may seem pointless but with googleous I wanted to go a little ahead and I found it could be even considered a case a part, for the following considerations:


1) It is not comparable to a typo.
2)It is completely another word more precisely it is an adjective, like fury- furyous, fame- famous etc.
3)It is an invention, infact the term doesn't exist before but in our days it make sense, a lot.
(instead google it is not an original creation, it exist before it was used for the search engine, they just used in clever way,popularity made the rest.
4)it is a new invented term
(I could even have some right to claim an intellectual property on it , of course in the hypotesis I am so luck that it become popular enough, but who knows? )
5) it has a cultural valence, because it is a representation
of how the new technologies have an impact on our society.(Sorry, here I cant' find the more appropriate words to build a more decent definition , maybe someonelse could do it better)


I tryed to analyze this word like if it was not mine, the most objectively I could.

I appreciate your comments and opinions, whatever they are, if professionally and technically oriented.

Are these argumentations sustainable?
Is there some weak point you see, not just about my reasoning but for TM issues, too.
Is there is something I left out ?

Many thanks !

 

[cache]

If you check some previous domains dispute, they all mostly have --oogle---
in them. So I think google at least want to challenge it.

I am not an expert and most of the thing I know now about Domain Names I have learned here (great Namepros!)

I am very careful when it is matter of TMs and before I reg googleous I followed a reasoning.

I also read many post about tm issues and it seems to me to have understand that to incour in serious trouble it mostly depend from the use of a name.
So the thread may seem pointless but with googleous I wanted to go a little ahead and I found it could be even considered a case a part, for the following considerations:


1) It is not comparable to a typo.
2)It is completely another word more precisely it is an adjective, like fury- furyous, fame- famous etc.
3)It is an invention, infact the term doesn't exist before but in our days it make sense, a lot.
(instead google it is not an original creation, it exist before it was used for the search engine, they just used in clever way,popularity made the rest.
4)it is a new invented term
(I could even have some right to claim an intellectual property on it , of course in the hypotesis I am so luck that it become popular enough, but who knows? )
5) it has a cultural valence, because it is a representation
of how the new technologies have an impact on our society.(Sorry, here I cant' find the more appropriate words to build a more decent definition , maybe someonelse could do it better)


I tryed to analyze this word like if it was not mine, the most objectively I could.

I appreciate your comments and opinions, whatever they are, if professionally and technically oriented.

Are these argumentations sustainable?
Is there some weak point you see, not just about my reasoning but for TM issues, too.
Is there is something I left out ?

Many thanks !

 

[Ringr]

Well, since you happen to have a domain that has a 'ous' suffix on it with a major company's name ahead of it. I think you might be in trouble. It's no different (in my opinion) than having 'Googled.com', 'Googling.com', or 'Googler.com'. Of course the only domain out of those that is owned by Google is 'Googler.com'. Still, if Google is going to put up a fight with a domain like 'Gewgle.com' (which they did a few years back), I don't see why they wouldn't try challenging 'Googleous.com'. I know that's not what you wanted to hear, but those are my honest thoughts on the issue.

 

[Genialnames]

I know that's not what you wanted to hear, but those are my honest thoughts on the issue.

no problem Andy, your comment it is still useful and appreciated.

I wish also to know whether the arguments I have exposed have some fundament, are they sustainable in a (hoping no) challenge?

and thanks!

 

[user-7256]

I've contacted Google before on names like this, and any name, they claim, with "Google" in it is a violation of TM law unless you got permission or Google owns it.

 

[labrocca]

Even better question..why register that horrible name?

 

[jberryhill]

Even better question..why register that horrible name?

Because Microsoftation, Coca-Colated, Xeroxiting, and Volkswagoneer were already taken.

Oy.

 

[Genialnames]

???? Labrocca ???

JBERRY!

:yell: stop take this stuff you are taking, it make you ugly :hehe:

I hope both you are kidding, so please better specify it.

Otherwise it not seem to me your behaviors are unappropriate for Nampros. :td:

 

[jberryhill]

Labrocca's question goes right to the heart of the matter, as far as most TM issues are concerned, and is perfectly appropriate.

"Why register the domain name?" is the UDRP boiled down to its very essence. What you have here is a contrived argument for registering a domain name with "Google" in it, and it would have no value apart from the fact that "Google" is probably the most valuable domain name on the planet - due to its singular association with Google.

Go look up the English verb "collate". It means to put things together in order. So, I have a plan to make sculptures by gluing together coca beans. I call this art form Coca-Collation, and I swear to you, it has nothing to do with soft drinks.

The grandaddy of all cybersquatting cases involved panavision.com. A lot of people don't realize that the domain registrant had a live website with pictures of the town of Pana, Illinois, so that, he said, was why he registered panavision.com.

These sorts of things on Namepros are otherwise known as what the Googly Bear leaves behind when he does what bears do in the woods.

 

[Jennifer]

These sorts of things on Namepros are otherwise known as what the Googly Bear leaves behind when he does what bears do in the woods.

Perfect timing for that call-back jberryhill!!!!

All kidding and jokes aside I won't go so far as to call the name hideous... but your blatent attempt at trying to convice yourself and others with your 1-5 scheme just doesn't cut it for me.

You do not under any circumstances have a sustainable argument... all of your point are incredibly weak... considering there is 1 reason, and 1 reason only to ever register a domain name consisting of the letters g o o g l e in that order.

You can add sauce, gravy, mustard, or ous... but if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck... it's must be a duck.

Good Luck-
Jennifer

 

[Dave_Z]

Otherwise it not seem to me your behaviors are unappropriate for Nampros. :td:

That's for the mods and admins to decide.

Back to the question: why?

 

[labrocca]

This is the second legal thread started by this guy that simply seems like trolling to me. How can he possibly believe some of what he is saying. What's his next thread?

"If I have someone else's Godaddy account password and I transfer all his domain to me is that stealing?"

 

[bluesman]

No, the Google search engine (which only began recently in the 1990s) does NOT have the automatic rights to any domain name containing the word "google." However, again there is the matter of the particular usage of your domain name website to consider, which cannot deal with a search engine called Google in any way.

The "reasons" you listed for having such a domain name sounded quite bogus, but what follows is what a REAL "google"- related site could be (although I don't know why the heck you'd want to bother doing it):

Usage of the word dates back to the turn of the century (early 1900s), and the term "goo-goo" eyes, meaning a guy "making big eyes" at (ie checking out) a pretty girl. This big-eye term also echoes the large rounded "goggles" of the late 1800s, used by motorists driving the first versions of the automobile.

The next major emergence of the goo-goo eye termonology came a few years later in the 1920s, with the popular newspaper comic strip featuring a bug-eyed rube named "Barney Google." Soonafter, an equally popular song about it hit the airwaves, called "Barney Google (and his goo-goo-googally eyes)." So as you can see, the term "to google" always meant to take your eyes and use them to stare at something very closely, which is why it would then be a natural kind of name for an internet search engine.

(I'd also bet that the Google people would have loved to use ol' Barney as one of their icons, but copyright rules prohibit it, unless they wanted to spend big money to license the character.) Speaking of which, the way the owners of the comic strip syndicate that owns Barney Google could look at it, "Google" uses part of "Barney Google" in their name, therefore THEY could be in copyright (if not also trademark) violation!

But getting back to your site, to be free of legal problems, it would have to be a non-money making fan site about Barney Google, with links to Barney Google toons and history, etc., with NO mention of the Google search engine. So good luck, new Barney fan!

 

[Genialnames]

The article it is quite long, thus I have thought to make the life easier for you.
The parts in black are those inherent to the topic while those in blue are notes that do not influence in any way the dealt subject.
If you want to go straight to the core you read only the parts in black.
Thanks!


The reason for which I have opened the thread is that because reading answers like those that I have received here I was made the opinion that the guys at Google were not anymore those shining minds that appeared at the
beginning, but I started to suspect that success and the money had transformed them in the usuals stereotypes of those overbearing ones, arrogants - ignorants etc, whose finally have caught up their true scope..... = to have the power..... to behave like the overbearing ones!

Going to regard their philosophy on Google website I have found there again the principles they have inspired to the company from the very beginning and that I appreciate to 80%, (some 20% , if Google it was mine, I would have avoided, but this is another story)

This contradiction has left me with the large doubt: could they be such great hypocrites?
Standing at many comments I read here and everywhere it seem yes, at the point that it look like they spent part of their time to go around just to pick up anyone is using, words even vaguely, sounding g- o-o-g-l-e like , and they have fun in to put them in trouble and to squeeze money out of them!

In such state of doubt , even if I am quite sure that I am not doing anything wrong with Googleous I thought , better to ask.

Here is the idea
At the beginning of the thread I have pointed out to one cultural valence of the term googleous. At that time I did not succeed to remember the appropriate term in order to then define the idea but it returned me in mind and it is NEOLOGISM.

For definition a neologism it is a word, or a phrase, that it assume a new even original meaning and that become part of the common language.
In the last years the phenomenon of the neologisms has caught up extremely immense proportions species among the youth, at the point that have been constituted a parallel language .
A neologism may have various origins but for sure it come out from someone that for first has invented it or start use a word in such new way and the others liked and then adopts the use of it, in always greater number until that word it becomes a common way to say.

The advent of the mass media has favorited a lot the spread of the phenomenon of the neologism and the Internet it is one of those media.

Just for its peculiar characteristics a neologism cannot in any case to obtain some type of "protection" against the improper use.

Does not exist anybody on the face of the earth who can have the power to prevent to people from use a certain word or to pretend any right on it or to pretend anything for its use, to the maximum, for issues of personal prestige to the creator of a neologism could be recognized the intellectual paternity, (not property!) and this is my case, that's why I have registerd a Domain named GOOGLEOUS
I found that register a domain name can be a cheap way to estabilish a record at a sure date:it give no legal protection, but eventually, if it gain success I hope my personal reputation would have some benefit, that may help in business.

Here therefore the project
Launch a competition asking to represent concepts like, generous' abundant, gorgeous , beauty, variety ', fabulous, and anything that it represents the splendor of the nature or extraordinary events, also of fantasy, ecc. to associate them to Google, or more better, not directly to Google in how much the brand but in reference to the variety', the extraordinary quantity' a of the production of high quality of ideas of Google, and especially to the positive philosophy that inspires the Google company.

The best ideas would be then used to print on t-shirts and other media the phrase "Wow, that's googleous!"

I thought would be cool to join the Googleous.com site with some of those "click to donate" initiative and try to boost donations with the slogan "Be googleous, donated now!
This would also further promote and to stimulate the spread of the neologism and would ulteriorly enforce the connotation of the term googleous whit positive meaning
Be googleous! =would mean, be very, very generous!

Naturally I have taken in consideration various hypothesis, hence also that the same neologism could be used for the opposite scope, that is to connote the Googleous adjective with negative means , and probably it would work equally well.

I imagine many out there are those who could be tempted or interested to use it this way, but not until I have the possibility' to make it positive.

From the sales of these objects I hope to gain enough money in order the artist will make some money and in order to maintain a site
Now I wonder, does exists some possibility that I have not considered for which I could have problems?

Special thanks goes to bluesman, for have not only emphasized the situation for the benefit of all the community but above all for the respect that however demonstrates of having for the other people's ideas, independently from the fact that you share them or not.

In my case this your behavior it is particularly appreciable because my ideas do not have never despicable intentions but they represent just alternative creative proposals .

 

[creme]

Dude, Just break it down like this:

www.GoOgleOus.com (Go Ogle Ous)

And forward it to http://www.Ous.com (a search engine)

You are just telling people to Go Ogle (stare at) Ous.com

Case closed. You win.

 

[DNQuest.com]

Dude, Just break it down like this:

www.GoOgleOus.com (Go Ogle Ous)

And forward it to http://www.Ous.com (a search engine)

You are just telling people to Go Ogle (stare at) Ous.com

Case closed. You win.

ummmm... no

Having a valid reason is much different than inventing one. No one will believe that explaination. But I will admit it is a good try.

 

[Genialnames]

I thought creme was OT ! (But I appreciated the creativity)

I think I have more than one reason exposed already, I think I am ok.

I replied just to expose it, also I hope it could be useful for others for future reference.

Nice point out DNQuest,I completely agree,
it is always a pleasure to read clever comments.

 

[jberryhill]

This is the second legal thread started by this guy that simply seems like trolling to me.

Nawww, I wouldn't go that far. The guy is cute, but not evil.

Genial, I get your point. Bottom line - you wouldn't win. And, whoever it was, you are also correct that trademark laws are not automatic monopolies, but let me tell you story...

I was having a talk with TM counsel for Nokia about UDRP proceedings, and we agreed that it's pretty hard to conclude anyting other than someone had a trademark in mind when they registered a domain name having "NOKIA" in it. So I told her that someday I want to start an auto dealership where I sell every brand except for one type of Korean car, and I would call my dealership "No Kia".

We laughed. And we laughed becaue it is funny. The bottom line is that when you have to go that far out of your way, you reach the point where even the truth is stranger than fiction.

 

[DeST]

Google is actually math term... how can they TM something named off some one elses LAST NAME how is that possible? What if the google family the family of the guy who thought of google/google-plex made a site with google in it? How do they deserve it more?

 

[alanchau]

Google is actually math term... how can they TM something named off some one elses LAST NAME how is that possible? What if the google family the family of the guy who thought of google/google-plex made a site with google in it? How do they deserve it more?

The term you are referring to is googol, not Google.

 

[labrocca]

Reading Genialnames comments I just can't help to think this guy doesn't get it. He seems to be an idealist.

btw-if you want to start a site about NEOLOGISM then register NEOLOGISM.BIZ. It's available.

 

[DNQuest.com]

So I told her that someday I want to start an auto dealership where I sell every brand except for one type of Korean car, and I would call my dealership "No Kia".

Off topic here, but here is a fast but true story. When GM decided to sell the Chevy Nova in the early 90s in Mexico, it was the worst performing car sales GM ever had. GM couldn't figure out why until why they were asked why they would sell a car called "no go". That's "no va" translated into English. lol

 

[bluesman]

...bluesman... ...your behavior it is particularly appreciable because my ideas do not have never despicable intentions but they represent just alternative creative proposals.

I didn't mean you had bad intentions, but I was pointing out a real scenario wherein the Google people would not be able to bother you. An art site about Barney Google would fit the bill, and in fact by now the old comic strip he was in is probably now under public domain, anyway, so you wouldn't have to worry about any backlash there, either.

 

[Genialnames]

The term you are referring to is googol, not Google

I have read this explanation in the "about us" page of google website.
I also I've read somewhere else that a Google (exactly a google)it is a traditional cakethat is used in hebrew weddings, that when swallowed it make one's throat to sound like google......
Do anyone heard about this?

But standing at their explanation Google itself would be illegal too, at least following the reasoning here , they experessly say that they have played around the term Googol, that was invented by someone else, that's exactly what I have done with Googleous....

Genial, I get your point. Bottom line - you wouldn't win.

do you mean that you are of the opinion I would be automatically sued and then I would loose?

Jberry, I perfectly understand your point but your example doesn't fit here, let me say it is too obvious and too generic.
I am tempted to think It seems mostly you are only trying to sustain your personal position, unless you are engaged by Google itself in order to defend their interests , beyond to what the laws of the TM normally concur, by diffuse information that constitute a deterrent in order to limit an excessive number of attempts to record similar names, which indeed google could do nothing... that I could understand too.

Please, don't take it bad, I am doing nothing personal here, just reasoning about what I am seeing.

Lets take the example of Nokia, I would see better you have cited :
No-Kia as two separated words...or
No-Kian or
NOKI-AN or also
MANOKIAM (Man, OK, I AM)

Would you still sustain that they are TM infringements?

moreover, as already pointed
Google it is a proper name
Googleous it is an adjective,
here grammar and sintax rules.

I found : googleism.com > taken
googleosophy.com > taken
googlism.com > taken (Googlism.com is owned by an Australian company ,The Googlism idea was formulated in September 2002 Sometime early January 2004, Google.com adopted measures to prevent Googlism.com from querying the Google servers to find new Googlisms. We are not upset, due to the immense popularity of Googlism.com, we were requesting an average of 15,000 unique queries a day. We have just over 1.7 million unique Googlisms in total and since opening we served around 16 million total searches, or an average of 35,000 searches per day.
Where Googlism.com has received links from thousands of webmasters and websites all.)

Please, not to say that then I want to only hear what I like to hear . I believe I am suppling reasonably valid arguments and until that obvious facts invalidates them it is obvious I must continue to support them.


hey bluesman ....

I didn't mean you had bad intentions, but I was pointing out a real scenario ....

.
That's why I added a rep to you ...
( I see you are new here at NamePros , a Rep it is GOOD thing, not bad... enjoy!

 

[DNQuest.com]

You do realize that "state of mind" is concidered when domains are registered. Creating a way to include a TM in domain is bad faith. You can argue all you want, but the bottom line would be "why did you register the domain with a TM in it?"

Some of your arguements are a little in space.. saying google in itself is illegal... too funny.

Maybe you should read several hundred decisions WIPO decisions to get a better idea how things work.

BTW- this thread could be used to show bad faith. Inventing reasons to use Google's name in a domain and try to get away with it.