domain GoogleTalkers.com

[markfromslo]

GoogleTalkers.com
GoogleTalkers.net
GoogleTalkers.org

Yesterday, I heard rumors that Google was about to announce their own Instant Messaging system. Last night some bloggers said they thought it would be called Google Talk. I jumped on the web and started brainstorming for names that would apply to this new product, if that was going to actually be the name. The problem I was up against was that Google Talk is already two words, and adding a third word really devalues the name. It’s not so bad with this product name because the two words are both part of the product name, but most names I came up with were sounding like too much of a mouthful.

Then, a great idea for a name came to me–GoogleTalkers.com. I grabbed it, along with the .org and .net. Just two words! But, what does it mean? Well, it very clearly represents the community of people who use Google Talk. It’s particularly well-suited for a community discussion forum about the product. Consider the GoogleTalkForum (tried to buy, but was taken), or GoogleTalkers–which sounds better? The singular term–GoogleTalker.com–was taken, but that doesn’t work as well the plural. That’s more appropriate for a individual (the talker) blogging about Google.

By the way, when Google says “talk,” they literally mean talk. In addition to Instant Messaging, you can use a microphone and hold a conversation with others using microphones.

 

[movingconcierge]

Don't want to take the wind from your sails, my friend, but there might be an infringement issue with the names. Maybe not...

 

[axilant]

Nice name imo. TM issues.

But an idea:

Forum.

Or make an online client (uses jabber protocols) for gtalk.

 

[markfromslo]

There are tons of Google sites--Google this and Google that. What would the differnece here be?

 

[Keynes]

There are tons of Google sites--Google this and Google that. What would the differnece here be?

The only legit Google sites are owned by Google -- if you're infringing on their TM, chances are they're going to take the name.

 

[markfromslo]

The only legit Google sites are owned by Google -- if you're infringing on their TM, chances are they're going to take the name.

I still don't understand how there can be very large Googlexxx.com sites out there with very high PR ranks that have been around for yearsif this is the case. For example, GoogleGuide.com, GoogleHackss.com, GoogleAdvisor.com and others. Same with Gmail.

I just sold a fully developed site called GoogleTutor.com that has a high PR rank. I sold it to a very (very, very) successful guy in the domain field and he paid a good amount for it.

 

[Keynes]

I still don't understand how there can be very large Googlexxx.com sites out there with very high PR ranks that have been around for yearsif this is the case. For example, GoogleGuide.com, GoogleHackss.com, GoogleAdvisor.com and others. Same with Gmail.

I just sold a fully developed site called GoogleTutor.com that has a high PR rank. I sold it to a very (very, very) successful guy in the domain field and he paid a good amount for it.

Well, there certainly are Google sites out there but that doesn't mean they're immune from the long arm of Google's legal team. I looked at the sites you mentioned, and only GoogleGuide and GoogleTutor are actually up -- Google may allow these since they help people use their products, but I wouldn't doubt if they become overly commercialized, there might be an issue. Just like some celebrities allow properly operated fan sites, so does Google allow some sites to operate under its TM -- but that is a judgement on their part, and is liable to change at the drop of a hat. If the name has "Google" in it (or a close typo thereof) and they want it, they'll get it.

 

[markfromslo]

Well, there certainly are Google sites out there but that doesn't mean they're immune from the long arm of Google's legal team. I looked at the sites you mentioned, and only GoogleGuide and GoogleTutor are actually up -- Google may allow these since they help people use their products, but I wouldn't doubt if they become overly commercialized, there might be an issue. Just like some celebrities allow properly operated fan sites, so does Google allow some sites to operate under its TM -- but that is a judgment on their part, and is liable to change at the drop of a hat. If the name has "Google" in it (or a close typo thereof) and they want it, they'll get it.

There are dozens more sites. I have to run out of town in a couple ours or I'd list them. Plus, the site name is best for a community of GoogleTalk users, as you said Google could appreciate.

As for commercial use, I've also seen many sites that use Google trademarks in their site name that are definitely just trying to make a buck. www.adsense.com comes to mind. Hard to imagine that one has kept under the radar.

Not trying to be argumentative, btw, I very much appreciate all the advice. I'm just trying to understand it all, rather than accepting it without question.

 

[barefoottech]

I like it
Value $xx mid to $xxx low for the set
You should have got the .info as well

 

[Michelle]

I like it
Value $xx mid to $xxx low for the set
You should have got the .info as well

Let me guess

 

[Keynes]

As for commercial use, I've also seen many sites that use Google trademarks in their site name that are definitely just trying to make a buck. www.adsense.com comes to mind. Hard to imagine that one has kept under the radar.

Actually AdSense.com has been around long before Google AdSense -- it was and is an indepdent company. So, in that sense, they have fair use to the domain by virtue of the time stamp (they beat Google to it by quite a few years.) Further, I know there are sites out there to make money with Google trademarks in their name, but the point remains that if Google wants the name, they can take it. It's up to their discretion if they do so, and they may very well appreciate a site promoting their new IM serivce, but it's hard to tell. I hope your site goes well; I just want to make sure the risks involved in developing a site about a new Google product are clear.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/swish.cgi?query=google&config=icann_udrp

 

[RogueWriter]

tm issues, IMO, run don't walk to the nearest exit........