Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  Director Mitch, 28 Jan 2004 @ 2:00pm

  
  

  Should Have Ignored It

  One of those things that Google should have bit their tounge and ignored. By going after them, they are giving these guys more publicity.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Mikester, 28 Jan 2004 @ 2:18pm

    
    

    Re: Should Have Ignored It

    Sure they probably should have ignored them for what it's worth, however, if they really like their own trademark (I don't think I need to convince you they do) they have to pursue this. They have to for the same reason Microsoft goes after MikeRoweSoft.com, Starbucks goes after HydaBucks, etc., because if they don't, they risk losing their trademark. This doesn't mean the trademark owner always prevails, and the 'infringer' is always forced to concede, it's just a formality that must be done.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Kevin Heller, 28 Jan 2004 @ 6:46pm

      
      

      Re: Should Have Ignored It

      Google did convince Roogle to change their name to feedster.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  mhh5, 28 Jan 2004 @ 9:08pm

  
  

  I actually think that...

  Google has a point here, and Booble is in the wrong. Given Google's Froogle.com site, people *might* think that Booble is related to Google. And just adding "we're not google" doesn't necessarily make it all better.
  
  

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Mike (not that Mike), 29 Jan 2004 @ 5:06am

    
    

    Re: I actually think that...

    Given Google's Froogle.com site, people *might* think that Booble is related to Google.

    That's moronic. I'm a huge fan of Google as both a tool and a company, but are you honestly suggesting that their trademark gives them the legal right to any word that follows the [group of consonants]oo[group of consonants]le letter pattern?

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      MissinLnk, 29 Jan 2004 @ 6:14am

      
      

      Re: I actually think that...

      but are you honestly suggesting that their trademark gives them the legal right to any word that follows the [group of consonants]oo[group of consonants]le letter pattern?
      
      If Booble intends to make money off their site, then Google probably does have a point. If Booble is just up for a laugh, then you're right, it's no big deal. Just depends on the motives behind the site.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  OldYeller, 29 Jan 2004 @ 9:29am

  
  

  Trademarks need to be (reasonably) defended...

  Mikester's got it right. Obtaining a trademark gives you some rights, but it's up to you to defend it.
  
  While parody is a good protection against Copyright infringement, the key with Trademark infringement is whether the two names can cause recognition problems in the same marketplace.
  
  You could conceivably create a toddler toy doll called Google and trademark the name for that purpose, since these are different markets and no one would confuse them.
  
  Since Booble and Google both offer online search services, have similar names and even graphics on their logo, it's important for Google to assert it's trademark, if only to discourage others not interested in a goof but in hijacking their brand by association.
  
  The point made earlier about 'Froogle' is why - if Google's out to build a brand based around variations on a name/look/feel in the search engine space, then they are not being anal in protecting that brand.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Joe Schmoe, 29 Jan 2004 @ 9:39am

  
  

  hmmm

  Honestly, "Booble" could had done just as well to have a cute google'ish logo but distance themselves a little with a better name - "Boobie"

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Tom Carter, 10 Feb 2004 @ 11:20pm

    
    

    Re: hmmm

    I though the a google was the number 10 raised to the 100th power. Google got a trademark/copyright on that?? OK! Here's mine. I hereby copyright ONE copyright 2004. Now no one can use that word without my permission and if you use WON or WUN or Hun or ... well, you get the idea.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  kai, 29 Jan 2004 @ 12:56pm

  
  

  victor's secret

  some of you may be interested in this supreme court case in which victoria's secret sued a company called "victor's little secret." At any rate, I think the writer is one of the best/funniest at taking a normally boring subject like supreme court rulings and making them interesting:
  
  http://slate.msn.com/id/2073884

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Turo, 10 Aug 2007 @ 9:41am

  
  

  And what if....

  And what if i don't register a domainname, get one for free, and attract those people with Booble who want to use Google? (And earn $0,32 a month doing so as an affiliate for google)See example on http://www.booble.tk

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]