Booble Explains Meaning Of Parody To Google Lawyers
from the this-should-be-fun dept
As we predicted last week when the so-called "porn search engine" Booble launched last week, it didn't take long for Google's lawyers to swing into action and insist that Booble hand over the domain. Booble has the full letter on their site, and with it, their response, explaining to Google's lawyers the meaning (and legal protections) associated with a parody. They also knock Google for suggesting that Booble somehow "tarnishes" Google's image, but does it in a way you might not expect: "Entering the terms "porn" and "sex" in the Google search engine return 98,400,000 hits and 269,000,000 hits, respectively, while entering these same terms in the Booble adult search engine return 268 hits and 291 hits, respectively. Therefore, the Google mark - which has a longstanding association with pornographic terms and material - is obviously not tarnished." Also, Booble appears to have edited their "we're not Google" disclaimer to add: "(for starters, we have a sense of humor)."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Should Have Ignored It
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Should Have Ignored It
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Should Have Ignored It
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I actually think that...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I actually think that...
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 thread ]
Re: I actually think that...
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 thread ]
Trademarks need to be (reasonably) defended...
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 thread ]
hmmm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
victor's secret
http://slate.msn.com/id/2073884
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: hmmm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And what if....
[ link to this | view in thread ]