Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Should Have Ignored It

   

   Director Mitch, Jan 28th, 2004 @ 2:00pm

   
   

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

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Re: Should Have Ignored It

   

   Mikester, Jan 28th, 2004 @ 2:18pm

   
   

   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.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Re: Should Have Ignored It

   

   Kevin Heller, Jan 28th, 2004 @ 6:46pm

   
   

   Google did convince Roogle to change their name to feedster.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   I actually think that...

   

   mhh5, Jan 28th, 2004 @ 9:08pm

   
   

   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.
   
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   Re: I actually think that...

   

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

   
   

   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?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Re: I actually think that...

   

   MissinLnk, Jan 29th, 2004 @ 6:14am

   
   

   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.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   Trademarks need to be (reasonably) defended...

   

   OldYeller, Jan 29th, 2004 @ 9:29am

   
   

   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.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   hmmm

   

   Joe Schmoe, Jan 29th, 2004 @ 9:39am

   
   

   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"

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   victor's secret

   

   kai, Jan 29th, 2004 @ 12:56pm

   
   

   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

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    Re: hmmm

    

    Tom Carter, Feb 10th, 2004 @ 11:20pm

    
    

    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.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    And what if....

    

    Turo, Aug 10th, 2007 @ 9:41am

    
    

    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

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment