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).”
Comments on “Booble Explains Meaning Of Parody To Google Lawyers”
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.
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.
Re: Re: Should Have Ignored It
Google did convince Roogle to change their name to feedster.
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.
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?
Re: 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.
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.
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”
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.
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
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