Google claims Booble is doing the copyright infringement thing....

Arrgggggggggggghhhhhhhh matey...we all be pirates on this ship o' Earth...
nothing new under the sun. :)

Read the cease and desist letter here...
cease and desist

Yeah I'm really getting tired of these companies shouting infringement over stupid shit. I certainly didn't expect it from google.

People are getting lazy about getting trademark and copyright confused...in the C&D you will notice they are complaining of trademark dilution.

http://www.booble.com/google.html

To eliminate the '' at the end of posted links, add a space character

If it's parody, it should be protected, shouldn't it?

http://www.google-watch.org/
http://www.google-watch.org/bigbro.html

http://www.google-watch.org/jobad.html
http://www.google-watch.org/krane.html
http://www.google-watch.org/cgi-bin/cookie.htm

Job ad at Google :
"Qualifications:

BS degree in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, or related field.
Must have current government top security clearance (TS/SI). "

Top Security Clearance???!!!! For a friggin' tech support job at Google?

the key phrase in that is "BS"

There's a crap load of "Trademark similiarities" and just anal retentive-ness going around. So much that it would make the Fox network cry during the mainstay of both Simpsons and the Family Guy with their parodies and satires

What is with the attitude here?

Google has every right to protect itself. Under the law, Google shouldn't have to put up with this crap. I myself am angered whenever I go one by mistake (i.e. typing the domain name wrong or getting the wrong search result).

Listen folks, open source/modification and no intellectual property rights are great...but only for the people that want them. I license my work under creative commons because I think that's cool. I always will. Nevertheless, not everyone is going to be that way and there shouldn't be any criticism of google for doing so.

Booble does sound oddly like Google when pronounced...at least to me, and if they are a pornography site, I have zero sympathy for them. I respect their right to free speech, but there has to be a line somewhere.

:-:~ Phantom

There's nothing wrong with registering a domain thats similar to another one - there is a http://www.hoogle.com for example.

The reason Booble are under fire is that they've made there site look very similar to Google AND is some kind of search engine too. However, I'm not even sure if thats illegal in itself, they're not trying to pass themselves off as Google. Hoogle on the other hand looks nothing like Google.

Anyone know the law on this for sure?

As hoogle is for sale (and being one typo away from google is probably its only selling point), http://www.doogle.com/ is probably a better example.

phantom...www.google-watch.org sounds similar too doesn't it?
From material at google-watch, it seems like google is not the innocent little search engine some folks believe...
~Code

"There's nothing wrong with registering a domain thats similar to another one - there is a http://www.hoogle.com for example. .... Anyone know the law on this for sure?"

Read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/04/nyregion/04AMBE.html?ex=1378094400&en=d4958b659564ddc6&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

mroop is right in that the government is out there making up unnecessary laws again..the Truth in Domain Names bullshit...
"Federal prosecutors in Manhattan charged a Florida man yesterday with violating a new law that makes it illegal to use misleading Internet domain names to entice minors onto pornographic Web sites."

Ya know, I've typed in a URL wrong and get taken to the wrong site that basically is a search page sponsored by ads...but I don't get my drawers in a bunch over it...

It's a shame those fat, bad complexioned guys on the Hill in DC don't pass a REAL truth in domain names act...the RIAA would be mandated into changing theirs to....
" RIAA-lying-litigious-bastards-from-hell-misrepresenting-federal-definitions-of-piracy=and=extortionists-under-the-Hobbs-Act.org "

and coca cola would be....
Coca-no-cocaine-in-the-formula-but-plenty-of-teeth-rotting-sugar-caramel-color-and-carbonated-water.com

and how about...
macdonalds-i'm-hating-it.com?

This is ridiculous. Any person with half a brain can see that Booble and Google are 2 different things. They are NOT confusingly similar. If the other guy was at gooogle.com, then it would be confusingly similar. Yes, you can get their by mistyping the domain name. But complaining about that is like complaining about driving up to a wrong house when you made a left turn instead of right, or going into the left door instead of the right one and ending up in a porn store instead of the watch repair place. Also note that Booble is 2 typos away from Google

If I'm not mistaken, one cannot copyright look and feel, per Apple VS Microsoft over the Windows design. It's just a piece of info I heard. If someone can either confirm or correct this, please do.

There was indeed a time when there was some animosity between Windoze and Apple about the GUI (graphic user interface)....I think Windoze did in fact copy the whole folder,desktop, set up...what google would call the "dress"...

and, if Google thinks Booble is confusingly similar...as a domain name...they need to go after oogle. boogle (they may own boogle), coogle, doogle, foogle, hoogle is for sale apparently..and on and on right down to zoodle.com

i meant zoogle.com...there is a zoodle.com

Coca-Cola should sue webster for naming a drug "Coke."

Google is a bit shady nowadays in my opinion anyway. Taking money to basically keep certain sites from showing up. I believe one source was the French Government.

This story is very interesting though, because I had no idea that Google had copyrighted "booble" as well. Amazing.

"Your web site improperly duplicates the distinctive and proprietary overall look and feel of Google's website, including Google's trade dress and the GOOGLE logo."

This is the best part. This is where Google admits to being wrong.

THIS VERY SITE is a parody of the RIAA website. Even they haven't sued boycott-riaa.com That's right - Google is more stupid than the RIAA.

Lmao.

Booble.

"Google has every right to protect itself. "
From what? Booble? How is that relevant?

"I myself am angered whenever I go to one by mistake"
And you think a good way to protect you from your mistakes is for Google to sue away owners of all possible typos?

"Booble does sound oddly like Google when pronounced"
It's typed, it's not a voice command.

"and if they are a pornography site, I have zero sympathy for them. I respect their right to free speech"
I think it's funny that you "support their right to free speech" (like you have any choice), but imply that the fact that they are a pornography site should be weighted against them in court.

"here has to be a line somewhere."
And that line is drawn so that if anyone makes a parody they can be sued. Or if your typo takes you to another site, that that site is somehow responsible for your typo and should be shut down.

Phantom - do you want this site to be shut down too? And if not, could you explain the difference between the two cases? Please note that it's likely that very few people have ever accidentily typed "booble" instead of "google"

"Booble.com is not affiliated with any other search engines (for starters, we have a sense of humor). If you are looking for Google.com, click here"

Links to google on the site just to stop the babies from crying.

"improperly duplicates the distinctive and proprietary overall look and feel"

Apple tried to stop Windows with this line of interrogation. In the long run it does not work.

The question seems to be, exactly how stupid do you have to be not to be able to tell that you're in the wrong place. Besides, Booble's "overall look and feel" seems to be a fascination with breasts.

Coca-no-cocaine-in-the-formula-but-plenty-of- teeth-rotting-sugar-caramel-color-and-carbona ted-water.com

You left out the massive level of acidity of the drink that eats away the enamil so the suger can get in faster. Anyone wana bet dentist were involved in the creation of coke? j/k


I think it is ludicris. I think anyone should be able to buy any domain name they want and use it for what they want as long as it is within the laws of this country. Those should be laws meant to protect society not other firms, hence the term competition. If firms can sue people into submission how is our government promoting competition?

I also think that a large firm should not be able to exert its power to bring down a small firm through legal action. In this country having wealth means you can do anything to anyone with less wealth than you, period. Just like the RIAA should not be able to sue kids. There should be laws against bullies. With all the other laws we have to protect certain sectors and people a law preventing people from using large amounts of money to get there way in any situation. Yes I know, thats vague, hard to define. But not any more vague than the justifications for the current laws.

How many clicks does google get per day? Is booble really hurting them? No I don't have much sympathy for porn sites either because those are the same basterds that fill up our mail boxes with spam. But I also have no desire to further deteriorate the small reminence of a free market we still have.

Oh and code what does "dilution" mean in relation to trademarks?

Looking at the site it is pretty similar. But so isn't 90% of the forums out there. Personally I think the boobs are pretty funny. Is it damaging to google? I don't think so. Did booble copy software from google that google owned? Probably not its not that hard to create a website that looks like that. Google is also the epitemy of efficiency when it comes to search engines. There are no unnessesary graphics besides the logo and the rest of the layout is pretty simple. Seems to me they are trying to sue someone for reinventing the wheel after they already reinvented it....

All I can say is buy your Booble coffee mugs and shirts soon. This stuff will be worth their weight in gold if Google wins!

Well, I suppose they could change just one letter in Booble. Change the "L" to an "I". Now who wouldn't like that.

haha, too bad there isn't a formula one could use that would search for ways uptight people could cry about its pronounciation, spelling, or implied meaning.

purfus...I became acquainted with that dilution of trademark notion a while back when some a-holes didn't like a site I had about them...got a threatening letter from some lawyers, and then, put up a site exposing those lawyers...lol...

dilution of trademark basically asserts that a company has exclusive rights to use their trademark and if you use it, or make something so confusingly similar that others may get confused, it "dilutes" or lessens their trademark's effectiveness...

here's some federal law on it...
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1125.html


Newsletters and Bulletins / February 1996 / Federal Dilution

Federal Dilution Trademark Law in the United States

Contents

Effective Date
Summary & Guidelines
Dilution - Definition
Remedy - Injunctive Relief
First Amendment Concerns
Conclusions


Effectve date

The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, which protects famous marks from uses that dilute their distinctiveness, even in the absence of any likelihood of confusion or competition, became effective on January 16, 1996.


Summary & Guidelines

The new law sets forth guidelines to determine which marks are distinctive and famous and lists the following, non-exclusive factors:


(1) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark;

(2) the duration and extent of use of the mark;

(3) the duration and extent of advertising and publicity;

(4) the geographical extent of the trading area in which the mark is used;

(5) the channels of trade;

(6) the degree of recognition of the mark in the trading areas and channels of trade used by the mark's owner and the person against whom the injunction is sought;

(7) the nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by third parties; and

( whether the owner of the mark has a valid federal registration.


Notwithstanding this last factor, both registered and unregistered marks may be protected under this law.


Definitiion of Dilutiuon

The new act defines the term "dilution" as "the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services, regardless of the presence or absence of


(1) competition between the owner of the famous mark and other parties, or

(2) likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception."


Courts have previously found that dilution can occur as a result of either "blurring" or "tarnishment". "Blurring" typically refers to the "whittling away" of distinctiveness caused by the unauthorized use of a mark on dissimilar products; while "tarnishment" involves an unauthorized use of a mark which links it to products that are of poor quality or which is portrayed in an unwholesome or unsavory context that is likely to reflect adversely upon the owner's product. The legislative history suggests that both of these concepts are encompassed within the new law. In addition, the legislative history cites, as examples of the uses which would fall within the new law, the mark DUPONT for shoes, BUICK for aspirin and KODAK for pianos.
http://www.ladas.com/BULLETINS/1996/FederalDilution.html#Dilution

Well there is no mistaking the difference between googies and boobies so i dont think they have a case, although it is up to the judge....

I just looked a little closer at that booble site and at the bottem they have links to google. In fact if you click that you are not over 18 you get sent to google. They really have used google too much in their site and I do thin google has the right to make them take away the firect associations to google they have made.