Google wins copycat Web domain dispute

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The National Arbitration Forum said on Friday that Google Inc. has rights to the Internet domain names googkle.com, ghoogle.com, gfoogle.com and gooigle.com, which are similar to its own google.com domain.

The Web search leader filed a complaint with the NAF on May 11, claiming legal rights to Web addresses bearing a close resemblance to google.com, which it registered in late 1999.

Sergey Gridasov, of St. Petersburg, Russia, registered googkle.com, ghoogle.com, gfoogle.com and gooigle.com between December 2000 and January 2001 through Computer Services Langenbach GmbH, which did business as Joker.com. He did not respond to charges levied against him.

Because Gridasov failed to answer, the arbitrator was entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the complaint from Google as true, unless the evidence was clearly contradictory.

The NAF arbitrator, Paul Dorf, found that Gridasov did not have legitimate rights to the Web addresses, and the Web addresses were confusingly similar to Google's (Nasdaq:GOOG - news) trademark rights to its own name.

Further, the arbitrator found that Gridasov was using them in bad faith by presumably profiting from the use of domains.

Gridasov used his domain names to direct Internet users to Web sites that attempt to download viruses, Trojan horses and spyware to the users' computers. The domain names also carried links to various products unrelated to Google, the NAF said.

The NAF hears thousands of domain disputes each year under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, in a dispute process that is an alternative to trademark lawsuits.

(Hey, leflaw! Be QUICK and file suit vs the RIAA for having half of our name! lol.)

Actually. I take back somewhat my snideness of headline and comments about this. SURE, I believe that a corporation shouldn't have the right to simply sue a similar sounding/spelled "name" out of existance just because of the so-called
"similar" name used... but if the person/entity behind the "infringing trade-mark" is DELIBERATELY trying to profit from and/or harm the original holder or potential visitors/customers as the result... then, perhaps a LAWSUIT is in ORDER!

(Sorry folks, I shoulda RTFA first before being so snippy! But this kinda headline USUALLY means that a corporation has been being a bully either to a parody site or a person/business that had nothing to do with the "big-name" at all in the first place.)

Sounds like Google might very well be in the RIGHT here.

...but, as usual... more info needed, only going by what has been writen above.

It sounds to me like he's doing what a lot of porn/malware sites do. They intentionally use domain names that could be typos or mispellings of legitimate sites, counting on a few misplaced keystrokes to gather more "prey".

Unfortunately, it's a fairly common practice, or used to be.

"Cybersquatting" for the PURPOSE of getting page hits BECAUSE of the potential customer's/surfer's mis-spellings/mistakes IS a wrong/harmful act in my book.

But parody or un-intentional similarity of name/phrase ON IT'S OWN should NOT be the basis of a lawsuit IMHO.

Too often, situation #2 is what is used.
But, in the case of THIS story, I think JAFO-555 is right.

gefilte fish?

The Google typosquatter in this case was
also an affiliate of Cool Web Search, one of
the most prevalent and nasty hijackers on the
Internet. I think if Gridasov was using the
domains for other purposes than to infect
visitors with malware, then I would be less
likely to agree with Google's position on this.