google lawyers agian follow me

[g00gIe]

Dear Jihad,

Your message to MarkMonitor has been forwarded to me. I am Google's Senior Trademark Counsel.

Google is the owner of the well-known trademark and trade name GOOGLE, as well as the domain name GOOGLE.COM. As you are no doubt aware, GOOGLE is the trademark used to identify our award-winning search engine, located at http://www.google.com. Since its inception in 1997, the GOOGLE search engine has become one of the most highly recognized and widely used Internet search engines in the world. Google owns numerous trademark registrations and applications for its GOOGLE mark in countries around the world.

Google has used and actively promoted its GOOGLE mark for a number of years, and has invested considerable time and money establishing exclusive proprietary rights in the GOOGLE mark for online computer services and a wide range of goods. As a result of its efforts, the GOOGLE mark has become a famous mark and a property right of incalculable value.

You have registered, without Google's permission or authorization, the domain name g00gle.com (the "Domain Name"). As you admit, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the famous GOOGLE mark, and, by its very composition, suggests Google's sponsorship or endorsement of your website and correspondingly, your activities.

Your use of a Domain Name that is confusingly similar to the famous GOOGLE mark constitutes trademark infringement and dilution of Google's trademark rights and unfair competition. Your use of the Domain Name is diluting use because it weakens the ability of the GOOGLE mark and domain name to identify a single source, namely Google. Further, your registration and use of the Domain Name misleads consumers into believing that some association exists between Google and you, which tarnishes the goodwill and reputation of Google's services and trademarks.

Your registration and use of the Domain Name is clearly designed to appropriate the goodwill associated with the famous GOOGLE mark in violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA"). Because you are using a Domain Name that incorporates the famous GOOGLE mark to direct Internet traffic to your commercial website, your bad faith intent to profit from our mark is manifest. Please note the ACPA provides for damages of up to $100,000 per domain name.

Your registration and use of the Domain Name is also actionable under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP"). Because you are attempting to sell the Domain Name for profit, your actions meet the bad faith criteria of UDRP. Under similar circumstances, Google has prevailed in numerous UDRP actions. These decisions are located online at http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrpdec.htm.

In view of your infringement of our rights, we must demand that you provide written assurances within 7 days that you will:
1. Immediately discontinue any and all use of the Domain Name;
2. Take immediate steps to transfer the Domain Name to Google;
3. Identify and agree to transfer to Google any other domain names registered by you that contain GOOGLE or are confusingly similar to the GOOGLE mark;
4. Immediately and permanently refrain from any use of the term GOOGLE or any variation thereof that is likely to cause confusion or dilution.

Sincerely,
--
Rose Hagan
Senior Trademark Counsel
Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
_________________
www.g00gIe.com
is my own site

[coder]

is there a point to this post?

[mike]

I think the point is;

If you rip off Google's name, their lawyers will send you letters.

Um, no kidding.

It's kinda like saying:

If I stick my hand into an open flame, it will burn me.

[JKomp]

lol Google has a right to protect its TM but g00gie is not gonna be confused for google by anyone imo, i reckon he could do a booble on this one.

If you wonna get really picky what about Google's apparent infringement on Googles.com? What happened with that case anyway?

[DMC_34]

I rememeber the Froogles case, I believe up in Rhode Island. IMO Froogles had been up and in business for a while yet Google still went after them. I believe Google lost though, not sure.

DMC

[Duncan Pollock]

Well, I for one think g00gIe deserves everything he gets. He's as guilty as Google's lawyer says he is, and I'm amazed he's thought he'd get away with it.
If the only way you can run a business is to try riding on the coat tails of someone else's good name, you should be shut down pronto!

Duncan

[DMC_34]

I can understand and agree with most of what Google is doing in regards to this but where the problem comes in is Google demanding he transfer the domain to them. Umm Didnt Apple/Ipod do the this same thing to ipodtunes but were awarded the domain name in court. What about Froogles.com which I believe had been up LONG before Froogle.com ever was. IMO this is just another story of big bad bully crap. No he shouldnt ride Google's name but why should he have transfer the domain name to them? If google wants it so bad let them rich into their pockets otherwise they should have bought the damn name to begin with. G00gle shouldnt be allowed to operate but they shouldnt have to just give it over either.

DMC

[freehits]

EXACTLY, he is obviously wrong to think he could use that name.

But why is the end result, you must give it to me?
Again, this g00g shmuck deserves the lawsuit, but like in the case of froogles, that is just being a bully.

I had a common example using the name of a pro basketball player.He wrote me (his psuedo lawyer that is) demanding I transefer it immediately, even though it was just parked and not related to him in any way.

For me, If I buy a piece of miami beach land, then someone else wants it, they should have bought it first...or pay me.

I wonder what all the John Smiths of the world will receive when they all sue each other for their name.

Then it will be first come first serve.

It seems fame and lawyer power determain who gets what is rightfully someone else's by virtue of acting first.

Didnt modonna get her name too? even though its a common first name in Italy? and millions use it as their name throughout history?

Make them not associate the site perhaps, but why "give" the name to someone else, I dont see how she is automatically the rightful owner.

[wrmineo]

Well I have to say that the letter comes off quite arrogant and overly wordy - the lawyers no doubt is paid by the hours and the bytes :)

It would have been just as easy to say, you're in violation and have two choices: shut down and transfer expect an invitation to federal court - it's that simple.

Personally, I don't see where "g00gie" is necessarily so close that Google should have an "automatic" case.

Of course as the site has a dead page on it now - there's no way to say what the site owner may have had up there that caught Google's attention to begin with ...

Further, I find that the more tautological a legal letter gets, as seems to be the case here, the less secure they are in their "iron-clad" sense of security that it's a "no-brainer". If they felt 100% right, they would simply go to ICANN and the Registrar on record and take the domain name under the exact laws, rules and regulations that they sighted. I don't think Ms. Esquire would go to all the lengths of self-promotion and past cases if not to try to bully/scare the recipient if it show an open/close simple issue.

I bought armydeps.com in 2004 and the US Gov't and Leo Burnette (Army Ad Agency) tried the same scare tactics with me because it was only one letter off of armydep.com ... I kept it without a fight, merely offering to bring them a ten-fold more bad publicity than they'd be able to handle; a disabled Army veteran in front of cameras carries a lot more weight than big brother trying to steal from the little man.

I don't agree with the sentiment that IF they do win their action that they should get it for free; however, they shouldn't be forced to fork over anything more than the cost IMO.

[maxseo]

Well probably it is risky to register any domain names that contain 'g' 'o' 'l' 'e' characters.

[Evic]

I agree it was stupid to register this domain name, but I don't think Google really has a case for a direct transfer of the domain name - especially if the website is not being used for any sort of monetary gain.

If Google wants that domain they should pay the guy the $20 it cost him to register it and then the transfer can take place.

[JKomp]

Google should pay more than what it cost him, if the guy wants to develop G00 Gie or some such brand then he should be able to do that. If google would prefer he didnt then they should make a bid.
As google freely admit their name is based on a dictionary word, i dont think you can stop other people working a dictionary word, in part (goog) or in full into their brand. Imagine microsoft took legal action against everything with micro or soft in it.

[bythevineyard]

I had a client go through the same issue with Amazon. He had an actual storefront called:

Amazin' Gourmet

When they tried to used the domain amazinstores.com Amazon went after them....

They just gave in and didn't pursue it after that.

It's a shame too. They had some great stuff!