Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

villalobos · Jun 16, 2006, 01:05 PM

think that Chmoogle is too much of trademark infringement. a chemcial serach engine, nothing more.....
'"It's not about right or wrong, it's who has the deeper pockets,"

More there

I guess Google is turning in another of these paranoid commercial juggernaut....

Dakar · Jun 16, 2006, 01:08 PM

considering they froogle and such, I'm inclined to agree.

Also, such claims are usually made because they don't want the quality of Chmoogle to reflect on them if it turns out to be poor.

Gossamer · Jun 16, 2006, 01:09 PM

I heard that Chmoogle offered to put 'beta' under its name and Google almost accepted.

Dakar · Jun 16, 2006, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Gossamer

I heard that Chmoogle offered to put 'beta' under its name and Google almost accepted.

Heyoooo

saddino · Jun 16, 2006, 01:28 PM

It's worth noting that they chose "Chmoogle" expressly because they wanted to play of Google's mark. If the CEO was named Klaus Chmoogle, it would be a more interesting case.

But more importantly, trademarks have to be defended in order for the owner not to lose the mark. Unlike Copyright, which cannot be "lost" before it expires, trademarks are subject to dilution and genericide.

If Google were to allow hundreds of "copycats" to use "oogle" as a search engine suffix the mark would be severely compromised.

Any business would be doing its shareholders/investors a great disservice if it did not actively protect its trademarks. So Google is doing the right thing here.

Keep in mind that this has nothing to do with being "nice" - it has to do with running a business soundly.

Gossamer · Jun 16, 2006, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by saddino

It's worth noting that they chose "Chmoogle" expressly because they wanted to play of Google's mark. If the CEO was named Klaus Chmoogle, it would be a more interesting case.

But more importantly, trademarks have to be defended in order for the owner not to lose the mark. Unlike Copyright, which cannot be "lost" before it expires, trademarks are subject to dilution and genericide.

If Google were to allow hundreds of "copycats" to use "oogle" as a search engine suffix the mark would be severely compromised.

Any business would be doing its shareholders/investors a great disservice if it did not actively protect its trademarks. So Google is doing the right thing here.

Keep in mind that this has nothing to do with being "nice" - it has to do with running a business soundly.

Agreed. At least 'froogle' is based off a real word.

olePigeon · Jun 16, 2006, 01:37 PM

What about Booble? Why doesn't Google sue them?

Dakar · Jun 16, 2006, 01:39 PM

doesn't end in g-l-e?

villalobos · Jun 16, 2006, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

What about Booble? Why doesn't Google sue them?

Apparently they tried, and lost. According to the quoted article.

saddino · Jun 16, 2006, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

What about Booble? Why doesn't Google sue them?

Actually, Google sent Booble a C+D in 2004, and the parties went back and forth and finally settled. Booble originally copied the Google trade dress (colored word logo) with a pair for the double ohs, which they defended as a parody. If you check out Booble now, you'll notice they have a new, non-infringing logo.

Now, a search engine called "Boogle" would have not faired so well, IMHO. But Booble's strategy of arguing 1) parody and 2) the fact that "Boob" is the root and 3) showing that it wasn't really a search engine in the first place, put it in a good bargaining position.