Booble.com

[llegent]

Speaking of Dispute and legal claim issues, it sparks of my memory of the old days back in 2004 where google was taking the issue toward booble.com (adult search engine). In its email to booble.com, Google claimed that :-

Quote:Your use of the Domain Name and corresponding web site constitutes trademark infringement and dilution of Google's trademarks and unfair competition under federal and state laws. Further, your improper duplication of Google's trade dress on the web site will mislead 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 in bad faith pursuant to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") and is clearly designed to appropriate the goodwill associated with the famous GOOGLE mark in violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA"). In addition, you would not be able to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name because you are using it to tarnish the GOOGLE mark.

Agreed that booble.com was created much later than google.com :-
Google.com domain was created on: 15-Sep-1997.
Booble.com domain was created on: 25-Nov-2001.

But hey, is that also to say that no one can own domain like :-
aooale.com, booble.com, coocle.com, doodle.com, eooele.com, foofle.com, hooahe.com, iooile.com, ,oooole.com, poople.com, qooqle.com...and so on??

Well, apparently, Booble.com is still "alive" till date! and they remain the direction as "adult search engine" that they set in the early stage.

[zach]

Nice history An interesting read.

I have always wondered about cases like this, and about how far their implications reach.

One thing I noticed, though, is that they used to use the Google style for their homepage. Now it looks totally different.

[llegent]

Thanks Zach. By the way, I managed to search back the email reply from Booble that they had sent to google (it is a long email, with solid arguements by Booble legal team! Booble even goes to the extend of citing similar domains registered):-

Quote:===============================
Dear Trademark Enforcement Team,

We are intellectual property counsel to Guywire, Inc. This letter responds to your e-mail message of January 20, 2004 to our client via domains by proxy.

As your communication recognizes, our client adopted and uses the BOOBLE and booble.com designations to parody the Google web site. Our client's web site is in fact a successful parody, which simultaneously brings to mind the original, while also conveying that it is not the original. See, e.g.,Jordache Enters., Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., 828 F.2d 1482, 1486 (10th Cir. 1987) (finding no likelihood of confusion between LARDASHE for oversized jeans, despite its obvious similarity with, and parody of, the well-known JORDACHE mark for jeans). Cf. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F. 3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001) (finding a domain name parody was unsuccessful because Internet users had to view the web site before they were able to discover that it was not the original). Obviously, the Booble web site brings to mind the Google web site, at the same time that it underscores its unique identity as a parodic adult search engine.

In trademark law, parody is a defense to trademark infringement. Eveready Battery Co. v. Adolph Coors Co., 765 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (holding that a commercial advertisement of a well-known actor in a bunny outfit, banging a drum, was an effective parody of the plaintiff's mechanical toy rabbit advertising character). In the present case, consumers are highly unlikely to be confused as to the source of services for several reasons, including the following:

1. the domain names are entirely different;
2. the BOOBLE web site searches only provide content related to Adult web sites, including TGP sites, Adult stores, and Adult-related products like browser cleaners, pop-up filters, etc.; and
3. the BOOBLE mark is distinct from the GOOGLE mark in that it differs in sound, appearance, commercial impression, and other relevant aspects:
1. it features a woman's chest;
2. it uses the phrase, 'The Adult Search Engine;'
3. it posts a warning that the web site contains explicit content; and
4. it disclaims any association with Google.com.


Neither does the Booble trademark dilute Google's mark. First, the capacity of the GOOGLE mark to identify and distinguish its services is unchanged by Booble's use of its mark. See, e.g., Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 US 418 (2003) (requiring proof of actual dilution). In addition, Booble does not tarnish the Google mark. See, e.g., L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1987) (finding that a sexually explicit parody of appellee's catalog did not constitute tarnishment). Moreover, Booble's web site is an adult search engine, not 'a pornographic site,' as referred to in your letter. In fact, 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.

In your letter, you refer to the Supreme Court decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (holding that a commercial parody may qualify as a fair use and is not presumptively unfair). As you may have recognized, this is a copyright case. Although some analytic similarities exist between copyright and trademark parody cases, Google neither claims copyright infringement in its letter, nor is any relevant portion of its web site copyrightable. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 815 (1st Cir. 1995) (holding that literal copying of a computer command hierarchy does not constitute copyright infringement because it is an uncopyrightable method of operation). Therefore, while we feel that Campbell adequately supports the legality of Booble's parodic web site, we believe your reliance thereon is somewhat misplaced.

Finally, we note that Google does not object to numerous registered domain names and web sites, including the following few samples:

1. booble.be
2. elgoog.nl
3. elgoog.de


Since the law does not appear to support Google's position, we ask that Google reconsider its objections and accept the Booble web site in the spirit that it was intended - as a parody. We hope that these comments will permit you to now close your file on this matter. However, if you wish to discuss it further, please feel free to contact the undersigned.
===============================

At the end of it...I think it was either booble win or google withdraw the case. Sorry but I didn't follow thru the development closely. Well, who will expect google to be such a giant back then when they just started out?!

[zach]

llegent Wrote:Moreover, Booble's web site is an adult search engine, not 'a pornographic site,' as referred to in your letter. In fact, 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.

haha that's very funny. I always knew google.com was a porn site!

It's amazing how when companies grow, they all seem to become intent on filing legal cases (particularly against trade mark dillution), in even the most extreme cases. Free Speech and parody always seems to take a backseat. Al Gore wrote to ICANN once about their ByLaws, saying that it is very important that they consider the right to parody when drafting the UDRP.. I don't know what happened to that idea!

Booble must have had a good legal team to write that up for them. It's very impressive.

[vicki2]

Very interesting read ..and thanks for posting it.
Since I love wordplay, I have to give kudos to booble ...it's funny and to the point so to speak lol.

[triumph]

That is interesting, but Google never had a leg to stand on there. No way was it close enough to be considered an infringment or potentially confusing with Google.

[vicki2]

I don't think so either, triumph. Two '0's and an 'le' on the end do not a google make.

Now using a red and a yello 'o' in the type might throw up some flags. LOL.

[deelip]

And what about http://www.thegoogle.info
I saw that site some days ago. That have a google search box powered by google adsense.

[vicki2]

thegoogle.info seems mighty close to google to me ...whoever owns that might end up with a few problems but it will be an interesting case to follow just to see!

[Grace]

Thegoogleinfo sounds like Google is being used as a key word because it's familiar to us. I can't believe they arent' sueing somebody over it's use.