For use by students enrolled in LWN117, Cyberlaw and Policy (QUT).
It is interesting to learn about google and grogle. Given that groggle is doing a bisiness 'grog'which means alcohol in aussie i think google being a huge welknown domain name wouldlose nothing. Groggle is not liable to pay any damages togoogle.
The zdnet audio article raised some interesting issues in relation to the google v groggle debate. What I found curious was that Kimberlee Weatherall was almost hinting (in my view) that groggle was very close to google and her advice... stay away from sounding like anything near big brand names.I can understand the competing interests of both google and groggle - google want to set a precedent and groggle wants a fair run at a business - all in the name of grog...gle.A quick TM search of groggle - 1322711 reveals that no opposition has been lodged. Apparently google are seeking extra time to lodge an opposition and come to a settlement. This raises an interesting point: when is the line drawn between a big multi-national company legitimately protecting its business interests or using its money and influence to gain more digital real estate (in the form of domain names) and requiring a written acknowledgment of TPA and passing off breaches? If this does go before the Court for TM infringement and passing off or before WIPO/auDA for cybersquatting, it will be interesting to see if the Court/Tribunal will consider this issue in handing down their decision.
Groggle is clearly looking to cash in on the world's most recognised brand. Both are internet companies, and have similar sounding names. I agree that restrictions should not be placed on companies simply because they sound the same - but the question to be asked here is whether a reasonable consumer will be misled into believing that the two are affiliated, and whether that misrepresentation will cause the consumer to use the other site. If I were the in house lawyer for Google- I would be taking serious action here.
Post a Comment