Yaho.com

[JumpingJack]

Anyone notice that Yahoo! has now aquired the rights to this name? The whois lists them as the owners. It's got a 40,000 OVT w/ ext. Probably one of the best around (next to perhaps Goggle.com...). Anyone know the story as to how Yahoo got this name? Had my eye on it for a while. Did somewhere here own it?

[kvarnsten]

btw the Goggle.com site is pretty great. It states "remove harmful spyware from your pc" and then throws a ton of popups and installers in your face =)..

otherwise goggle.com has to be THE domain to own as to legitimate typein names. The greatest typo thats also a one worder..

[dtobias]

btw the Goggle.com site is pretty great. It states "remove harmful spyware from your pc" and then throws a ton of popups and installers in your face =)..

Maybe for people using crappy browsers that let them get away with this... in my Mozilla browser, that site did none of that.

[JumpingJack]

btw the Goggle.com site is pretty great. It states "remove harmful spyware from your pc" and then throws a ton of popups and installers in your face =)..

otherwise goggle.com has to be THE domain to own as to legitimate typein names. The greatest typo thats also a one worder..

Yes Goggle.com is indeed the best No trademark issues either, since Goggle is a word. Goggle has an OVT w/ extension of 220,000 for the month of October. Microsoft.com only has 240,000 Ahh.... I will cherish the day when a google typo beats the actual microsoft site in OVT results lol.

[DaddyHalbucks]

JumpingJack wrote:

No trademark issues either, since Goggle is a word.
+++++++++++++++++++

Nonsense.

Many times the merit is the least of the issues. It could cost $250,000+ just to defend a litigation. Most people don't have that kind of cash.

Google does.

[JumpingJack]

JumpingJack wrote:

No trademark issues either, since Goggle is a word.
+++++++++++++++++++

Nonsense.

Many times the merit is the least of the issues. It could cost $250,000+ just to defend a litigation. Most people don't have that kind of cash.

Google does.

And just how much money do you think the owners of Goggle are making each day from PPC, selling stuff, ect.? I'm sure the owners would have no problem defending a $250k (laugh) litigation. Google is pretty gutless (so far) when it comes to claims. I haven't really heard of them putting mass aggression towards any companies (unlike Yahoo and Microsoft). Although, now that Google is public, this may change. But Goggle.com is definitely the best type-in name, no one can argue that. There is none better

[DaddyHalbucks]

JumpingJack babbled:

And just how much money do you think the owners of Goggle are making each day from PPC, selling stuff, ect.? I'm sure the owners would have no problem defending a $250k (laugh) litigation. Google is pretty gutless (so far) when it comes to claims. I haven't really heard of them putting mass aggression towards any companies (unlike Yahoo and Microsoft). Although, now that Google is public, this may change. But Goggle.com is definitely the best type-in name, no one can argue that. There is none better
+++++++++++++++++++++

It doesn't matter. Google is the most powerful company on the net. Their mark is famous, registered, and distinctive. They can afford the best IP attornies in the world, and bury any infringer. $250K is just an average figure. I am sure their counsel could drag out the case and inflict massive costs to the infringer.

Sorry, Jack, but that typo domain ain't worth Jack. It is a HUGE liability.

[dtobias]

It's famous, but it's not completely distinctive; "Google" has been used in other contexts before (e.g., the comic strip "Barney Google"), and "Goggle" is, independently, a dictionary word. It all depends on the context in which the word is used.

[JumpingJack]

JumpingJack babbled:

And just how much money do you think the owners of Goggle are making each day from PPC, selling stuff, ect.? I'm sure the owners would have no problem defending a $250k (laugh) litigation. Google is pretty gutless (so far) when it comes to claims. I haven't really heard of them putting mass aggression towards any companies (unlike Yahoo and Microsoft). Although, now that Google is public, this may change. But Goggle.com is definitely the best type-in name, no one can argue that. There is none better
+++++++++++++++++++++

It doesn't matter. Google is the most powerful company on the net. Their mark is famous, registered, and distinctive. They can afford the best IP attornies in the world, and bury any infringer. $250K is just an average figure. I am sure their counsel could drag out the case and inflict massive costs to the infringer.

Sorry, Jack, but that typo domain ain't worth Jack. It is a HUGE liability.

I'm just laughing

[diverge]

I wish Daddy owned goggle.com == I would offer to take it off his hands.... I'd risk it for a great type-in like that.

Of course, the first thing I would do would be to develop it and build it's own brand, thereby defeating any argument that it is exists solely to catch typeins.

[DaddyHalbucks]

dtobias wrote:

It's famous, but it's not completely distinctive; "Google" has been used in other contexts before (e.g., the comic strip "Barney Google"),

AND JONATHAN SWIFT COINED THE WORD 'YAHOO.' BUT, SO... WHAT? WHAT IS THE LEGAL RELEVANCE? UNLESS YOU HAVE RIGHTS TO THE COMIC STRIP, I CAN'T SEE A REALISTIC ARGUMENT.

and "Goggle" is, independently, a dictionary word. It all depends on the context in which the word is used.

TRUE, BUT YOU COULD SPEND $250,000+ ARGUEING ABOUT THAT IN COURT. DO YOU THINK YOU CAN OUTLAST A GOOGLE IN LITIGATION? I DON'T. I THINK YOU'D BE LUCKY TO GET THROUGH ROUND 1.


Sam Pfanstiel wrote:

Of course, the first thing I would do would be to develop it and build it's own brand, thereby defeating any argument that it is exists solely to catch typeins.

LOL. NICE TRY, BUT GOOGLE WAS THERE FIRST. THEY HAD THE FIRST USE.

SUCH A STRATEGY MIGHT ONLY TAKE THE EDGE OFF A BIT; YOU COULD STILL LOSE A WAR OF ATTRITION IN COURT.

IF YOU WANT TO FIGHT A MICROSOFT, OR A YAHOO, OR A GOOGLE IN COURT, YOU ARE CRAZY. MICROSOFT EVEN WORE DOWN THE US GOVERNMENT!

[diverge]

Of course, the first thing I would do would be to develop it and build it's own brand, thereby defeating any argument that it is exists solely to catch typeins.

LOL. NICE TRY, BUT GOOGLE WAS THERE FIRST. THEY HAD THE FIRST USE.

SUCH A STRATEGY MIGHT ONLY TAKE THE EDGE OFF A BIT; YOU COULD STILL LOSE A WAR OF ATTRITION IN COURT.

IF YOU WANT TO FIGHT A MICROSOFT, OR A YAHOO, OR A GOOGLE IN COURT, YOU ARE CRAZY. MICROSOFT EVEN WORE DOWN THE US GOVERNMENT!

#1. Turn off caps lock, dude. It's hard to take you seriously when your all-caps makes you look like a fourth-grader.

#2. A well-developed site selling goggles (with industry standard ad-placement, of course) would have a great chance of standing up in court. As a matter of fact, I would imagine. Google doesn't own the rights to goggle. Period. If the U.S. government couldn't shut down whitehouse.com, even though whitehouse.gov was first, I don't think Google could shut down a solid reputable business selling goggles at goggle.com, even if Google.com were first.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Sam Pfanstiel wrote:

#1. Turn off caps lock, dude. It's hard to take you seriously when your all-caps makes you look like a fourth-grader.

CAPS MAKE IT EASIER TO SHOW A MULTI-PART REPLY, IN MY OPINION.

#2. A well-developed site selling goggles (with industry standard ad-placement, of course) would have a great chance of standing up in court. As a matter of fact, I would imagine.

BUT THAT WASN'T THE POINT. THE POINT WAS NOT TO ESTABLISH A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS SELLING GOGGLES, BUT PRESUMABLY, TO SELL THE TYPO TRAFFIC. SCROLL BACK.

Google doesn't own the rights to goggle. Period.

INCORRECT. GOOGLE COULD ARGUE THAT GOGGLE IS DILUTING ITS MARK.

If the U.S. government couldn't shut down whitehouse.com, even though whitehouse.gov was first, I don't think Google could shut down a solid reputable business selling goggles at goggle.com, even if Google.com were first.

INCORRECT. THE US GOVERNMENT DIDN'T HAVE A FAMOUS, REGISTERED, AND DISTINCTIVE TRADEMARK.

EVEN IF IT WERE USED AS A SITE SELLING GOGGLES, IF GOOGLE WANTED THE DOMAIN, THEY WOULD LIKELY GET IT. THE MERIT IS SOMETIMES IRRELEVANT. HAVEN'T YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN LITIGATION? THERE ARE SO MANY MORE FACTORS. SOMETIMES IT IS MERELY A WAR OF ATTRITION. A LARGE ENTITY HAS ENORMOUS ADVANTAGES IN SUCH A FORUM.

BEING ABLE TO OUTSPEND A DOMAINER IN COURT IS NO SMALL ADVANTAGE.

[dtobias]

CAPS MAKE IT EASIER TO SHOW A MULTI-PART REPLY, IN MY OPINION.

Or you can use the "QUOTE" tag provided by this forum, to set off quotes from replies in the proper manner without any all-caps responses needed.

[JumpingJack]

daddyhalbucks I think it's safe to say you are an idiot. Where did you graduate law school? Bottom line is, Google has no right to Goggle. You can spread all your stupid crap around about how "What Google wants, Google gets" but that is far from the truth. Many people could outlast a litigation with Google easily, especially with a name generating this much income. So Google couldn't get this name and I'd love to see them try. It would be more free publicity for me if I owned it

[Steen]

Yes Goggle.com is indeed the best No trademark issues either, since Goggle is a word. Goggle has an OVT w/ extension of 220,000 for the month of October. Microsoft.com only has 240,000 Ahh.... I will cherish the day when a google typo beats the actual microsoft site in OVT results lol.

I agree with DCC, this domain would stand a risk.

I disagee with his statement "Google is the most powerful company on the net".

daddyhalbucks I think it's safe to say you are an idiot. Where did you graduate law school?

LOL

[DaddyHalbucks]

JumpingJack wrote:

Many people could outlast a litigation with Google easily, especially with a name generating this much income. So Google couldn't get this name and I'd love to see them try.

BE MY GUEST!

HOWEVER, I THINK YOU COULD INVEST SOME FRACTION OF A MILLION DOLLARS BETTER THAN BY LOCKING HORNS WITH A MONSTER, AND NOT RISKING YOUR HOUSE AND BUSINESS.

It would be more free publicity for me if I owned it

YEP, IT WOULD PROBABLY ALSO DAMAGE YOUR REPUTATION.

[JumpingJack]

Is that all you are arguing? That this name is bad because Google has lots of money and can do whatever they want? Using that argument, I could then say that no one should never be able to ever create a browser because of internet explorer. Microsoft could just sue them and take them to court over it. Who cares if they have a legal right to create their own browser, doesn't matter. Microsoft can take them to court and that's all there is to it.

While that might seem to you like the way things work (and sometimes it is the way things work) it's not very open minded of you at all and not very logical either. And frankly (and fortunately) things do not work that way most of the time. I think you seriously overestimate what a litigation can do. It's not all about money man when it comes to litigations, only when one side has very little money is it an issue. But I guarentee you that the owner of Goggle.com is probably a millionaire, or close to it.

JumpingJack wrote:

Many people could outlast a litigation with Google easily, especially with a name generating this much income. So Google couldn't get this name and I'd love to see them try.

BE MY GUEST!

HOWEVER, I THINK YOU COULD INVEST SOME FRACTION OF A MILLION DOLLARS BETTER THAN BY LOCKING HORNS WITH A MONSTER, AND NOT RISKING YOUR HOUSE AND BUSINESS.

It would be more free publicity for me if I owned it

YEP, IT WOULD PROBABLY ALSO DAMAGE YOUR REPUTATION.

[jberryhill]

since Goggle is a word.

A word which, in the case of this domain name, is not being used for anything relevant to its meaning.

Kodiak is a town in Alaska. You can move there and start a camera company. And when you start selling your "Kodiak Cameras", you'll find out how far that kind of reasoning will get you.

[diverge]

A word which, in the case of this domain name, is not being used for anything relevant to its meaning.

Kodiak is a town in Alaska. You can move there and start a camera company. And when you start selling your "Kodiak Cameras", you'll find out how far that kind of reasoning will get you.

True as long as the word is not being used according to it's meaning, agreed. My point was that using the word according to its meaning, should alleviate most concern of trademark infringement/cybersquatting. To continue your analogy, if kodiak.com were selling BEARS (i.e., Kodiak Bears -- bear with me on this analogy here [pun intended]), then you would have no trouble whatsoever. If I had goggle.com, I would develop the site and sell GOGGLES... then there would be little Google's lawyers can do (other than try and outspend me).