Google scolded for “polite trademark bullying” of parody site

Aww, feel bad about it? Quit crying and go find a Google Hug.

Read the whole story

 

[effgee]

Jousle[/url]":2zwflngu]

effgee[/url]":2zwflngu]

Jousle[/url]":2zwflngu]Peng is just trolling

Seriously? Regardless of whether or not you agree with and/or are amused by what Peng's done here, are you really rushing to the defense of your favorite corporate entity to make sure it doesn't get bullied by a handful of kids from Berlin? Seriously seriously??

That is so sad on so many levels.

And they say it's the Germans who don't have a sense of humor.

They are just trolling like teenagers punks .

I mean, this tactic is getting old:
1) Make improper use of trademarked property to brand your website .
2) Create the parody content that do not need any of those trademarks in order to exist .
3) Wait until the trademark holder ask you to remove the trademarked stuff from your website
4) When that happens, start whining aloud about abuses and bullying against your free speech rights.
5) Air time + trolling => profit.

Yes. Because everyone is motivated by profit. Everywhere. Every time. And yet, perhaps you should not be so quick to assume that what seems to be the foremost thought on your mind must therefore also be everyone else's primary motivation. Honi soit qui mal y pense, indeed.

I thank the deities on bended knees you weren't around when ole' Aristophanes was roaming the earth, or we'd be living in a truly deplorable world today.

 

[lewax00]

Polama[/url]":99b6v51r]

lewax00[/url]":99b6v51r]
Because the domain name contains "Google" and Google owns "Google". It's pretty simple. You can't make the same demand of "Youtube.com" because you do not own the trademark "Youtube".

And there are already established cases where this can indeed happen, primarily to prevent people from camping domain names to extort people who own the related trademark. i.e. You can't see a store named "Super Mega Store", then see they don't have a website, register "supermegastore.com" for yourself, then force them to pay you millions of dollars for it when they decide to open a website.

Actually, that's kind of odd. Why not? Aren't trademarks specific to industries? Can't I just claim I was thinking about opening a taxi cab business called Super Mega Store?

I think you'd still lose based on the fact that you don't already own the relevant trademark, but they do.

If you already had one, then you get to go into a whole different case (see Apple Corps v Apple Computer). I don't think you can simply get the same trademark just because you're in a different industry, but it does seem to get a little fuzzy there (but, IANAL, and even less so an IP laywer).

 

[noanoxan]

Jousle[/url]":78wwlkih]Peng is just trolling

Jousle is just trolling

 

[lewax00]

KyleM[/url]":1oxljoe3]Has anyone here actually read the letter from Google? I wouldn't call it bullying at all, in fact, I'd consider it generous and gentle. Read it here https://imgur.com/Km8tYbH

You're definitely right. They even offered to pay the domain registration fees, so it's not like they want to just take it (there is a limit, but I've never seen a domain registration reach that limit unless it was already owned). And some of the details mentioned by the letter are concerning (e.g. faking the WHOIS, having a "Sign In" link), the kind of stuff I would expect to see from a phishing attempt.

 

[RubyPanther]

randomname7123[/url]":2c8mjbbr]You have to be pretty much a complete idiot to not realize it's satire.

And if the above makes you a sad bunny, I got a few Google Hugs that might console you.

I think it would be easy enough to confused if you're a non-technical person. A lot of people don't even know what a "domain name" is other than a word they can type into a search bar and end up finding what they wanted. And you'd have to know a lot about google and what services they offer in order for it to be obvious.

Would a programmer whose been in a coma for 15 years know right away it was parody? No? So how would a non-technical person have any idea?

I think a lot of people are forming opinions based on what they think about trademark law generally, but this is a (legally mandated) trademark defense, not a bill in Congress.

Normally a "parody" would change the company name but make it obvious to people with domain knowledge which company they're making fun of; usually by copying the look of the logo but with different words. They could have gone with "Gaagle Hug," for example. Or "Groope Hug." "Gooey Hug"

For examples, here is a google image search for Coca Cola parodies: https://www.google.com/search?q=coca+co ... y&tbm=isch Notice how almost all of them use a logo that looks similar, but has a different name. At a glance a person might think they saw a Coca Cola logo, but anybody who looks closely will read "Cocaine" "Christ Church" "Corporate Crime," "Pepsi," etc.

Also, they claim to be a "subversive" group. Which is fine by me. But parody is not subversive. It is only subversive if some people believe it.

 

[rick*d]

Bengie25[/url]":22xpq0o7]A quick glance at the archived versions of the site, it straddles a grey area between obvious and not obvious.

The best satire does.

Fair use of trademarks need to be obvious to your average idiot, so it falls into a grey area. /opinion

Where is it written in law that we must pander to idiots?

 

[TlingitSoldier]

Bengie25[/url]":3corn1f3]A quick glance at the archived versions of the site, it straddles a grey area between obvious and not obvious. Fair use of trademarks need to be obvious to your average idiot, so it falls into a grey area. /opinion

I think the purpose of it was to create ridiculous, but believable examples of how they feel Google is being creepy about using people's data. To me, it seemed obvious that anyone reading up to the Google Bee paragraph would consider it parody/satire. The part about it being able to take your trash out seemed like it would be a big giveaway to the average idiot.

 

[Begelegeb]

<never mind - removed>

 

[mistakenot]

KyleM[/url]":3sahw3xq]Has anyone here actually read the letter from Google? I wouldn't call it bullying at all, in fact, I'd consider it generous and gentle. Read it here https://imgur.com/Km8tYbH

Wow, why didn't the article address any of this? Transcript:


> Dear Jean and Faith,

> We heard about your Google Nest presentation at the reublica 14 conference. While we appreciate your interest in our products and your right to comment on them, as a trademark owner we cannot allow others to use our trademark in a manner which may confuse consumers as to the source of an offering or our endorsement thereof. As a general rule, we require permission for use of our trademarks and logos, and we do not allow them to be used as the most prominent elements in advertisements or websites. Please understand that we take no issue with the concepts of parody or criticism. However, in this particular case, we are concerned your lack of any disclaimers and the fact that you are linking to Google properties, copying our look and feel (including our trademarks, font and layouts), using false Whois information (namely, listing Google Inc. as the registrant, admin and technical contact), and creating false professional profiles Paul von Ribbeck and Gloria Spindle which state that they are employees of Google Nest, misleads users as to the origin and purpose of your initiative.

> Accordingly, we respectfully request that by closure of business, next Monday, May 12th you:
> 1. Prominently disclaim any official affiliation with or endorsement by Google on your website.
> 2. Add clear indication that your site is a parody/satire site.
> 3. Remove any links to Google properties (including links to the Sign In button, About Google, and Privacy and Terms).
> 4. Confirm in writing that you will transfer the <google-nest.org> domain (as well as any other domains incorporating the GOOGLE or NEST marks) to Google Inc. as soon as possible. We will reimburse your registration fees up to $100, with proof of your payment of the fees. While the transfer is pending, please update the WHOIS details for your site to be more transparent regarding its ownership.
> 5. Remove any false Google-related professional profiles for yourselves and any affiliated pseudonyms on social/professional networking and similar sites.

> We look forward to your cooperation in bringing this matter to a close. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

> Best regards,
> The Google Trademark Team

 

[PrimalxConvoy]

Perhaps Peng should create the ultimate Google satire site: "Google Evil":

"Are you tired of a once-honest and communicative company that actually cared about you? Are you no longer happy with a company that wants so much of your information and time, yet hasn't even got an official email or digital phone number to contact them via their own email and phone products? Starting to feel that said company's products are only half-finished, or that Apple doesn't seem so bad anymore?

Google Evil is for you. At Google, we will strive to send legal teams, or even killer drones and robotically controlled cars (red or amber lightbars optional) to hunt you down if you so as much riducule us."

 

[Adam Starkey]

The error here is the use of 'nest' not Google. As various <n>sucks disputes have shown[1], you can use a trademark as satire in a domain name. By choosing 'nest' though the domain name itself is confusing. Anyone who is aware of the link between Nest and Google be legitimately confused by that name.

Even so, satire allows the use of trademarks, and Google's lawyers should know better than to wade into this, as nothing good is likely to come of it.


[1] http://www.cptech.org/ecom/icann/domain ... tsucks.htm

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

fishsandwich[/url]":3k2lxcye]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":3k2lxcye]

fishsandwich[/url]":3k2lxcye]Lets be clear here, the bullying pendulum swings both ways.

By definition, it doesn't. Bullying comes from the party with the power and intimidation advantage.
"This entire site" taking a "jab" at Google cannot constitute bullying as long as Google is ... well, Google.

So by your logic anyone with with power is automatically the aggressor whether or not their actions were legal or even moral.

No. It's one of those "necessary but not sufficient" situations.

I mean who is bullying who in this situation?

Not Peng!. It's awfully hard for an obscure troupe of obnoxious activists to bully one of the world's largest corporations and tech giants. A mosquito bit my leg this afternoon. It was annoying, so I raised my hand to swat at it but it flew off. I wouldn't say it was bullying me just because it was the aggressor in that little confrontation.

 

[artifex]

KyleM[/url]":1jvdb7a3]Has anyone here actually read the letter from Google? I wouldn't call it bullying at all, in fact, I'd consider it generous and gentle. Read it here https://imgur.com/Km8tYbH

I'd already had concerns from the article saying they used the same about pages, etc. This new information sounds like they were being deliberately deceptive beyond what was needed for parody. Making a WHOIS entry with not only false information, but someone else's information, can definitely get your domain shut down if challenged. And my memory of my business law classes is rather dim, but I do seem to recall that if someone claims to be an agent of yours (the professional profiles mentioned in the letter) and you don't make some attempt to get them to stop once you find out, you can be liable for whatever they claim to be doing on your behalf.

 

[bakagaijin]

The Pirate Party in Germany has already picked the story up. The EU elections is this weekend.

 

[Aquiles]

jozero[/url]":5hg4y2sc]Anyone else impressed by the recent improvements by DuckDuckGo search engine ? First time since forever a decent alternative to Google has popped up.

I think DuckDuckGo has been a decent alternative to Google search for some time now. But I agree that the recent improvements make it more than decent. I have not used Google search in months thanks to DuckDuckGo.

 

[Infrasound]

Nearly every single streamer uses music they don't own rights to and it's part of the broadcast. Been wondering for a couple of years why riaa hasn't gone after them yet sincea lot get paid for streaming as their main job.

/popcorn

/s

 

[Rain Rain]

nehinks[/url]":2n8ohcwt]Did they make it obvious that it was a satire/parody site? The style/descriptions sound like something Google might put out (I could definitely see people believing the Bye product, even if the Hug one sounds more obviously facetious).

It was obvious but lawyers are paid good money to bully and intimidate. Their targets get nothing but sleepless nights and the fear of a sudden crushing legal bill. Parody may be protected free speech but it would eat up years of the target's life and money for a trip to the supreme court. It's easier to fold and give the corporate bully whatever they want.

Stupid move on Google's part though. Their trademark was never in doubt, and for all their tax evasion and privacy abuse Congress and the public go really easy on them. If Google's management were smart they would fire their douche bag lawyers before they trigger a long overdue public backslash. Your move, Google.

 

[Beahmont]

effgee[/url]":av01koyo]

Jousle[/url]":av01koyo]

effgee[/url]":av01koyo]

Jousle[/url]":av01koyo]Peng is just trolling

Seriously? Regardless of whether or not you agree with and/or are amused by what Peng's done here, are you really rushing to the defense of your favorite corporate entity to make sure it doesn't get bullied by a handful of kids from Berlin? Seriously seriously??

That is so sad on so many levels.

And they say it's the Germans who don't have a sense of humor.

They are just trolling like teenagers punks .

I mean, this tactic is getting old:
1) Make improper use of trademarked property to brand your website .
2) Create the parody content that do not need any of those trademarks in order to exist .
3) Wait until the trademark holder ask you to remove the trademarked stuff from your website
4) When that happens, start whining aloud about abuses and bullying against your free speech rights.
5) Air time + trolling => profit.

Yes. Because everyone is motivated by profit. Everywhere. Every time. And yet, perhaps you should not be so quick to assume that what seems to be the foremost thought on your mind must therefore also be everyone else's primary motivation. Honi soit qui mal y pense, indeed.

I thank the deities on bended knees you weren't around when ole' Aristophanes was roaming the earth, or we'd be living in a truly deplorable world today.

Actually, yes every is motivated by profit at all times. You like most people simply think of profit being confined to direct physical gains. Even true altruistic actions are about profit and the valuation of doing and/or being good as having greater value to oneself and/or one's society compared to the costs to oneself and/or one's society so as to justify the personal costs or societal costs.

 

[effgee]

Beahmont[/url]":303eqxgs]

effgee[/url]":303eqxgs]

Jousle[/url]":303eqxgs]

effgee[/url]":303eqxgs]

Jousle[/url]":303eqxgs]Peng is just trolling

Seriously? Regardless of whether or not you agree with and/or are amused by what Peng's done here, are you really rushing to the defense of your favorite corporate entity to make sure it doesn't get bullied by a handful of kids from Berlin? Seriously seriously??

That is so sad on so many levels.

And they say it's the Germans who don't have a sense of humor.

They are just trolling like teenagers punks .

I mean, this tactic is getting old:
1) Make improper use of trademarked property to brand your website .
2) Create the parody content that do not need any of those trademarks in order to exist .
3) Wait until the trademark holder ask you to remove the trademarked stuff from your website
4) When that happens, start whining aloud about abuses and bullying against your free speech rights.
5) Air time + trolling => profit.

Yes. Because everyone is motivated by profit. Everywhere. Every time. And yet, perhaps you should not be so quick to assume that what seems to be the foremost thought on your mind must therefore also be everyone else's primary motivation. Honi soit qui mal y pense, indeed.

I thank the deities on bended knees you weren't around when ole' Aristophanes was roaming the earth, or we'd be living in a truly deplorable world today.

Actually, yes every is motivated by profit at all times. You like most people simply think of profit being confined to direct physical gains. Even true altruistic actions are about profit and the valuation of doing and/or being good as having greater value to oneself and/or one's society compared to the costs to oneself and/or one's society so as to justify the personal costs or societal costs.

Nonsense. I'll be happy to discuss the matter with you in person one day over a glass/bottle of your favorite beverage. But seeing as that is largely a philosophical matter, this is neither the appropriate forum nor does it lend itself to the potential breadth and scope of such a conversation.

 

[ovan08]

artifex[/url]":1f5mr097]

KyleM[/url]":1f5mr097]Has anyone here actually read the letter from Google? I wouldn't call it bullying at all, in fact, I'd consider it generous and gentle. Read it here https://imgur.com/Km8tYbH

I'd already had concerns from the article saying they used the same about pages, etc. This new information sounds like they were being deliberately deceptive beyond what was needed for parody. Making a WHOIS entry with not only false information, but someone else's information, can definitely get your domain shut down if challenged. And my memory of my business law classes is rather dim, but I do seem to recall that if someone claims to be an agent of yours (the professional profiles mentioned in the letter) and you don't make some attempt to get them to stop once you find out, you can be liable for whatever they claim to be doing on your behalf.

Yeah, I'm all about parody, and I even thought the site was amusing myself, but it sounds like they went way beyond what would be considered typical, or even reasonable, for parody. Even to someone who does a little digging into the website without being aware of Peng! could reasonably guess that the site was a Google-created one, albeit an odd one. I don't see any reason they would need to not only change the WHOIS information, but also create professional profiles for people who don't exist and purport to be developers working on the products listed.

 

[ovan08]

effgee[/url]":34vep04i]

Nonsense. I'll be happy to discuss the matter with you in person one day over a glass/bottle of your favorite beverage. But seeing as that is largely a philosophical matter, this is neither the appropriate forum nor does it lend itself to the potential breadth and scope of such a conversation.

That's actually rather unfortunate, because that sounds like a conversation I'd very much like to be present for. :O

 

[bolgerguide]

Parody should not be made illegal or 100% of social media pages would be subject to a civil suit. At least Peng did not have its office door kicked in by the police like in the Peoria mayor incident. Google should calm down and relax. I don't think Google's reputation is going to be damaged by anyones parody. I mean seriously, did they try to SELL Google Bye? No, because it doesn't exist. Its a joke, Google! Go into your meditation lounge with a nice cup of tea and relax. Everything will be okay. Breathe.

EDIT: why would a corporation as large as Google NOT register the domain google-nest.org??? That is baffling to me.

 

[rzr_lzr]

KyleM[/url]":1057tsm1]Has anyone here actually read the letter from Google? I wouldn't call it bullying at all, in fact, I'd consider it generous and gentle. Read it here https://imgur.com/Km8tYbH

Yeah, this is very soft handed.

I think that Peng! took their satire/parody too far. When the news originally came out about the parody talk, I went and did a whois lookup on the google-nest.org site. The admin contact information was copied from the Google main whois (domain name) records, and the only concrete difference I could find was that the name severs weren't Google's (I'm sure the ip addresses were out of Googles ranges too, didn't dig that far). The records have been replaced with an anonymization company now.

Given the fact that they did as much as they could to make the hoax look COMPLETELY legitimate, I think that could open them up to trouble, which Google hasn't said they will pursue yet. I can understand a parody talk, an attached parody site, and some pseudonyms for that purpose. But fake professional profiles, direct links back to a corporate site (with no disclaimer), faked whois information, etc. too far. If they had been asking for money I would have no trouble categorizing this as phishing.

EDIT: Didn't read pg 2 of the comments, slow ninja'd by lewax00

 

[procdan]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely? Back when Android started, I couldn't have been more excited about it and the greater Google. I believed their tagline about evil. Now, I become more and more suspicious of Google as time wears on...

I fear that I will one day get registered snail mail from them notifying me that I will no longer be able to use any competing services in order to continue using theirs. One would think that market forces would prevent such an eventuality, but they could have opted to spin this parody in their PR favor rather than to further alienate those of us who were already looking at them askance. It may, in truth, be soft-handed, but it *feels* heavy-handed.

 

[silentone2k]

Hrm. That letter is pretty much the opposite of what I expected after the article. I'm a little annoyed at the reporting there.

 

[kokopelli]

Not counting the domain reassignment the letter seemed quite reasonable to me. False whois and fake profiles are not parody and not necessary to express the desired commentary. The domain reassignment is a bit more of a grey area but having worked with lawyers I can see them thinking "well, it can't hurt to ask" just as is common in contract negotiations.

 

[Hydrargyrum]

Google is well within their rights here. "Google Nest" is a trademark; trademarks exist for the specific purpose of clearly identifying something as a genuine product of a specific organisation. And the letter is certainly not framed aggressively. The entire point of trademarks is to prevent the type of scenario that Peng! is trying to create (i.e., something that can easily be confused as produced or endorsed by Google).

Heck, Google even offered to re-imburse Peng! for the costs of the domain, and didn't demand that the site be taken down; only that it be altered to clearly indicate that it's a parody created by someone who isn't Google.

 

[Hydrargyrum]

kokopelli[/url]":3av5b8xy]Not counting the domain reassignment the letter seemed quite reasonable to me. False whois and fake profiles are not parody and not necessary to express the desired commentary. The domain reassignment is a bit more of a grey area but having worked with lawyers I can see them thinking "well, it can't hurt to ask" just as is common in contract negotiations.

I think the domain name reassignment would probably be a stretch in most parody product scenarios. In this one, though, the domain name consists entirely of an already extant, registered, Google trademark. And since that trademark includes the word Google, I doubt that an identical trademark could be registered even in a completely separate industry. (It's not like there's someone selling "Google Nest" branded ant farms or bee hives.) So in this one specific case I think the request for the domain is actually reasonable.

 

[Hat Monster]

I think the domain name reassignment would probably be a stretch in most parody product scenarios. In this one, though, the domain name consists entirely of an already extant, registered, Google trademark. And since that trademark includes the word Google, I doubt that an identical trademark could be registered even in a completely separate industry. (It's not like there's someone selling "Google Nest" branded ant farms or bee hives.) So in this one specific case I think the request for the domain is actually reasonable.

A trademark is not global and universal.

If I run a company called Google Dry Cleaning Ltd. providing dry cleaning services, then I can trademark my name despite a Google already existing. It's likely that I'd then sign a non-competition agreement with "The Other Google" if they became aware of me. So long as we keep in separate markets and don't go copying each other's branding, there's not a thing trademark law has to say.

 

[Fritzr]

Polama[/url]":303gypdj]

lewax00[/url]":303gypdj]
Because the domain name contains "Google" and Google owns "Google". It's pretty simple. You can't make the same demand of "Youtube.com" because you do not own the trademark "Youtube".

And there are already established cases where this can indeed happen, primarily to prevent people from camping domain names to extort people who own the related trademark. i.e. You can't see a store named "Super Mega Store", then see they don't have a website, register "supermegastore.com" for yourself, then force them to pay you millions of dollars for it when they decide to open a website.

Actually, that's kind of odd. Why not? Aren't trademarks specific to industries? Can't I just claim I was thinking about opening a taxi cab business called Super Mega Store?

Sure you can, but their claim will probably note that you have parked the domain name and done nothing with it until contacted by the actual commercial enterprise that has been using the name for many years. Thus they accuse you of cybersquatting and setting an unreasonably high price for permission to use their own name online.

Now if you were actually running a business using that domain name or could at least show planning for such use prior to being contacted by the company actually using the name, it would be a different story.

In this case, Google is accusing them of using a Google trademark in a URL and is asking to have this single misuse of the trademark permanently stopped by transferring control of the name to Google. They could get the same effect by asking the court to cancel the unauthorized use of Google intellectual property (trademark) followed by registering it themselves as soon as the cancellation was recorded. That Google is claiming misuse of the Google trademark is just additional support for the transfer request.

 

[ScifiterX]

aylons[/url]":w6uzieih]

twocows[/url]":w6uzieih]To be fair, US trademark law sucks. It basically forces companies to act like bullies to protect their trademark from becoming generic. Now, I'm sure companies aren't all that shaken up that they have to act like bullies, but the fact remains that the law does basically mandate that they act that way.

This is not true, and probably is a result of lawyers trying to convince their clients to pursuit frivolous suits.

Reference: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/t ... r-internet

"The circumstances under which a company could actually lose a trademark—such as abandonment and genericide—are quite limited. Genericide occurs when a trademark becomes the standard term for a type of good (‘zipper’ and ‘escalator’ being two famous examples). This is very rare and would not be a problem for Canonical unless people start saying “Ubuntu” simply to mean “operating system.” Courts also set a very high bar to show abandonment (usually years of total non-use). Importantly, failure to enforce a mark against every potential infringer does not show abandonment."

And Google more or less missed the boat on Genericide years ago.

 

[King_DuckZ]

This reminds me of Coca-Colla - a blog about graffiti and urban art (or something like that) that was shut down by Coca-Cola company for unknown reasons. Apparently they have enough money and time to waste on these things.