On mySimon: Ecko Street Trak Sneakers
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 10 of 10:
« Previous
Not that simple.
This isn't just another Lindows vs Windows case. The key point and difference is in last two ?'s.

...Froogles.com registered for a trademark ...September 2003.

...Google filed a trademark application for Froogle in November 2002, and was granted the mark in February 2004.

Google owns "Froogle" and registered it before "Froogles." So Google can claim infringement since one is just the plural of the other. But considering that Froogles was used before Froogle was registered and Froogles already tried to fix any future problems, they have a good chance of being in the right with Froogles. It is a valid use of the court system.

I think the right thing would be that Google continues to own Froogle, but since Froogles was used earlier by Froogles.com for doing bargin hunting, they lose the infringement cause in this particular case. If Froogles opens up a web search engine, then Google can claim infringement.
Posted by: doe_z   Posted on: 04/20/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

So, who didn't see this one coming happy  BitTwiddler | 04/19/05
Wayback machine says Jan 25 2002  Nigel Johnstone | 04/19/05
Why not frugal Google?  Nigel Johnstone | 04/19/05
OMG i wonder..  internet411 | 04/19/05
frugal.google.com  Nigel Johnstone | 04/20/05
Google sales perhaps?  Nigel Johnstone | 04/20/05
Probably go better for Google if they took the Beta  FilledOut | 04/20/05
The little "TM" letters  j.m.galvin | 04/20/05
Oh No!  Protector | 04/20/05
Not that simple.  doe_z | 04/20/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement