Google has lost its cybersquatting fight with typo-snaffle site goggle.com, enabling its owner to carry on enticing clumsy typists into signing up for pricey text messaging services. The company's complaint against the domain name's current registrant, Barbados-based David Csumrik, was dismissed on procedural grounds yesterday …
if i were google....
....i'd go to this sumbag's host and have a quiet word......
Surely that ought to be Csumbag?
Nice website you have there...
Sorry Nigel but I don't like where the "quiet word" solution to the problem leads. It starts on the moral high ground with threats to nobble a scumbag's host. But how long before it's used nobble a legitimate site that happens to be a thorn in Google's (or a government's) side?
If the due process is flawed then it needs to be changed, transparently and openly. Not circumvented with a mafia-like threats.
"If the due process is flawed then it needs to be changed, transparently and openly. "
I look forward to the day when such a thing is enacted in either America or Britain.
Or anywhere else in the world for that matter.
I just won an eye pad
I think, Do'h
Goggle is a dictionary word.
Does Goggle.com admit to deliberate typosquatting? If not there should be no case to answer. I don't see a lawsuit from Hoover over hover.com.
Why give the money to the lawyers, just offer him a million bucks and be done with it.
A million buck is only 635,645.07 GBP not even enough to retire on. Offer him £100M now that is a good amount and is only pocket money for Google.
no idea what you want to do when you retire, but I could manage quite nicely on that, as could many people
I suspect that's the problem. Google have decided to buy goggle.com, but the current owner is asking a stupid price like 100 million. You can hire a lot a lot of lawyers for 100 million, and I doubt that the "survey" business makes even 1 million a year, so Google are haggling.
I remember when a certain sci/tech online magazine not a million miles from here was in negotiation with the owner of the corresponding .com domain...
A dictionary word
I guess the problem is that goggle is a dictionary word, and nobody had heard of google back in 1998 when they registered the domain name. Alta Vista and Yahoo! were the market leaders back then, and Google came to the fore much later.
Hidden costs is the real problem
If your going to send a text, it should tell you how much it's going to cost. Likewise with phone calls. The technology is there it's just that hidden charges make the network money as well as the scammer so there's no drive to highlight them.
I'm torn on this one
On the one hand, the owner of goggle.com would appear to have a business model that is entirely based upon opportunistic manipulation of people landing on their site by accident, and the disappearance of this site would be a bad thing only for them. On the other hand, Google would appear to have already agreed to allow someone else (who later sold the domain) to operate a site using that domain name.
Quite rightly, Google shouldn't have the right to say what other people host on thier web sites. They were probably wrong to sign that agreement in the first place though.
This title is intentionally left blank
Agreed. I think it might strengthen goggle.coms case if the website showed something related to the name - spectacles or porn perhaps? Porn would also incentivise Google to go for a quick resolution - XXX million should do nicely!
IANAL, so there's probably a boring reason why this elegant solution won't work
goggle doesnt even have a "search this site" box. It isnt even trying to pass off as a search engine. No matter how shitty the site, google has no right to try and strongarm the site.
where does it end? goggles.com? goole.co.uk? oogle.net?
If you type 'goggle' into Google...
...it shows you the results for "google". You have to click again to get to "goggle".
Who's typo-squatting now, bitch? ;)
What a load of crap. If a domain name is like someone elses, hard cheese. I live at 6a but don't try and take out my neighbours because they live at no 6.
Seeing what all these companies get up to these days is like watching a school playground.
Be afraid of who's in No 6
Yeah, but what if the nice people at no 6 kept any mail from a relative accidentally put through their letterbox. And then replied to the sender in a manner that could insinuate they were you, without directly saying it. And then signed the sender up to a DD to extract money from them for nowt.
Won't somebody think of the poor grannies!
if this were to stand...
then I'm surprised el reg itself hasn't been taken to court...
I'd be surprised...
I would be fairly surprised if the rights agreed with the previous owner are passed onto the new owner ... many contracts have clauses in them to prevent exactly this kind of thing (except in cases where the owning business itself is purchased).
IMO the owner of goggle.com should hand it over now before they get stiffed for costs :o
it depends on how the new owner obtained goggle.com.
If he bought it from the previous owners, the rights probably would transfer with it, or at least there is a reasonable expectation that they would.
If he bought a lapsed domain, then I doubt they would, as the agreement was between Google and the previous owners.
They haven't done anything illegal - they haven't even used someone else's trademark. All they are doing is trading on others mistyping which has nothing whatsoever to do with google. It's not like they have aped the Google home page to make it look similar, so people when they get there know they are in the wrong place.
Does this mean
I can finally set up my geese selling website - gaggle.com?
What a laugh...
...oh wait, that's giggle.com...
Right icon there.
Now get the flock out of here......
Clearly set up to confuse and rip people off otherwise why would you have adwords.goggle.com?
AVG web shield blocks goggle.com!
If the current owner is just hosting a crap competition/scam and is in no way attempting to pass himself off as Google, I don't really see that they've got a case. Of course, he might have given them one if he's effectively agreed that whatever Google had cooked up with the previous owners of the domain is still in effect and he can be shown to have breached it.
I like how goggle.com loads its jquery from the google supplied caches :)
That landing page doesn't say "Win." It says "get," which is devious-speak for "you can buy one from us."
It's hosted by The Planet, so the quiet word option might not work.
Google doesn't google Goggle, nor does Bing
Neither Google or Bing show Goggle, so obviously they've put a partial block into effect.
I Goggled from China and the ads were in Chinese characters. on my VPN to VietNam Goggle responded in Vietnamese then on my UK VPN it responded in English.
The Goggle site has some sophistication.
are guilty of deliberate misspelling. (See also Googol) Goggle aren't.
An once of prevention...
It would have cost $10/year for Google et al to have taken these domains all those years ago. Much better to spend tens or hundreds of thousands on lawyers now and take up court time with these frivolous cases several years later.
You might argue that hindsight is 20/20 but this was not a new problem even in 2000. And goggle.com was created on 14 Feb 1998, Google.com just 5 months earlier. twitter.com was registered in 2000 and twiter.com in 2004. Not much excuse there.
It's so weird, When I visit the page it says I'm in a city which is miles away from where I actually live.
Geocity location services aint that accurate for the UK.
- Microsoft refuses to nip 'Windows 9' unzip lip slip
- True fact: 1 in 4 Brits are now TERRORISTS
- Tesla: YES – We'll build a network of free Superchargers in Oz
- US Copyright Office rules that monkeys CAN'T claim copyright over their selfies
- Memory troubling you, Android? Yet another data slurp vuln revealed