Groggle boggled by Google mean spirit(theage.com.au)
theage.com.au
Groggle boggled by Google mean spirit
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/biz-tech/groggle-boggled-by-google-mean-spirit-20100428-trq5.html
6 comments
Well, 'grog' is a synonym for 'booze' in UK and Australian culture. So it's not as arbitrary as it might seem. I think Google is overdoing it a bit here, and he could consider fighting it.
An injunction is not a trial, and if he loses at a court hearing he'll only have to pay his own lawyer but not Google's, unless Australian civil law is very different from here. It's basically down to the judge's opinion of whether Google's claim of substantial similarity has any merit, and with 'grog' being popular slang for alcohol, I'm guessing he'll side with the Australian government in allowing it.
An injunction is not a trial, and if he loses at a court hearing he'll only have to pay his own lawyer but not Google's, unless Australian civil law is very different from here. It's basically down to the judge's opinion of whether Google's claim of substantial similarity has any merit, and with 'grog' being popular slang for alcohol, I'm guessing he'll side with the Australian government in allowing it.
I know what grog is. I said everything I said fully aware of what it meant, I never said "arbitrary". http://arrrr.com/grog.shtml
You didn't answer my question, probably because it wouldn't help your point. Do you seriously expect me to believe that the name Groggle had nothing to do with trying to be a play on Google? In a search context? Google, the seventh most valuable brand in the world in 2009? http://www.interbrand.com/best_global_brands.aspx
If this was an innocent mistake and they had the purest intent, they might as well pack it in as they are too stupid to run a business anyhow. But that's not what happened, what happened is they tried to ride somebody else's name. There are good reasons we do not allow that, and casting the story as "awww, poor little dudes" doesn't make those reasons go away. (Indeed, "poor little dudes riding on established name" is one of the exact things trademark law is meant to prevent, and it is a good thing; being able to reliably and easily identify who you are doing business with by the name is one of the basic fundamentals of commerce, needed by all entities large and small. It isn't even remotely worth trading that away to make the "poor little dudes" happy.)
You didn't answer my question, probably because it wouldn't help your point. Do you seriously expect me to believe that the name Groggle had nothing to do with trying to be a play on Google? In a search context? Google, the seventh most valuable brand in the world in 2009? http://www.interbrand.com/best_global_brands.aspx
If this was an innocent mistake and they had the purest intent, they might as well pack it in as they are too stupid to run a business anyhow. But that's not what happened, what happened is they tried to ride somebody else's name. There are good reasons we do not allow that, and casting the story as "awww, poor little dudes" doesn't make those reasons go away. (Indeed, "poor little dudes riding on established name" is one of the exact things trademark law is meant to prevent, and it is a good thing; being able to reliably and easily identify who you are doing business with by the name is one of the basic fundamentals of commerce, needed by all entities large and small. It isn't even remotely worth trading that away to make the "poor little dudes" happy.)
Do you seriously expect me to believe that the name Groggle had nothing to do with trying to be a play on Google?
You're so angry about this, my answer is no, I don't expect you to believe that. As a matter of fact, I think it's quite likely they said 'oh cool, that sounds very web 2.0, like google for Grog'.
Where we differ is that I don't think they're infringing. ____gle is such a common suffix in English that I don't think it's sufficiently unique for Google to claim ownership of it. I know, I know, it boggles the mind that I would try to wiggle out of a tight corner by juggling etymological components on behalf of such an obvious boondoggle as a website that makes it easier for people to haggle over the price of a drink.
You're so angry about this, my answer is no, I don't expect you to believe that. As a matter of fact, I think it's quite likely they said 'oh cool, that sounds very web 2.0, like google for Grog'.
Where we differ is that I don't think they're infringing. ____gle is such a common suffix in English that I don't think it's sufficiently unique for Google to claim ownership of it. I know, I know, it boggles the mind that I would try to wiggle out of a tight corner by juggling etymological components on behalf of such an obvious boondoggle as a website that makes it easier for people to haggle over the price of a drink.
Your last paragraph is disingenuous in at least two ways. First, it isn't just a "suffix in English", it's a "suffix in search". Quick, what's the search engine that fits "___gle"?
Second, it's not even "___gle". It's "G_o_gle".
And finally, you all but admit my point in your first paragraph. When you're saying that your name is cool because it's like this big name other brand, STOP RIGHT THERE. You've already lost at this point. If you can say that with a straight face (and you most assuredly can), you are already agreeing that there's an infringement taking place. Why they chose it or how they got there isn't relevant; you can say that, and that's bad.
Second, it's not even "___gle". It's "G_o_gle".
And finally, you all but admit my point in your first paragraph. When you're saying that your name is cool because it's like this big name other brand, STOP RIGHT THERE. You've already lost at this point. If you can say that with a straight face (and you most assuredly can), you are already agreeing that there's an infringement taking place. Why they chose it or how they got there isn't relevant; you can say that, and that's bad.
I'm sorry, I don't agree. I know trademark laws sanction appropriation of a common word for use in a brand (eg googol, yahoo, woot). And I know that a strong brand is agreed to create a secondary meaning for that term - and that brandholders must defend this secondary meaning assiduously, so as not to avoid accusations of trademark abandonment, since trademarks enjoy far less protection than copyrights in most legal environments.
Nevertheless, I think there are limits on how much adjacent linguistic territory a brand is entitled to claim, and in this particular case I think Google's reach exceeds its grasp.
You made the point (which I failed to address first time) that this is a competing search engine. I don't really agree. It bills itself thus: 'Groggle is a location driven alcohol price comparison service', and on their site they invites signups from retailers. Unless this is the result of some radical recent change, that seems very different to me from 'search'. It's selective (of the booze you want) and location-based (because you want it now). It doesn't crawl the web, but serves retailers' structured price information. you will never be able to go anywhere with it other than to the website of an participating alcoholic beverage retailer.
That is a very narrow and specific kind of service. Saying 'they're in search' is like saying Gem Hardware Co. is infringing on GE's trademark because GE manufactures electrical motors & turbines, and Gem sells some electrical power tools.
As for your point about "G_o_gle", I do not buy that all letters in a word are equally weighted like bricks in a wall. The start of a word is a much better guide to its identity than the end. Grog is only one letter different from Goog, but the sound is very different: it sounds a lot more like 'blog' than it does 'goog'. R and O have plenty of distance between them on a keyboard. Plus, I do give some weight to its pre-existing meaning - it's not a neologism or (un)creative spelling alteration, but has a well-known provenance of its own. They took a common and highly specific slang word and extended with a common suffix.
It does have some similarities to the word Google, and both companies are on the internet. Unlike you, I don't think they compete in a very similar space. And they're not aping any visual aspects of Google's mark - even a drunk person would distinguish the two with ease.
And look, it's not my name. I said it's quite likely they noted the similarity, but that was by way of acknowledging your point. I would appreciate if you disagree without SHOUTING at me.
Nevertheless, I think there are limits on how much adjacent linguistic territory a brand is entitled to claim, and in this particular case I think Google's reach exceeds its grasp.
You made the point (which I failed to address first time) that this is a competing search engine. I don't really agree. It bills itself thus: 'Groggle is a location driven alcohol price comparison service', and on their site they invites signups from retailers. Unless this is the result of some radical recent change, that seems very different to me from 'search'. It's selective (of the booze you want) and location-based (because you want it now). It doesn't crawl the web, but serves retailers' structured price information. you will never be able to go anywhere with it other than to the website of an participating alcoholic beverage retailer.
That is a very narrow and specific kind of service. Saying 'they're in search' is like saying Gem Hardware Co. is infringing on GE's trademark because GE manufactures electrical motors & turbines, and Gem sells some electrical power tools.
As for your point about "G_o_gle", I do not buy that all letters in a word are equally weighted like bricks in a wall. The start of a word is a much better guide to its identity than the end. Grog is only one letter different from Goog, but the sound is very different: it sounds a lot more like 'blog' than it does 'goog'. R and O have plenty of distance between them on a keyboard. Plus, I do give some weight to its pre-existing meaning - it's not a neologism or (un)creative spelling alteration, but has a well-known provenance of its own. They took a common and highly specific slang word and extended with a common suffix.
It does have some similarities to the word Google, and both companies are on the internet. Unlike you, I don't think they compete in a very similar space. And they're not aping any visual aspects of Google's mark - even a drunk person would distinguish the two with ease.
And look, it's not my name. I said it's quite likely they noted the similarity, but that was by way of acknowledging your point. I would appreciate if you disagree without SHOUTING at me.
I believe the owner when he says they went for Groggle after discovering Grogger was taken (not sure how universal a term grog is, but strewth, I know what you mean mate).
But this description of the company from the article probably explains why Google are taking an interest (italics mine): "allowing consumers to search for the cheapest price".
Groggle sounds like Grog + Google, and the product sounds like Grog + Google. I hope this gets settled, because the name is far less important to me than the service - looking forward to its launch!
But this description of the company from the article probably explains why Google are taking an interest (italics mine): "allowing consumers to search for the cheapest price".
Groggle sounds like Grog + Google, and the product sounds like Grog + Google. I hope this gets settled, because the name is far less important to me than the service - looking forward to its launch!
Groggle does sound like Google. And "Google could force him to pour two years of work and tens of thousands of dollars down the drain." is a bit of a stretch. All he has to do is change the name.
This guy should just be pleased - national publicity in the major papers.
Best thing he could do is change the name quick and get people using the service.
Best thing he could do is change the name quick and get people using the service.
He is pleased, but he is not going to say so in the article, or there would be no reason to have the article in the first place. No doubt he will do everything you just said.
grogsearch.com is also available.
I'm with the other dissenters here. Groggle is an obvious play on Google. Get over it.
I'm with the other dissenters here. Groggle is an obvious play on Google. Get over it.
It is clearly a combination of Grog, a very common name for alcohol, and Google. Not sure how much of a difference you need. It does sound quite similar too.
Not sure how this is all his work down the drain, surely he can come up with another name, and keep going?
Not sure how this is all his work down the drain, surely he can come up with another name, and keep going?
It is clearly a combination of grog and ogle.
Coming at this cold, Groggle strikes me as a bad-faith effort to build on the Google name. This is exactly what trademark law is supposed to stop. If it weren't a search app I might feel a bit more sympathy, but come on! Am I seriously supposed to believe you would have named your app that if there wasn't a world-famous Google? Yes, the odds are non-zero ("grog" is a funny-sounding, memorable word and definitely a good base for a name), but in a world where everyone knows the name Google, give me a break.
If this is trying to drum up sympathy, it has failed. Don't wave red flags in front of bulls then complain about the result.