SA man creates Doogle, Google not happy

The Google of old is nothing like the New Google. This started in 2010 and is accelerating. Which is sad.
That being said, I agree with this action
 
I remember there used to be a porn search engine called Booble. Can't check at work, so not sure if it's still there.
 
Here's the question- why did he choose the name doogle? If his surname is Doogle, or whatever, then I have no problem with it. But without knowing the facts, I would tend to lean towards saying he more than likely took the phrase google it and fong-kong'd it hoping to ride in the google wake.
Just as nike can go after a shoe manufacturer branding their shoes Mike or Nice, google can and should go after this clown.
 
Trade Marks Act, 1993 (Act No. 194 of 1993)
Part VIII : Infringement
34. Infringement of registered trade mark.




1) The rights acquired by registration of a trade mark shall be infringed by-

a) the unauthorized use in the course of trade in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered, of an identical mark or of a mark so nearly resembling it as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion;

b) the unauthorized use of a mark which is identical or similar to the trade mark registered, in the course of trade in relation to goods or services which are so similar to the goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered, that in such use there exists the likelihood of deception or confusion;

c) the unauthorized use in the course of trade in relation to any goods or services of a mark which is identical or similar to a trade mark registered, if such trade mark is well known in the Republic and the use of the said mark would be likely to take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the registered trade mark, notwithstanding the absence of confusion or deception
 
I too am with google with this one. Sue him for all he's worth. Make him bankrupt and unemployed like the people on his site :mad:
 
Beri said:
Google is correct. if it looks like. sounds like then it is not on.
and where will he get the money to defend??
Click to expand...

Agreed here and a later post. It's a trademark infringement where he's trying to ride the Google wake or perhaps hoping someone mistypes Google and lands up at his site. I don't think Google needs to bankrupt the guy but he definitely needs a new name. Facebook has done the same in the past with companies trying to use names close to it.
 
As much as I guess I will get the wrath of some of you, I do believe the Google assumptions in this case are correct.
So many in the world utter the words "Google it!". This guy uses "Doodle it!". I feel for the guy, but I highly doubt he would have created that phrase and word if Google had not been around. I think Google have a case here unfortunately, and the guy really should not have played with fire.
 
Don't make the same mistake as I did and go to the .com version. It got malware on.

I'll just stick to google, thanks.
 
McCrazieGoalz said:
Yep.

Like PNA and CNA.

I say:

"THEY ARE OUT TO GET YOU!"

P.S. That logo looks nothing like Google's. The logo says "doogle it". Way different. He made a serious effort to differentiate it from Google's. What more does Google want? Rights to every word that has two o's in the middle and a 'gle' at the end.

How about the following words?
- Noogle
- Poogle
- Snoogle
- Toogle
- Voogle
- Roogle
- Boogle
- Coogle
- Koogle

No one can name their companies and make a logo with these words too?

Does Google have rights to all these words?

How about "goodle" or "gooble" how far does it have to go?

GOOKLE? Or even KOOKLE?
Click to expand...

Already a company in SA using Boogle. > http://www.boogle.co.za/

They even have radio adds harping on and on to BOOGLE IT! ...
 
Just a quick run down on the applicable law:

1. Trade Marks Act

s34(1)(b) "the unauthorized use of a mark which is identical or similar to the trade mark registered, in the course of trade in relation to goods or services which are so similar to the goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered, that in such use there exists the likelihood of deception or confusion"

The enquiry is a question of fact and in each case the visual, phonetic and/or conceptual similarity of the marks must be considered.

s34(1)(c) "the unauthorized use in the course of trade in relation to any goods or services of a mark which is identical or similar to a trade mark registered, if such trade mark is well known in the Republic and the use of the said mark would be likely to take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the registered trade mark, notwithstanding the absence of confusion or deception"

Here Google must just show that their mark is well known in Republic and that the use of the other mark is likely to infringe on the reputation of the registered trade mark.

2. Passing Off (Common law)

For a passing off claim, Google would have to show that Doogle are leaning on the reputation established by Google in the brand in South Africa, by using similar wording, site design, colours, advertising, etc to create an association between the brands in the minds of the public.

3. Domain Name Disputes

A domain name registration is considered to be abusive where: circumstances indicating that the registrant is using, or has registered, the domain name in a way that leads people or businesses to believe that the domain name is registered to, operated or authorised by, or otherwise connected with the complainant;

Considering the above, I'd say Google has a reasonable case.

Whether or not Google should be threatened by Doogle is another story. But you never know how big Doogle might get one day.

It is most likely that Google just wants Doogle to make an effort to distance itself from the look and feel of Google's brand.

I wonder what the deal is with doogle.com ;)
 
Last edited:
Thanks burn that's a very good analysis. I also think that this case is more about protecting the Google brand and product than Doogle steeling traffic. The same reason that we see all sorts of cola soft drinks but none of them called "Koke/Doke".
 
I think it is all about how a domain is used.

This site seems clearly to be used or targeted towards search. If the guy was selling doogles(whatever it is) or bread or something else I am sure google wouldn't have a problem with the name.

I wonder what the deal is with doogle.com
Click to expand...
seems to me they don't pretend to be a search engine/ directory like doogle.co.za that's the diff
 
Last edited:
Now he just needs to play his cards right- no such thing as bad publicity ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X