if i buy a domain that starts with google... and after 1-2month/s 1-2year/s the domain gets real traffic and very visited, google will try to take it from me? i need some answers from someone with experice in domains Thank you in advance, worldpresident.
I'm not an expert, but I don't think this will happen. If you buy a domain, then it's yours. Unless you transfer it to someone else. Greetings Jason
Yes. 'Google' is an internationally copyright-protected trademark. Although, in saying that, there are a few domains with 'Google' in them that have lasted a fair while. Running the risk also runs the risk of getting a hefty fine.
You see Spider-Man reply? That is it. It is a big risk to include 'Google' or any other trademark in your domain. The official party reserves the right to shut down/disable your domain if it find out about it. So yes, it involves legal issues and some kind of trademark abuse.
I think the "safety" of such a site would have a lot to do with the intent and content. For example, www.google-watch.org is a successful site that Google will probably never try to wrestle control of. However, if you register something like www.googlee.com and the site's sole purpose is to grab search results from Google and provide them to your visitors with Adsense ads plastered all over the place, that would be an obvious no-no.
True enough but it is still Google and it is still a trademark. Better to err on the side of caution now and not have to worry about it down the road.
It is trademark infringement - Google could sue you and win in order to gain control of the domain. It would not be a wise thing to do.
Daniel is a clever guy, and knows what will and what won't work. The main issue is cybersquatting - ie. registering domains 'for the hell of it' to make profit from others' trademarks, which, in this case, registering a domain such as g00gle.com would be, if, of course, Google hadn't already sent in the foot soldiers on that one
I'm not sure if you are implying that I don't know what I'm talking about, but I don't think my earlier statements were off the mark. It doesn't take a "clever guy" to distinguish right from wrong, it just takes a little bit of common sense. There are lots of possible domain names which, with appropriate content, would be protected by free speech and/or fair use laws, provided of course that the owner of the site and the server on which it is hosted both reside in a country that protects free speech.
If it was me, I wouldnt risk it. Then again it does depend on what your site will be about. If it is about cars that has nothing to do with google you may get away with it, however if it is about seach engines then you may be in trouble. If you think you can take google on when your site becomes successful then give it a try...
Not necessarily true. If this were the case, then google would be required to purchase ALL VARIATIONS of web sites. They don't. It isn't cybersquatting either.
LOL. You might want to alter your chain of thought. So you're now saying Google - and all other Trademarked/Copyrighted material have to register everything possible to maintain their trademark authorisation? So, Google have to buy Google1.com, Google2.com...Google19.com...Goolge19537539679267926829067262626.com? I think not. Might want to read up on the case of Mike Row, for starters
Thanks Spidey, the facts of Mike Row are EXTREMELY different than what was asked here. Agree? Good, then we can move on. I don't know what law you practice or how long you've been an IP attorney, but my experience here in Silicon Valley litigating these types of cases has show that very innocent people may get caught up by pissing off the wrong people, but each case is individually evaluated. DCMA complaints and take down notices start the process typically. Sure my first general comment wasn't 100% on point, but this isn't a courtroom. A friend of mine lost her private investigator website because of how closely it was associated with Ma-Bell (a telecom entity that no longer really exists) but the new owner (SBC at the time, sued). The reason SBC won was because my friend was an expert in telephone investigative research and there was a likelihood of confusion, since Ma-Bell was telephone and her research was telephone. It's not black and white like people here allege. If it was, there would be a whole slew of attorneys out of work. Just my 2 cents or 1 1/2 if you will. Thanks.
Would you mind sharing the exact method they responded with? Was it a casual email, formal letter, etc?
It was just a normal email reply from my rep who then went on to point out the TOS etc. Nothing threatening or legal