Feeds

Google loses battle for goggle.com

Typosquatter's rights upheld – for now

Next gen security for virtualised datacentres

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 by a three-person National Arbitration Forum panel in the US.

Right now, Goggle.com's website asks visitors a short series of questions before attempting to persuade them to sign up for a £3-per-text quiz competition, offering the latest Apple products as prizes.

Screenshot of goggle.com

This isn't the search engine you were looking for

This is the preferred money-making scheme today for typo-targeting domains of high-traffic websites. Twitter filed a similar complaint over the domain name twiter.com in June.

Google attempted to slay goggle.com by wielding the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, which was designed to give trademark owners a way to take domains from cybersquatters without resorting to expensive litigation.

While goggle.com appears primarily to take advantage of butterfingered web searchers, the NAF panel declined to consider the UDRP's standard tests of "confusing similarity" or "bad faith registration".

Csumrik, in his response to Google's complaint, showed paperwork claiming that Google and the disputed domain's previous owner, Knowledge Associates, had legally agreed to "co-exist".

Those rights transferred to him when he bought the domain, he claimed.

This was enough to convince the NAF panel that the dispute was "outside the scope" of the narrowly focused UDRP, which does not deal with contractual or business disputes.

"Does the Co-existence Agreement apply to the disputed domain names? Does Respondent stand in the shoes of the original registrant? Does the consent of Complainant extend in time to the current actions of Respondent and in person to the Respondent? Has the Respondent complied with the obligations of the original registrant?" the panel asked. "These are factual and legal issues that go far beyond the scope of the Policy."

While the decision is good news for goggle.com's owner, it may be too early to break out the champagne – if Google is determined to get hold of the domain, it may now resort to expensive court action. ®

The essential guide to IT transformation

More from The Register

next story
6 Obvious Reasons Why Facebook Will Ban This Article (Thank God)
Clampdown on clickbait ... and El Reg is OK with this
So, Apple won't sell cheap kit? Prepare the iOS garden wall WRECKING BALL
It can throw the low cost race if it looks to the cloud
EE fails to apologise for HUGE T-Mobile outage that hit Brits on Friday
Customer: 'Please change your name to occasionally somewhere'
Time Warner Cable customers SQUEAL as US network goes offline
A rude awakening: North Americans greeted with outage drama
We need less U.S. in our WWW – Euro digital chief Steelie Neelie
EC moves to shift status quo at Internet Governance Forum
BT customers face broadband and landline price hikes
Poor punters won't be affected, telecoms giant claims
prev story

Whitepapers

Endpoint data privacy in the cloud is easier than you think
Innovations in encryption and storage resolve issues of data privacy and key requirements for companies to look for in a solution.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Advanced data protection for your virtualized environments
Find a natural fit for optimizing protection for the often resource-constrained data protection process found in virtual environments.
Boost IT visibility and business value
How building a great service catalog relieves pressure points and demonstrates the value of IT service management.
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.