

Groggle boggled by Google mean spirit  - bootload
http://www.theage.com.au/technology/biz-tech/groggle-boggled-by-google-mean-spirit-20100428-trq5.html

======
jerf
Trademark law is, broadly speaking, a good thing. It can be abused, but there
is a reason it is there.

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.

~~~
anigbrowl
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.

~~~
jerf
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.)

~~~
anigbrowl
_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.

~~~
jerf
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.

~~~
anigbrowl
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.

------
JacobAldridge
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!

------
winter_blue
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.

~~~
gojomo
May I suggest:

 _Groghoo_

 _Boozinga_ (to get both Bing and Zynga angry!)

(Both .com's are available!)

~~~
thejake
Not for long ;)

------
visural
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.

~~~
megablast
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.

------
rickmode
grogsearch.com is also available.

I'm with the other dissenters here. Groggle is an obvious play on Google. Get
over it.

~~~
megablast
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?

------
xiaoma
It is clearly a combination of grog and ogle.

