• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Featured

Google v. oogle: Search Engine Loses UDRP Proceeding

Submitted by Amer Raja on July 29, 2012 – 1:00 AM57505 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F07%2F29%2Fgoogle-v-oogle-search-engine-loses-udrp-proceeding%2FGoogle+v.+oogle%3A+Search+Engine+Loses+UDRP+Proceeding2012-07-29+05%3A00%3A49Amer+Rajahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D5750

In a somewhat surprising decision last week, Google.com lost a UDRP proceeding in the National Arbitration Forum against oogle.com.  The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) adopted the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) in 1999 to provide domain name owners with low-cost recourse against bad-faith actors.  A UDRP proceeding is a fairly quick arbitration proceeding, with a variable number of panelists, and is based almost exclusively on paper filings.

Google filed its UDRP complaint on June 5, 2012 alleging that Christopher Neuman of Blue Arctic Hosting registered the domain name oogle.com in a bad faith attempt to profit off of Google’s trademark and reputation.  As part of the UDRP proceeding, Google was required to prove three elements in order for their claim to succeed: (1) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, (2) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name, and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.  Google failed to convince the panel of any of these three elements.

Neuman, on the other hand, successfully argued that he registered the oogle.com domain name, in the absence of bad faith, in February of 1999 at the age of 13.  At the time, Neuman had been conducting business under a fictional, unregistered business name, Fusion3k designs, a business he still runs under the new name Blue Arctic Hosting.  Although oogle.com has been used in the past as an online shopping website and an “adult matchmaking service,” it is now being used as an online forum for programmers.  PC Magazine reports that Neuman also tried to sell the oogle.com domain name to Google for $600,000 in 2009, and now allegedly has it on sale at auction for $300,000.

The chief rationale, it seems, that the panelists had in finding in favor of oogle.com was that Google did not possess a trademark registration in 1999, in spite of its use dating back to 1997.  The panelists determined that the absence of a trademark registration, coupled with the limited media attention that Google had received by February 1999, provided a sufficient reason to find in favor of Neuman.

Now that the UDRP decision is final, it is unclear whether Google will try any alternative legal tactics to obtain the domain name without having to shell out $300,000+.  Regardless of Google’s next course of action, the integrity of documents, programs, and computer records possessed by Neuman will clearly be at issue since they may help establish the bad faith Google was unable to show during the UDRP proceeding.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Amer Raja

Amer Raja is a 2013 J.D. Candidate at the Washington College of Law. Amer is a Senior Blogger for the Intellectual Property Brief, Student Attorney for the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic and the President of the Society for Dispute Resolution. Amer competed in the Saul Lefkowitz Trademark Moot Court competition in February 2012 and placed third in the East Regional Competition in New York City. He is also a competing member of the ICC International Commercial Mediation team, and will be going to Paris in February 2013 to compete. Amer is currently working for a boutique trademark litigation firm, Silverberg, Goldman & Bikoff LLP, in Washington, D.C. He has also worked in the past for the Honorable Ricardo M. Urbina in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, American Bar Association, American Board of Pediatrics, and the NCCSAS. Amer has a passion and demonstrated interest in patent and trademark litigation, international trade law, and commercial litigation.

Amer Raja has written 17 posts for the IPB.

57505 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F07%2F29%2Fgoogle-v-oogle-search-engine-loses-udrp-proceeding%2FGoogle+v.+oogle%3A+Search+Engine+Loses+UDRP+Proceeding2012-07-29+05%3A00%3A49Amer+Rajahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D5750 »

  • Trademark Chandigarh says:
    July 31, 2012 at 4:46 AM

    thanks for providing us this type of important information and this information helps us a lot. I will visit this site again….

    Reply to this comment »
  • Mr. Groogle says:
    August 8, 2012 at 1:23 AM

    Does the panel that allowed this cyber-squatter to keep his 'typo of google' domain name have half a brain between them?? I mean, he has even tried to sell Google the domain name…

    Reply to this comment »
  • Trademark Kolkatta says:
    August 9, 2012 at 6:27 AM

    thanks for providing us this type of important information and this information helps us a lot. I will visit this site again….

    Reply to this comment »
  • seo services says:
    February 12, 2013 at 6:00 AM

    Wow, wow, wow! I wish I was a great writer like you, because trust me I am falling short off words to express what I am feeling after reading this blog post. I really appreciate your skills and thoughtfulness.

    Reply to this comment »
  • Backlinks Builder says:
    April 17, 2013 at 8:52 AM

    You will certainly need to believe of the best locations to try and become links from when you establish out your hyperlink structure method. Places that will certainly become the focus and captivate of those possible consumers that are searching for your services or products. This makes certain that you target the right individuals and locations is most important, if done appropriately, this will certainly bring in a greater conversion premium in sales, whilst you become the web traffic increase to your web site.

    Reply to this comment »

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

The Food and Drug Administration’s recent decision, which reasoned that the drug posed public health and safety concerns, creates serious patent implications with regard to generic drugs.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme, one of the most coveted skate-inspired clothing brands, is suing women’s clothing brand Married to the Mob and its founder Leah McSweeney for trademark infringement to the tune of $10 million.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

Please Join IP Brief for our 2nd Annual Symposium: Patent Subject-Matter Eligibility Today Giants Forgot to Register Logo Much Wants More and Loses Everything: Patent Litigation Backfires Ice, Ice, Maybe– Check Out the Hook and Hope Bowie Absolves It Copyright in Football: Is it Practicable? AndroGel: A Pay-for-Delay Question Jailbreaking Exemption to Expire in 2012 Intellectual Property and Free Trade: Impacts of the Colombia, Korea, and Panama FTAs on IP Short Circuit: July 15 - 31, 2012 UltraViolet: The DVD Pirate Supports Troops, America, Freedom
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan
  • Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay
  • Oh, That’s Different … Never mind: USPTO Withdraws Ruling that IPAD MINI is “Merely Descriptive”

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License