Fagoogle.com - Banned by Google

Colin Dunstan · 09-24-2004, 04:33 AM

It seems Google is finally turning into a real corporate company, with all its pros and cons. Have a look how it just banned Fagoogle (the "gay Google").

Chaos · 09-26-2004, 02:32 AM

Um, aren't there even some dictionaries that now use "google" as a synonym for an internet search (I think I read something about that a while back - can't remember where, unfortunately...)?

So how can something that's turning into a true word be anyone's intellectual property?

JongJungBu · 09-26-2004, 04:46 PM

As long as it was already owned. Like Coke was taken to court by Coca-Cola because people were referring to any similar soda as a Coke. And in some areas, like where I live, you say "coke" instead of a "soda" when you ask if someone wants a drink. But you could mean a Sprite even. So, anyway, my point is they won and Coke refers to Coca-Cola only and Cola can be any type of soda. Whether it's used as common language means nothing in a court of law for intellectual property if they already trademarked it.

JJB

Brian · 09-26-2004, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaos

Um, aren't there even some dictionaries that now use "google" as a synonym for an internet search (I think I read something about that a while back - can't remember where, unfortunately...)?

So how can something that's turning into a true word be anyone's intellectual property?

Was the word "google" associated with a search engine before google.com? No.

While I think intellectual property and trademark infringement are claimed too often, I have to side with google on this one. Just take a look at fagoogle's website, then google. They are clearly copying google's logo and web page. Just because google is now a well known word that is finding it's way into our vocabulary does not mean that the people behind fagoogle have the right to copy google's trademark. What would your opinion be if someone made a web page called fagyahoo!? Yahoo is a word in the dictionary, and as others have stated, that argument is not a valid defense in this case even though it may be used.

What if Alexander received a trademark on Mobileread, then someone else came along and created a web page for mobile content that used Mobileread's layout, style and logo, and named it Mobilereader? No infringement there? I don't think so.

Don't be surprised when that page is completely taken down soon. It is a great way to get some free publicity and cry foul, but IMO Google is clearly within their rights to protect their IP in this case.

Nice of them to copy MSN's butterfly (ok, so they made it a mirror image and changed the colors slightly) while they were at it, 2 for 2.

Alexander Turcic · 09-27-2004, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ballistic

What if Alexander received a trademark on Mobileread

I am waiting for that day to happen

hacker · 09-27-2004, 03:33 AM

As you all probably know, the name "Google" is actually a play on the word googol, which was coined by Milton Sirotta, nephew of U.S. mathematician Edward Kasner in 1938, to refer to the number represented by 1 followed by a hundred zeros.

Its more of an antonym, than a unique word. They could just call their site "Fagoogol", and be done with it, and Google can't have anything at all to say about it. In fact, you could make a biological corrolary with the shape of a 'zero' and parts of human anatomy, if you really wanted to make a case out of it.

But I digress... and its late... and I need sleep anyway.

ignatz · 09-27-2004, 07:58 AM

Well, surely it wasn't just the name, but also the fact that they completely aped the style of the name and the webpage. That doesn't really fall under fair use since it was a relatively serious site. Not that I'm defending them, but it does make sense. Google's got investors to take care of now. Priorities shift. Especially with the renewed rise of anti-gay voices in the USA.

Chaos · 09-29-2004, 02:50 AM

As far as I know designs of websites (general designs) cannot be copyrighted. Of course the logos can, but the basic design is pretty well free game. As long as you don't take their code.

hacker · 09-29-2004, 06:42 AM

Not true at all... in fact, for many sites, their design is their branding. Look at apple.com and amazon.com for two such examples.

09-24-2004, 04:33 AM	#1
Colin Dunstan Is papyrophobic! Posts: 1,926 Karma: 1009999 Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: USA Device: Dell Axim	Fagoogle.com - Banned by Google It seems Google is finally turning into a real corporate company, with all its pros and cons. Have a look how it just banned Fagoogle (the "gay Google").

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tell Us Your Favorite Banned Book - It's National Banned Books Week	EatingPie	Lounge	96	10-12-2010 02:19 PM
Why Macmillan was banned from Amazon	LCF	News	76	02-19-2010 06:58 PM
Explore banned books with Google Book Search	Alexander Turcic	News	11	09-15-2006 09:48 AM

09-26-2004, 02:32 AM	#2
Chaos Evangelist Posts: 418 Karma: 281 Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canada Device: Assorted older devices	Um, aren't there even some dictionaries that now use "google" as a synonym for an internet search (I think I read something about that a while back - can't remember where, unfortunately...)? So how can something that's turning into a true word be anyone's intellectual property?

09-26-2004, 04:46 PM	#3
JongJungBu Member Posts: 18 Karma: 46 Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Alabama, USA Device: Dell Axim X30	As long as it was already owned. Like Coke was taken to court by Coca-Cola because people were referring to any similar soda as a Coke. And in some areas, like where I live, you say "coke" instead of a "soda" when you ask if someone wants a drink. But you could mean a Sprite even. So, anyway, my point is they won and Coke refers to Coca-Cola only and Cola can be any type of soda. Whether it's used as common language means nothing in a court of law for intellectual property if they already trademarked it. JJB

09-27-2004, 03:33 AM	#6
hacker Technology Mercenary Posts: 617 Karma: 2561 Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: East Lyme, CT Device: Direct Neural Implant	As you all probably know, the name "Google" is actually a play on the word googol, which was coined by Milton Sirotta, nephew of U.S. mathematician Edward Kasner in 1938, to refer to the number represented by 1 followed by a hundred zeros. Its more of an antonym, than a unique word. They could just call their site "Fagoogol", and be done with it, and Google can't have anything at all to say about it. In fact, you could make a biological corrolary with the shape of a 'zero' and parts of human anatomy, if you really wanted to make a case out of it. But I digress... and its late... and I need sleep anyway.

09-27-2004, 07:58 AM	#7
ignatz mechanoholic Posts: 582 Karma: 1000217 Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Sarasota, FL Device: Nook STR/iPhone 4S/EVO 4G	Well, surely it wasn't just the name, but also the fact that they completely aped the style of the name and the webpage. That doesn't really fall under fair use since it was a relatively serious site. Not that I'm defending them, but it does make sense. Google's got investors to take care of now. Priorities shift. Especially with the renewed rise of anti-gay voices in the USA.

09-29-2004, 02:50 AM	#8
Chaos Evangelist Posts: 418 Karma: 281 Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Canada Device: Assorted older devices	As far as I know designs of websites (general designs) cannot be copyrighted. Of course the logos can, but the basic design is pretty well free game. As long as you don't take their code.

09-29-2004, 06:42 AM	#9
hacker Technology Mercenary Posts: 617 Karma: 2561 Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: East Lyme, CT Device: Direct Neural Implant	Not true at all... in fact, for many sites, their design is their branding. Look at apple.com and amazon.com for two such examples.

Advert

Advert