Google Asks Booble To Cease And Desist 445
cosmodemonic writes "The folks at Search Engine Journal have the low-down on a cease and desist order that Google has sent to the porn search engine/Google parody Booble. It seems that, although Booble is claiming to be a parody (which is protected under law), Google is flexing its muscle because of the marketability of the parody." Search Engine Journal makes the reasonable suggestion: "Recent rulings may favor Google in the case, since Booble may be trying to profit from the marketability of the parody."
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can't Beat 'em, don't wanna buy them... (Score:5, Informative)
(Posted Anonymously, of course
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'm feeling Lucky (Score:3, Informative)
var prompts = ['I am feeling animated!', 'I am feeling cheap!', 'I am feeling confused!', 'I am feeling lucky!', 'I am feeling nostalgic', 'I am feeling playful'];
No pr0n. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:5, Informative)
He only does that to be nice and polite. He's not legally obliged to.
Pete.Re:If this is the law now... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:4, Informative)
Amish Paradise was the one where Coolio publicly stated he hadn't given permission, whereas Weird Al said that they had worked it out up front with his label, and had been sending in royalty checks. Apparently Coolio's label hadn't let him in on that.
Re:I think they're on solid ground here. (Score:0, Informative)
Re:Movies (Score:2, Informative)
It' just consumer protection, and defending their good name. People might find Booble a poor quality site, and this would affect Google negatively.
No, it doesn't remind you of that, for one simple (Score:3, Informative)
Groening came out and said his comment was just a joke [zap2it.com]; Fox News never complained about the Simpsons parody, much less threaten to sue.
Re:Movies (Score:2, Informative)
And as a slashdotting attempt to punish Google for suing people, here's a regarding the Star Ballz lawsuit. [google.se]
Good riddance anyway (Score:5, Informative)
What, an "adult search engine" that returns exactly 0 matches for the word "bondage [booble.com]" ?
I mean, come ON ! Even altavista picture search [altavista.com] does better !
(Uh, hope my supervisor doesn't read slashdot too much...)
Thomas Miconi
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:2, Informative)
No, it looks like he likes to get permission. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Good riddance anyway (Score:5, Informative)
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:1, Informative)
While "obliged" may be used in this manner, "obligated" is a better choice. This meaning of "obliged" indicates a moral duty. Prefacing it with an adverb is redundant.
Booble Replies (Score:5, Informative)
January 28, 2004
Dear Trademark Enforcement Team,
We are intellectual property counsel to Guywire, Inc. This letter responds to your e-mail message of January 20, 2004 to our client via domains by proxy.
As your communication recognizes, our client adopted and uses the BOOBLE and booble.com designations to parody the Google web site. Our client's web site is in fact a successful parody, which simultaneously brings to mind the original, while also conveying that it is not the original. See, e.g.,Jordache Enters., Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Ltd., 828 F.2d 1482, 1486 (10th Cir. 1987) (finding no likelihood of confusion between LARDASHE for oversized jeans, despite its obvious similarity with, and parody of, the well-known JORDACHE mark for jeans). Cf. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F. 3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001) (finding a domain name parody was unsuccessful because Internet users had to view the web site before they were able to discover that it was not the original). Obviously, the Booble web site brings to mind the Google web site, at the same time that it underscores its unique identity as a parodic adult search engine.
In trademark law, parody is a defense to trademark infringement. Eveready Battery Co. v. Adolph Coors Co., 765 F. Supp. 440 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (holding that a commercial advertisement of a well-known actor in a bunny outfit, banging a drum, was an effective parody of the plaintiff's mechanical toy rabbit advertising character). In the present case, consumers are highly unlikely to be confused as to the source of services for several reasons, including the following:
the domain names are entirely different;
the BOOBLE web site searches only provide content related to Adult web sites, including TGP sites, Adult stores, and Adult-related products like browser cleaners, pop-up filters, etc.; and
the BOOBLE mark is distinct from the GOOGLE mark in that it differs in sound, appearance, commercial impression, and other relevant aspects:
it features a woman's chest;
it uses the phrase, 'The Adult Search Engine;'
it posts a warning that the web site contains explicit content; and
it disclaims any association with Google.com.
Neither does the Booble trademark dilute Google's mark. First, the capacity of the GOOGLE mark to identify and distinguish its services is unchanged by Booble's use of its mark. See, e.g., Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 US 418 (2003) (requiring proof of actual dilution). In addition, Booble does not tarnish the Google mark. See, e.g., L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26 (1st Cir. 1987) (finding that a sexually explicit parody of appellee's catalog did not constitute tarnishment). Moreover, Booble's web site is an adult search engine, not 'a pornographic site,' as referred to in your letter. In fact, entering the terms "porn" and "sex" in the Google search engine return 98,400,000 hits and 269,000,000 hits, respectively, while entering these same terms in the Booble adult search engine return 268 hits and 291 hits, respectively. Therefore, the Google mark - which has a longstanding association with pornographic terms and material - is obviously not tarnished.
In your letter, you refer to the Supreme Court decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (holding that a commercial parody may qualify as a fair use and is not presumptively unfair). As you may have recognized, this is a copyright case. Although some analytic similarities exist between copyright and trademark parody cases, Google neither claims copyright infringement in its letter, nor is any relevant portion of its web site copyrightable. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 815 (1st Cir. 1995) (holding that literal copying of a computer command hierarchy does not constitute copyright infringement because it is an uncopyrightable method of operation). Therefore, while we feel that Campbell adequately supports the legality of Booble's paro
Re:Can't Beat 'em, don't wanna buy them... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Can't Beat 'em, don't wanna buy them... (Score:4, Informative)
Look and feel? (Score:2, Informative)
"Your web site improperly duplicates the distinctive and proprietary overall look and feel of Google's website"
Invalid. Cases based on "look and feel" alone have been shot down, stemming back to Borland vs. Lotus. It might be a different story if they are running Google search code.
including Google's trade dress and the GOOGLE logo.
Logos and names are legitimately protected by copyright and trademark, and Google has a right to defend their name and logo.
It's hardly a parody, but an attempt to capitalize on a play on Google's name. However, they should be able to get off the hook just by changing name and logo.
Best Porn Search: (Score:1, Informative)
well this alone is infringement: (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.booble.com/google.html
this actually steals google's code (look at the source, you'll see). they are actually using google's logo. and it's actually stored on their server. that is unauthorized reproduction, essentially.
it's a funny twist on google. and screw google for going IPO, but booble is directly infringing if they keep that page.
PARENT LINK IS NOT WORK-SAFE (Score:2, Informative)
goatse never fails tu turn my stomach...
More free porn (Score:1, Informative)
Sublime Directory [sublimedirectory.com]
Literotica [literotica.com]
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:1, Informative)
-------------
Weird Al Yankovic, the curly haired fool responsible for parodying some of the world's biggest pop artists in the 80's, has been denied permission to shoot a spoof Eminem video by the peroxide haired rapper himself.
Yankovic has recorded a song called Couch Potato, a parody of Eminem's Oscar-winning Lose Yourself, which according to spokesman Dennis Dennehy, the rapper doesn't have much of a problem with. However, as far as videos go, Eminem, "didn't want to change kids' visual perception on what that image was. He wanted to make sure the image would remain intact."
Weird Al, whose most famous for his 'hilarious' parodies of Michael Jackson hits like Beat It, which became Eat It, and Bad which became Fat, was gutted with the decision. "It's very disappointing. This could have been my best video ever," he told www.canoe.ca. "The only reason I could glean was that making a Weird Al music video would detract from his legacy as a serious hip-hop artist."
Eminem allowed Yankovic to redo the track from his hit 8 Mile soundtrack, warning that he would need to hear the final mix before granting video rights. However, since he's heard the song Eminem has refused to allow him to release the song as a commercial single as well.
However, those desperate to hear Weird Al's Eminem parody will be pleased to note that it'll still feature on his forthcoming 11th album, Poodle Hat, which is due May 20th in the States.
Re:If this is the law now... (Score:2, Informative)
That's not correct. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. [cornell.edu] as a counterexample. A parody can take material from a copyrighted work without permission and without paying royalties, so long as it can classify as fair use. Courts are supposed to consider four factors when determining fair use:
None of these factors is supposed to be determinative by itself. Thus it's possible to make fair use of a work under copyright for your own profit, provided that the use does well under the other three components of the standard. In Campbell v Acuff Rose, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled that 2Live Crew had made fair use of music from "Pretty Woman", even though they were using it for their own profit. Weird Al would have problems because he was doing it for profit and copying all of the music instead of just a portion. (The Court specifically mentioned that 2Live Crew had taken only enough of the original music and lyrics to make their parody recognizable and had added their own material from there.) That puts him in the worst possible position on two of the four measures, and he would also do badly on the nature of the work (since the original is expressive and for profit it gets more protection from commercial copying than a functional not-for-profit work would) and only moderately well on the effect on sales of the original (since the parody might steal market share from the original).