Misspelled Google case may end up in court

A local businessman wants googl.com.au and has threatened to sue the Australian domain regulator to get it.

The domain was recently registered to local Peter Bojanac -- who claimed to ZDNet Australia  he had applied for a trademark for 'googl' -- but has now been confiscated by .au Domain Administration (auDA). The regulator's chief executive Chris Disspain said it was an obvious misspelling of Google and therefore its registration was against his organisation's domain policy.

Google itself owns the local google.com.au domain name as well as a registered trademark.

Disspain said even if the trademark had been registered, it would not give Bojanac any leverage to keep the domain.

According to Bojanac -- the owner of search engine marketing company DanceString -- the domain was registered with the intent of promoting a new software technology he had acquired. He said his product was not a search engine or an online content portal.

"They're in the process of deleting that domain name," he said. "I've requested the return of it, otherwise I'll take legal action against them."

"Google have a trademark on 'Google'. They don't have a trademark on 'Googl'," he pointed out.

Bojanac accused auDA of not being able to uphold its own guidelines, and said having a legitimate claim to a domain name meant nothing to the regulator.

"I'm going to go to my lawyers this afternoon," he concluded.

Advertisement

Talkback 2 comments

    Hi Could you ask Peter to get ...Anonymous -- 22/06/05

    Hi

    Could you ask Peter to get in touch with me please. auDA is being "selective" in its interpretation of policy. They used the exact opposite logic on me several years ago when they claimed that logistics and logistic were two different words and could be different domain names.

    ph 07 5463 2744

    Rgds

    TAKING ADVANTAGE OF OWN WRONG ...Anonymous -- 24/06/05

    TAKING ADVANTAGE OF OWN WRONG

    It seems the Domain Registration Agency is taking advantage of its own wrong. Firstly, it should not have granted the disputed domain name in favour of its holder as the same is not only capable of creating confusion but also deceptively similar to the domain name and Trademark in favour of Google.

    Secondly, once they were satisfied that there was no mala fide intention in getting the disputed domain name, they should not now cancel or confiscate it.

    The holder of the domain name seems, at least prima facie, to be acting in good faith. Further, the name of Google is not new in the Internet community and the registration authority must have known about its existence.

    Looking from any count, the confiscation of the disputed domain name is not reasonable now particularly when the business proposed to be started by the holder is different from the Google.

    Alternatively, the holder of the disputed domain name must be suitable "compensated" for "surrendering" his domain name.But, the registration authority has no right to unilaterally confiscate the domain name at this final stage.

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Suzanne Tindal Love me, tender
    Considering how expensive and drawn-out tender processes can be to solve problems that might be very immediate, it's little wonder that the Victorian Police IT department tried to work the tender exemptions system.
  • Array 2009 funding drought rolls on
    For Australian start-ups looking for venture capital, 2009 was a very bad year. 2010 may be no better.
  • Array Can not-so-smart meters help the NBN?
    It was interesting to witness Conroy's recent enthusiasm to spruik the NBN's role in supporting the Smart Grid, Smart City initiative. What a pity that Conroy hadn't yet seen the damning report from the Victorian auditor-general about that state's smart-meter roll-out.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured