5 ms·

Groggle boggled by Google mean spirit

11 points by bootload 17y ago

JacobAldridge 17y ago
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 17y ago
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 17y ago
  May I suggest: Groghoo Boozinga (to get both Bing and Zynga angry!) (Both .com's are available!)
  - thejake 17y ago
    Not for long ;)
  - DenisM 17y ago
    grogulator
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  pour...down the drain I wonder if that was intentionial on the reporter's part :)
jerf 17y ago
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 17y ago
  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 17y ago
    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 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 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.)
visural 17y ago
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 17y ago
  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 17y ago
grogsearch.com is also available. I'm with the other dissenters here. Groggle is an obvious play on Google. Get over it.
- megablast 17y ago
  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 17y ago
It is clearly a combination of grog and ogle.

11 points by bootload 17y ago

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 17y ago

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 17y ago
May I suggest: Groghoo Boozinga (to get both Bing and Zynga angry!) (Both .com's are available!)
- thejake 17y ago
  Not for long ;)
- DenisM 17y ago
  grogulator
anigbrowl 17y ago
pour...down the drain I wonder if that was intentionial on the reporter's part :)

jerf 17y ago

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 17y ago
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 17y ago
  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 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 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.)

visural 17y ago

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 17y ago
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 17y ago

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

megablast 17y ago
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 17y ago

It is clearly a combination of grog and ogle.