6 ms·
The only thing that caught my eye was Google redirecting duck.com to google.com when DDG expressed interest in purchasing the domain. That seems a little underh
by crazypyro 14y ago
The only thing that caught my eye was Google redirecting duck.com to google.com when DDG expressed interest in purchasing the domain. That seems a little underhanded, but not illegal....
- AJ007 14y agoYeah, doing a reverse IP lookup with domain tools shows a list of 1,029 domains currently directing to google.com (some direct to youtube.com) Duck Duck Go has a TM application filed on April 2, 2008. Google acquired duck.com's owner in 2010. There is a very reasonable case for a WIPO domain dispute, which isn't particularly costly (granted if Google lost, and then sued you it would be expensive.) Very good way to generate a lot of press coverage.
- mbreese 14y ago> Duck Duck Go has a TM application filed on April 2, 2008. Google acquired duck.com's owner in 2010. For any sort of mark dispute, you shouldn't go by when Google acquired On2, you have to go by when On2 acquired the name. I assume this was closer to the domain creation date of 1995 (or the On2.com creation date of 1999).
- mseebach2 14y agoWouldn't it be a factor that On2 isn't/wasn't in the search space at all? Only after the Google acquisition did duck.com come to be associated with search, and then only by virtue of Google redirecting it to their main page.
- gillianseed 14y agoYes, On2 is/was a video codec technology company, and the reason for them owning duck.com was that they were previously named 'The Duck Corporation'.
- lubujackson 14y agoAlthough if that's Google's standard practice with domains, DDG really doesn't have a complaint.
- prawn 14y ago"Oh, forgot we picked up that domain. Better redirect it to our main site like most of our other ones."