Hacker News Reader

Comment by ocdtrekkie | Hacker News Reader

If this site gets attention of a Googler who cares, it will almost certainly be sent a C&D. I'd recommend the author rename/rebrand. Generally names "Google ____" or "Android ____" are forbidden, but "____ for Google" or "____ for Android" are generally okay with Google's trademark policies.

EDIT: I hit my HN rate limit for the morning, so my response to your comment below follows:

AppleInsider is extremely unlikely to be confused with an Apple website, however. Particularly since it's style is very different, and a "news and rumors" site about Apple isn't likely to be confused for an Apple site. (And as a sidebar, even if Apple did want to C&D them, they'd have a much harder time C&Ding a journalistic presence.)

In the case of yours, I had to check the copyright fine print to determine it was not a Google website.

Even changing the logo and site design from the standard Google corporate style would help.

View on HN

I understand that risk, and will comply with Google's wishes. As the project is completely focused on Google's CSE, and serves only to draw attention to them, I do hope they give me a pass. Technically, it's not unheard of... for example, AppleInsider.com is not an Apple property.

Trademarks, if not enforced, can be struck down, so it is unlikely that a company will simply ignore a case of trademark infringement when it is so easily confused with the trademarked products, including logos, colors, fonts, and overall functionality.

I think trademarks are applicable for specific verticals, it is Ok for two separate companies to have Apple as trademark for consumer electronics and say travel agency (http://www.applevacations.com/).

While this may be true, I think associating "Google" with "search engine" doesn't exactly imply separate business domains.

Yeah, I commented mostly about AppleInsider case, which is in more grey zone.

It's not about whether they like the trademark infringer or not, it's about the substantive infringement of their trademark and the fact that defense of the trademark is necessary for it to be legally viable.

What you've done is the equivalent of saying "DISCLAIMER: I DO NOT OWN THIS VIDEO" on a youtube video of a tv show. Just because you're saying you don't own it and your intentions (may be/are) good does not mean the holder of the trademark or copyright will just say 'oh he seems nice, let him keep it up'.

Relevant: http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/24/11111000/google-says-9to5g...

(note the update)

That is not a particularly relevant story. The use of a trademark can be justified under fair use in the context of news reporting and commentary, e.g. "macrumors.com" or "applesucks.com", but even that is not cut-and-dry: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/using-trademarks-others

You have a much more difficult defense in that you've produced something that does what the layperson associates Google with: search. Even worse, you are using Google's name and logo. It's been awhile since I've read through Google's TOS, but generally, TOS are very explicit about not using their trademark name or logo in such a way that implies endorsement.

You make good points, and I appreciate your point of view.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com