It's a cool project, but using Google's name to add prestige and an implicit endorsement is not something that Google can easily abide.
But I don't think the law (or large company reaction) is cut and dried in cases like this. See 9to5Google, AppleInsider, etc.
GoogleBlade.com is a tribute site, featuring only an existing product of Google (CSEs), and trying to make them better and more discoverable.
Here is the default url of a Google CSE:
https://cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=01056188319074391687...
and here is a Google Blade:
https://linkedin.googleblade.com
Google has paid so little love to this product that CSEs are still displaying their old logo in the search box, and there is no central hub where you can discover great CSEs.
I was thrilled when Google released CSEs back in 2006, and I've used them ever since. I hate to see them neglected and hard to discover, though, and most people I talk to have never heard about them.
Google Blade is my attempt to shine some light, and love, on them. If Google wants any changes made, I'll comply asap.
AppleInsider and 9to4Google are publications that are clearly not owned by the companies they are referencing. This literally looks like a page from Google's developer lab sites.
The disregard of Google's legal rights is bad enough. What's worse is that this blatant-coattail-riding is completely unnecessary for making an impact. Plenty of companies have used bigger companies' APIS to create amazing (or at least successful) services. We wouldn't have Airbnb or Tinder if they had branded themselves as Facebookings.com or FACEFUCK.com, even though FB's APIs were essential to their MVP.
If the answer is yes, you're infringing. It doesn't matter how great your service is, where your heart is, or whether other businesses use the name as well. What matters is that you're 1) using the Google name, 2) the Google logo, and 3) a Google inspired aesthetic which combine to create an ambiguous and potentially confusing customer experience.
No one visiting 9to5Google is going to confuse it for a Google property, same for AppleInsider. They are distinctly NOT official properties, and no reasonable person would thus be confused.
The primary concern is that a random visitor might have a horrible experience on your site, and confuse that experience for something provided by Google.