Comment by hornbaker | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hornbaker | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'll happily change the name if Google asks me to, no C&D necessary.

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.

Trademark infringement goes like this: "Would a reasonable person believe GoogleBlade.com was an official Google property or service?"

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.

You're using a logo and design that mimics Google's actual design aesthetic, I honestly thought this was a Google project before I read the top comment. My money is on you definitely getting a C&D dude, like they'd be crazy not to.

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.

9to5google and AppleInsider are news sites that do not carry Google or Apple branding. If AppleInsider were to produce phones, or even phone cases, the law would take a much different stance on things.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com