Now that Google has come out of the closet with its proper venture capital fund, dubbed Google Ventures, I’m curious as to how many people will be going to googleventures.com today, only to find that the domain name is neither owned or operated by the company.
We’re not sure if this is an oversight or if Google has actively tried but failed to claim ownership over the domain name, but the fact is googleventures.com was first registered back in 2004, and that it’s currently supposed to expire in June of this year.
Update: as reader George Kirikos correctly points out, Google has filed a UDRP (Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy) case for the domain name. See the National Arbitration Forum website for details (case number 1249421).
Since the WHOIS information at this point is unprotected, hence public information, we know that the domain name was registered by a James Hung from Connecticut. Hung is the CEO of The Hive, a “global venture consulting firm comprised of business and technology gurus, entrepreneurs, and strategic partners in the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Africa.” The domain name is not being forwarded to the firm’s website, but only displays an image saying that site is currently unavailable.
We’ve contacted both Hung and Google for comment.
In case you’re wondering, Google’s Terms of Service prohibit the use of “any of Google’s trade names, trade marks, service marks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features”, so this is clearly a violation.
Cease & decist in 3, 2, 1 …
Why does this matter? Given that no VCs rely on their website for sales, and Google is a rather large brand anyway …
I see your point, but I think they could have easily made the effort to gain control over the domain name before the launch of the fund, which especially today would have made sense.
Also don’t forget Google is a domain name registrar too. http://www.goog...ess/domain.html
I won’t be surprised if this gets settle with a deal, cash for the domain.
why pay when u can get it for free?
Yeah..It can be taken up for free by Google..Because it’s their brand name and they don’t allow to use it..
http://www.smartbloggerz.com
Because, it’s typically cheaper to settle than to go to court because of the insane legal fees.
Maybe so, but there is already a Twitter feed… the question is whether this is brandsquatting or not:
http://twitter..../googleventures
What makes you think it wouldn’t be?
Just that there’s no branding / logo / URL in the description, and an awful lot of brandsquatting in Twitter…
That said, I take it all back, because somebody has added an official-looking logo. It might be the real deal!
PS – I just realised that I dreamt of Sergey Brin last night.
PS – looks like the real deal since the appropriately named Rich Miner is following it.
Google won’t hassle arguing with the domain holders. They’ll just hand over some cash and before you know it people will be wanting to get their hands on google’s money.
If history is any indication, isn’t Google fond of hosting new services in the main google domain itself instead of a separate domain?
What do you mean “so this is clearly a violation.” Why is this guy bound by Google’s terms of service here? The Google TOS is irrelevant, isn’t it?
The Google terms of service has nothing to do with whether the use of the term “Google” is a trademark violation. As bad as things are we haven’t yet gotten to letting the big media companies make intellectual property law that directly.
The domain squatting issue is also not that open and shut. Trademarks tend to be constrained by business type (why you can have Acme Carpets and Acme Pizza in the same town with no trademark issues and no likelihood of confusion). At the time the domain was registered, Google was not in the venture capital business, and so there was probably no violation at the time. There are other elements of the cybersquatting law that don’t necessarily seem to be triggered here, including bad faith and an intent to profit.
Google has arguments to make if it wants to take it all to court – perhaps most promisingly that its “famous” brand is being diluted – but it’s not a gimme.
For a site that makes a lot of noise about being founded by a savvy Silicon Valley lawyer, the glib ignorance about legal issues in this article is noteworthy.
Thanks Oldperfesser – I just about fell out of my chair when I read “so this is clearly a violation”… What on earth does their TOS have to do with it?
Surely it’s possible that there was no such thing as Google Ventures when the domain was registered…
Just because Google is the big kid on the block these days doesn’t mean squat (pun intended) on this topic.
I’m sure my VC’s will back me on this. Anybody from Giovanni, Ormond, Oscar, Gaglianno and Le Venture Partners Limited going to chime in?
I thought that was hilarious, dont get me wrong – I love google – but to say that this is a violation of their TOS is just silly. This author just lost alot of credibility with me.
Probably the biggest risk for this guy in violating google’s terms of service is that somehow google will filter him out and not let him use his search engine. That would be an adequate punishment… maybe he’ll hand over the domain name.
Google filed a UDRP at NAF a month ago for the GoogleVentures.com domain name. You can see this at:
http://domains....m/decision.aspx
(either search for GoogleVentures.com or case number 1249421)
thanks, post updated
Your financial services firm is called “Leap of Faith”?
How convincing is that when it comes to recruiting new clients?
Maybe I can start a company called “Wish me Luck”
Eric: When I adopted the naming in 1993 for my first company (I actually have 2 corporations), some folks hated it, some folks loved it, but they all remembered it.
Good luck to Mr. Hung trying to defend against this UDRP, though I’m not optimistic on his chances for a variety of reasons.
Perhaps that was the point to purchasing the domain in the first place.
April Fools hoax?
Did you try ventures.google.com????
I’m sure that Mr. Hung is using the site for his business, Go Ogle Ventures. Google’s trademark can’t cover the sequence of letters g-o-o-g-l-e in any setting, or else I’ll lose my investment in the John Water’s animated re-make, “Mr. Magoo Glen-or-Glenda”.
what’s wrong with using google.com/ventures
Just like google.com/analytics or any other google site
B/c it won’t create as much walk-up traffic.
yea, and thats something google needs
Hung should go back to what he’s good at: singing and dancing.
I still think it’s a hoax. We’ll just have to wait and see.
Why would it be a hoax? Google has always been active in this space as a means of recruiting some top talent. This is just an extension of that strategy…
I think Google will likely get the domain eventually. Hung and The Hive are incredibly dishonest and conniving to begin with and they have nothing to back up their claim that this is anything other than cybersquatting.
hey TC
instead of 5 twitter stories a day, look into this one. its a winner lol
http://www.char...ms-its-clients/
Comment reply if you vote for the name gfund!
Google.com/ventures I don’t see why Google need GoogleVentures.com as far as I’m aware I don’t think any VC firm relys on its website for investments.
Google wont pay .. because there are thousands google domains being held by cyber squatters ..
Cyber Squatting is a no no.
looks like someone already knows google will start a venture
google adwords hero
Thanks all.