The lawyers and accountants are now the bosses at G**le.

"Google Brand Features include Google logos, product screenshots, or other distinctive features."

No screenshots? That pretty much blows away any blogs, forums, and sites regarding webmastering. Including this one.

What about my website at http://fei.yuanbw.googlepages.com/ ? I certainly don't have control over that ...googlepages... part!

This word, "Google" does belong to "Google INC". This word was not invented by someone. It exist for so long.

If someone build a company named "FUCK INC", we stop FUCK? If someone build a "Penis INC", we cut all Penis?

NO, Google is not belong to Google INC, Google belong to us.

Back,
Google,
to us

Well, Isn't Google trademarked.

Is this part of the "defend it or lose it" of trademarks?

The way the law is written, if Google didn't defend it here,it could be cited by somebody else in a trademark infringement case.

It sucks though.. Especially the part about the screenshots.

It is time to turn back to Google adSense. I have to admit it was hard period especially for some sites that only income was adSense... now they only support SEO efforts on commercial projects.

Hong Xiaowan: Can you provide strong evidence that the word "google" or "Google" in any form was widespread before the company we now know as Google came along?

The only use I'm aware of was for the name of a minor comic character. Note that the word "googol", which Page and Brin based "Google" upon (it was actually a misspelling), is not the same. (Lucky misspelling, eh?)

Bummer...Maybe if their HR department wasn't completely clueless I wouldn't own this...
http://www.nextgoogleceo.com/

I won't be mad at Google since my income from AdSense on google.blogoscoped.cn is pretty low. But apparently, Google's guidelines need some improvements on this.

Nothing new, I went through this two years ago when they stopped serving ads to MakeEasyMoneyWithGoogle.com (based on the title of my book, of course!) for the same exact reason. All pleading with them and filling out trademark permission forms led to nothing... hence I had to switch to the shorter but less descriptive memwg.com.

If you can get Matt Cutts to go to bat for you, though, you CAN get an exception to this apparently... try that :-)

"Yes, we have no bananas today!" This is a rather finely tuned example of lawyers justifying their jobs.
--Mike

Mysterius

http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2007-03-27-n73.html
Also, you can find more at Google Book Search.

Google INC policy is wrong, it stole our rights. "Google" belong to us, not belong to "Google INC".

So, "Google INC", please, back the rights to us.

http://books.google.com/books?as_q=Google&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_libcat=0&as_brr=0&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=1600&as_maxy=1992&as_isbn=

adsense used to allow google in the sub-domain and not the domain. i'd try pushing back and see what they say. they are pretty squeamish when it comes to negative publicity.

I think it doesn't really matter whether Google owns their trademark, we can still use the word for criticism, parody etc. And Google.blogoscoped.cn is a a Google criticism site (*criticism in the true sense of the word, i.e. containing positive and negative criticism). Remember, these letters aren't written by Google's trademark legalese deptartment, but by the AdSense department. If it would be a real trademark issue, then they wouldn't ban your AdSense but send a Cease & Desist independent of what ads you run (in fact if they'd think there IS a real trademark issue, then by sending out these AdSense letters they kind of admit they knew about the specific case yet did NOT send a C&D, which might be adversary to the whole "didn't defend their trademark" legalese issue). So it's a level beyond a mere trademark issue – it's basically Google forcing arbirtrary ToS rules upon you. Which of course they can, unless some laws are offended (it's their AdSense ToS – they can include any footnote, e.g. "your page must include a photo of Mt. Rushmore or else we won't pay out revenues"), but that doesn't make it more fair. IMO Google does not sufficiently separate their different department's interests, and that's worrysome, both in itself but also as a precedent (not that it's that new, as Eric pointed out). When Google "cross-connects" their department's needs, we end up with stuff like self-advertisement in Google web results. http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2006-12-20-n55.html

I know of a parody website which has the word "google" in its actual domain name and hasn't had its AdSense account banned... yet. It's been running for a couple of years too, so it surely can't be a completely automated process.

Google Blogoscoped CN is a Chinese copy of Google Blogoscoped, if someday, this blog do not use Google Blogoscoped, Google Blogoscoped CN will change name and url also.

In Fact, I think this blog also should use URL as http://google.blogoscoped.com, that fit for the Title of this Blog.

I got some advices from my friends, they said, Google INC owned "Google" only as a brand. We have rights to use Google on our website, only we can not make the same or similar function like Google. For example, for http://google.blogoscoped.cn, can have a simple WP search function, but use Google AJAX Search break the law.

Nobody think WP simple is the same or similar product as Google search.

I think, Google lawyers can use a simple way, let the site like google.blogoscoped.cn place "Google is a brand belong to Google INC. This site is not related with Google INC."

Philipp
>>I think it doesn't really matter whether Google owns their trademark
...
Brand is brand, word is word. Google INC owned Google brand, but, Google INC does not own Google word.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2307/1752132253_17c2b001bf_o.png

Hong, unfortunately who owns the word "google" has nothing to do with their terms and conditions. I think if Google wanted to, could they not say that AdSense wasn't allowed on any sites with the word "warez" or "viagra" or even "blogoscoped" in the domain? I guess it's their terms and conditions, so they can say whatever they like even if it sucks.

One point: if Google doesn't want to serve AdSense ads because a site contains google, adsense etc. in its domain name, subdomain, then it could disable the ad serving automatically. The test would be a simple regular expression. But then what happens with googlepages.com, googlemashups.com and other Google sites? And why not forbid the ads for any page that contains Google in the URL?

Tony Ruscoe

"Tony Ruscoe" belong to you, "Google" also belong to you.

We talking about human rights here sometimes. At least, Google's policy break our human rights.

For the same logic, Hitler was right, he just broke some people's human rights that marked special name. For now, This marked name is "Google".

We still remembered this: "Chinese and Dog can not come in". This time, the people with "Google" name can not come in.

Is Google a hate site? For hate site, according to Google's Policy, also can not put Adsense on.

Xiaowan, Google didn't say you are not allowed to continue using google.blogoscoped.cn – they just don't serve their ads to it. I'm not sure there's any laws against that – not anti-discrimination laws anyway since this is about websites not e.g. religion or age – ... unless perhaps there are certain anti-monopoly laws disallowing you to "cross-connect" your services in such a way (?). But of course that's just the legal situation, in spirit we agree.

Philipp Lenssen

Google don't serve their ads to google.blogoscoped.cn, is wrong.

How much is 1+1, simple, it is 2.
How much is Google don't serve their ads to google.blogoscoped.cn, also simple.

Big evil comes from small mistake. I just try to help Google to know their mistake.

Here's something interesting: AdSense refuses an application because the site uses Google Brand Features.

http://www.googlesgirlfriend.com/2007/10/26/googles-girlfriend-gets-denied-by-google-adsense/

I am thinking Google, a search Tool, We need some law to prevent it to become evil.

Google act wildly against public opinion now. I did not know, if USA does not have human rights. If yes, Google also act wildly against law.

Although it is a small detaile, it is a big question for politics and law. If Google did not cancel this policy, I suggest we can sue Google together.

Xiaowan I don't understand your outrage. Google are not asking you or anyone else mentioned to stop using the word Google in your site's domain. They appear perfectly happy for you to continue to do so.

All they're saying is that if you choose to do this, they will not serve content (in the form of AdSense) to display on your site.

Your human rights do not include the right to display advertising provided by Google on your website. Think of it in terms of companies that removed their advertising from Facebook because they objected to the groups in which their ads were appearing. There's absolutely no reason why Google would be obliged to serve ad content on your site.

All that said. I think Google is being silly in these instances. Stupid, but entirely within their rights.

Can someone find a quote from AdSense's TOS or other legal pages that don't allow you to include a Google trademark in a subdomain name?

Reto Meier

I think lawyer will more interested. How about try?

Let the results say if Google break the human rights or not.

Limited rights for Google is better.

Ionut, nope. There's something about Publicity and Brand Features but that's all. Then again, they do say this:

<< AdSense for Content. [...] You acknowledge and agree that Ads and/or Links: (i) shall only be displayed in connection with the Site(s), each of which is subject to review and approval by Google in its discretion at any time; [...] >>

https://www.google.com/adsense/static/en_US/LocalizedTerms2.html

They also say:

<<Google may at any time, in its sole discretion, terminate all or part of the Program, terminate this Agreement, or suspend or terminate the participation of any Site in all or part of the Program for any reason.>>

but that's too arbitrary.

...which is why they're more specific in the email they sent you.

I forgot to mention that there are many sites that have Google in the subdomain name (or even the domain name) and use Google ads.

http://google-blog.dirson.com
http://google.blognewschannel.com *
http://google.blogspace.com *
http://google.weblogsinc.com
http://google.about.com
http://my-google.blogspot.com
http://www.googletutor.com
http://www.googleguide.com *
http://www.fuckinggoogleit.com
http://www.googlefight.com
http://www.googleduel.com
http://www.googlerankings.com
http://googlesightseeing.com
http://www.googleidol.com – linked from Google Video blog
http://www.bestofgooglevideo.com
http://googlemodules.com
http://www.google-dance-tool.com
http://www.googleearthing.com
http://www.googletouring.com
http://www.google-logos.com
http://www.googlerumors.com

* linked from the official Google Blog

Internationally too, e.g.:

http://googlediscovery.com
http://undergoogle.com
http://googlewatchblog.de

I have been aware of Google disabling publishers with Google in their URL for at least a couple of years now. It seems to be hit and miss, in terms of enforcement, I think it usually gets brought up when there is another compliancy issue that raises the attention of the AdSense team and then they hit you with the Google in URL thing too. People have also been hit for using AdSense in the domain name too (most famously, the people who formerly owned AdSense.com)

Ionut Alex. Chitu

Wow. Much more arbitrary than the Soviet Union under Stalin. It is a Heavy Stalin Styled Google.

We must notice the human rights in Internet fields. It is a wild, none controled, none democracy, new found land.

I think, many other companies also acted like a terrible tsarist country in USA, the world greatest democratic country.

It is a big shame.

Google INC, please cancel the bad policy, and begin a new stage for Internet. America used hundreds years to have the real human rights. Is internet also need hundreds years?

Any lawyers at this blog?

Grrrr. It's 10:30 p.m. on a Friday here, so it might take some time, but I'm asking about this now.

Hong Xiaowan
> For the same logic, Hitler was right, he just broke
> some people's human rights that marked special
> name. For now, This marked name is "Google".

Ever hear of Godwin's Law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Your rhetoric is making less and less sense.

Josh Matthouse: Thanks for pointing that out for me. After just reading through all the replies since I last posted, I must say I am perplexed by Hong Xiaowan's attitude.
Since when did having Adsence on your site become a right, much less a human right on par with the right to vote, right to free speech, right to free press, etc.?

Josh Matthouse

Thank you, I must point, if, another Nazi created really, you can not point it out, cause you will loose.
Do you think Godwin's Law is right at anytime anywhere? We should think it over, what is the key of Godwin's Law?

Godwin's Law should protect us, not hurt us. If this law can not protect our rights, why we need this Law.

In fact, topic so far, now, little related with Google Adsense, for protect human rights, Google already did better than many other companies.

Any company, should cancel their unlimited policy.

Hong Xiaowan:

From Wikipedia, on Godwin's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

"Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons.

The rule does not make any statement as to whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact."

Adsense is not a right. People are not forced to use Google in their domain, nor are they forced to give it up. There is no parallel to Hitler's actions.

Mirror of Wikipedia's article from Answers.com, in case Wikipedia is censored in China:
http://www.answers.com/topic/godwin-s-law

Also, I dispute your assertion that Google does not have some sort of right to its name. You have still not provided me with any culturally significant use of the term "Google" before Page and Brin coined it.

Philipp, I've asked folks about the China version of blogoscoped.com as well.

It's problematic that (in my opinion) sometimes using the term "Google" is perfectly fair use, and sometimes using "Google" can cause confusion, and deciding between those can be difficult. I don't think we did the best job in this case.

Mysterius

We know this Godwin's law, in China, Not only Hitler, the words like "Your rhetoric is making less and less sense." also break the Godwin's Law when we are controverting.

Here, we are not controverting, we are reasoning, Reason the truth. When reason the truth, we not care about which one is right, we only care about the truth. Yes, I also can have some mistakes when reasoning, just remove the mistake and keeping to find the truth.

>culturally significant use

For these, I will not talk for more, these informations is not free. In fact, I have the ways to get the gmail.cn and gmail.com.cn back. Google INC does know china law very well, even some law is so common.

Google INC only have the ways to ban our Gfans that loved Google. Just like a weak man rag his family

my web googlejava.com ,also Disallowed On URLs Containing "Google", Google Says .

Hong Xiaowan: ???

(I honestly mean no offense, but I think you're argument has been lost in translation. Could someone more clever than me *please* assist me in deciphering this?)

Mysterius...

> We know this Godwin's law, in China, Not only Hitler, the
> words like "Your rhetoric is making less and less sense." also
> break the Godwin's Law when we are controverting.
>
> Here, we are not controverting, we are reasoning, Reason
> the truth. When reason the truth, we not care about which
> one is right, we only care about the truth. Yes, I also can
> have some mistakes when reasoning, just remove the
> mistake and keeping to find the truth.

I think what Xiaowan means is that in China they don't have Godwin's law but a law that says "give face" even in debates, so he thinks it's violated when someone wrties a straightforward "Your rhetoric is making less and less sense."

> For these, I will not talk for more, these informations is
> not free. In fact, I have the ways to get the gmail.cn and
> gmail.com.cn back. Google INC does know china law
> very well, even some law is so common.
>
> Google INC only have the ways to ban our Gfans that
> loved Google. Just like a weak man rag his family

I think Xiaowan means that he would like to tell you more on that subject but that it would be dangerous in the context of Chinese government censorship actions to do so. But that Google doesn't have all their bases covered in China because they don't really know how to play politics with the Chinese gov't... and that with some gov't connections, you'd actually be able to take domains like gmail.cn away from them. And that all that Google really knows how to do in China is bully small webmasters, like a family father taking it out on his wife & kids when he's got a beef with his boss.

In this context it's worth to note that Xiaowan writes for google.blogoscoped.cn, as is shown below some posts on that site.

Mysterius & Philipp Lenssen

I am sorry. My english so ....

A. Difference for Controverting and Reasoning

1. For reasoning, any words permit. Including "Fuck You" "You are bitch" ect. Full open. Even fight permit. After reasoning, we can drink together, still friends.

2. For controverting, with many rules

In china, controverting is the way how to make fake looks like or listerns like Truth, it is a kind of Cheat. Reasoning is the way to find the truth behind the controverting.

B. Gmail.cn and Gmail.com.cn

I have the way to help Google to get these two domains. Google should pay a big attention as this case instead of ban google.blogoscoped.cn.

Hong Xiaowan: You're saying that when "reasoning" as opposed to "controverting", what matters most is whether there is any truth in your statement, though not everything you say may be true?

Ok. So, going by that, you're saying that while your comparison to Nazis/Hitler may have been exaggerated, you still feel you have a point about Google's degree of control over their brand name?

Note that in the case here, use of "Google" in the title or URL of a site could be construed as using a trademarked term as part of an unaffiliated brand name, versus simply using Google in the title of a post or in a paragraph.

Now, the argument that, if Google felt their trademark was being misused, they should C&D instead of using AdSense to discourage (potentially) inappropriate use of their trademarks, does have merit, but is it illegal or morally wrong (to the degree of being a violation of "human rights")?

No; while it's unfair (especially given the spotty record of enforcement), which makes it wrong to some degree, it does not violate any "human rights", as it does not prevent free expression/protest and publication of your opinions regarding "Google", which may include using Google's name in discussion (if not in a *brand*).

Therefore, I'd support your protest of Google's actions, and efforts to get Google to change such policies, but not labeling it a "violation of human rights", especially not on par with the Nazis or other authoritarian regimes, because equating relatively minor wrongs such as this with gross violations diminishes the impact when such gross violations really do occur, as I tried to point out with the quote from Wikipedia/Answers.com.

Update: Google.blogoscoped.cn is allowed back in for AdSense. The support apologized for the mixed messages that were sent, and apparently some mechanisms are now in place that these things won't happen as simply again, unless you're truly one of those rip-off-Google-brand scammer sites.

1.
controverting: Google is a word sourcing from Googel ect
reasoning: Google is a word that belong to everyone
2.
controverting: Online Office
reasoning: Office with online function, can online, can offline. Depands.
3.
controverting: No evil
reasoning: Please compared IT company's policy with the Hitler's law by yourself.
4.
controverting: Free food
reasoning: Good food for the programmer is low suger, low fat, low salt, coffee is not good for programmer, many bugs should comes from coffee. So the food for programmer is shrimp and fish(no meat, no chicken), vegetal with no suger, rice(no bread), Water and milk and tea(no coffee).

......

Anyway, I should say, Google did the best at IT, this world are this kind. Compared with the sweater shops, Google is the heaven. Internet is a new found land, the law is blind and weak at this field.

Hong Xiaowan:

1. Fact: Google is a made-up word, with scant history of prior use. Therefore, Google has a much stronger claim on the brand than, say, Microsoft has on "Windows" (or "Word", "Excel", "Live", etc.).

2. & 4. (Since you're giving examples, I presume no response is needed.)

3. Hitler persecuted individuals who did nothing to earn it. Google, at the least, can claim that people chose to include "Google" in their name.
Hitler killed off those he persecuted. Google stops paying people.
Google promptly responded to inquiries and promised to try to refine policy. Hitler... well, are you seeing the difference?

Quote:
"Anyway, I should say, Google did the best at IT, this world are this kind. Compared with the sweater shops, Google is the heaven. Internet is a new found land, the law is blind and weak at this field."
Reply:
Agreed (assuming I understand this correctly, which I believe I have).

Conclusion:
Even if their actions are analogous (and that is tenuous at best), you're comparing actions that are an order of magnitude apart.
Please reserve the Hitler/Nazi comparisons for those who deserve it...

3. For the political structure, despotic structure can easy lead to "Nazi", my meaning is, Hitler still had many limits......

I think if you're looking for analogies in history, then it's maybe mostly better to compare governments to governments, and companies to companies. For instance, IBM was a US tech company working closely together with the Nazi regime (aiding the deportation and killing of many people). I think there is some merit in checking today's tech companies in the light of what IBM did wrong (and to this day, doesn't fully admit to – check their homepage's history page). In the case of that analogy, I still don't think the Google AdSense department did anything closely resembling what IBM did, however, if we look at China censorship then we're entering territory where at least these kind of analogies become worthwhile to check against (though I *still* don't think there's anything there resembling what IBM did for the Nazis, for both the reason of the Chinese government today not being as bad as the Nazis – while Mao was ruling, conclusion to that one may well differ! --, as well as Google not being as bad as IBM).

It seems to me that Yahoo is missing a wonderful opportunity here.

This conversation seems to be winding down. If my last statements are coming up...

Hong Xiaowan: Again, I'm not sure what "limits" are in question, but I think I can say that I believe my prior "Conclusion" still stands.

Philipp Lenssen: Better analogy there. Perhaps the IBM:Nazis::Yahoo:China is even stronger, though certainly not on the same degree or order of magnitude, even.