Company miffed that consumers may be confused by Good.co vs. Good.com.
Good Technology Corporation, a mobility services company that uses the domain name Good.com, has sued (pdf) a career app and social network company using the name Good.co.
I suspect Good Technology Corporation is facing an uphill battle here. It uses a dictionary term with broad usage, and the arguments it makes in its case seem rather weak to me.
For example:
Defendant should have performed a trademark search before adopting the name Good.co. Had it done so, it would have discovered the GOOD Marks and that Good has been registering and using the GOOD Marks since 2001.
Apparently, the plaintiff doesn’t see a difference between the word “Good” and naming your company “Good.co”. The two are very different things.
It seems that the plaintiff is concerned that people who forget to type the “m” at the end of Good.com will end up at another company’s website, even if that other company offers a product that’s substantially different:
Defendant’s URL (www.good.co) differs from the URL for Good’s corporate website (www.good.com) by only a single letter. Internet users searching for information about Good’s company, products, and services can easily find themselves on Defendant’s website by simply failing to type the final letter. In fact, as of January 27, 2015, entering “Good.co” in the Yahoo!® search engine results in Good’s website – not Defendant’s website – being returned as the first result. Such fact could not reasonably have been lost on Defendant when it made the decision to change its business name from Manageup.Me to Good.co.
If you search on Google, Good.co comes up first.
While this is a legitimate concern for Good Technology, it can’t expect its generic brand to be protected in all top level domain names.
Good Technology Corporation alleges that Good.co changed its name to Good.co to capitalize on Good.com, even though Good.com really doesn’t compete as far as I can tell. Yes, they’re both tech companies that offer one or more apps. But the apps do vastly different things.
The federal lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, false designation of origin, cybersquatting and unfair business practices.
This story has been updated to better reflect the intention of the search engine complaint in the lawsuit.
George Kirikos says
I think you misunderstood the part about the Yahoo Search. The complainant at all times is referencing “Good” as themselves, not the defendant. So when they said:
“In fact, as of January 27, 2015, entering “Good.co” in the Yahoo!® search engine results in Good’s website – not Defendant’s website – being returned as the first result.”
they were saying that the first result is Good.com (which is still true as of today).
So the statement:
“Of course search engines return Good.co when you search for Good.co!
(I find it amusing that they refer to Yahoo! search rather than Google search, but you’ll get the same result with Google search.)”
is not correct. in Google, by the way, a search for “Good.co” doesn’t return Good.com as the first result (but returns Good.co).
Andrew Allemann says
Ah, you are right.
That makes the Yahoo! complaint just as baseless and a bit funny, wouldn’t you say? Someone who’s actually looking for Good.co might end up going to Good.com instead!
MRR says
Go the owners of good.co just happens to be a mobile platform,..same as good.com? Thats a coincidence right as the word ‘good’ usually refers to the mobile business sector? Lol. This is obviously a case of someone trying to capitalize on someone else’s reputation. I am all for generics being open to all…but sometimes…the evidence indicates BAD FAITH.
Andrew Allemann says
Their products don’t seem at all alike to me. Did you look at their websites?
One is a social network app described as the “eHarmony of Jobs”. The other provides enterprise mobility services.
MRR says
I didnt delve to deep into the business models. Good.com business model revolves around mobile….and good.co has an image of a mobile device on the home page. To me,…its obvious bad faith. What are the chances? Why not a picture of chocolate? or giraffes? or angels?…..anything could be the image…but it just happens to be an image of a mobile phone? I see an intent to capitalize on anothers brand. That said, will admit good.co may be able to prove a legitimate interest.
Tom F says
This is one of the main reasons I am staying away from new gtlds names. I agree that some people do infringe on trademarks knowingly, but this one doesn’t appear that way to me.
Reality says
Surprised this hasn’t happened more regularly. Lawyers will have a field day with new gTLDs.
temphi says
That the URLs differ by only a single letter is definitely a weak argument. Every .co domain differs from the equivalent .com domain by only a single letter.
Likewise .com from .cm and .om, .net from .ne, .ac from .ad, .ae, .af, .ag, .ai, .al, .am, .an, .ao, .aq, .ar, .as, .at, .au, .aw, .ax and .az etc.
You could argue that “good.com” differs from “god.com” by only a single letter, or “dog.com” if spelt backwards.