Post by Jeremy and Ilanah:
The IPKat says this is an acute case of res ipsa loquitur.
HAS GOOGLE BOOBED OVER BOOBLE?
![HAS GOOGLE BOOBED OVER BOOBLE?]()
Reviewed by Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo
on
Sunday, February 01, 2004
Rating:
The BBC reports that leading internet search engine Google is issuing threats against a naughty sound-alike website, Booble, alleging both confusion and dilution of its famous GOOGLE trade mark. The Booble, web page, launched last week, looks fairly similar to Google’s, as a Google search will swiftly reveal. However, anyone probing beneath that website’s surface will discover that its adult content is of a somewhat spicy nature. When the IPKat visited Booble this evening, he found 78 hits for “bosom” and 63 for “bottom” but no hits for “chicken”, “Jeremy” or “Ilanah” or “IPKat” (phew!). Booble insists that its site is nothing but a harmless parody and that, in any event, it has a First Amendment entitlement to use the Booble name. Booble adds: “Only a lawyer could say Booble without smiling”. If this be so, the IPKat’s masters are certainly no lawyers.
The IPKat says this is an acute case of res ipsa loquitur.
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] The UK’s AI and copyright consultation – will data protection law render any commercial TDM exception ineffective?](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbUiGfTD43fEv8X8tQGvijKMJMnDC6oSPVCTILFF64TOPyIhkSFkt28Coa7C0bu4UGcLvN0T2Xz1xLNNxrlG5jgQRdf1NS67AZu9o6gzC8V0m-LCdkYfN8MJT5bIYojtxFLV-DUfhzuYGuB-jwT5qyaVNBpFFX4VK7-7301078eEuxEJ7rDqpkbg/s150/istock-1135379026_unrestricted_1110x800_0.webp)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html