Re: [Bug-gnubg] GnuBG/Play65&GE Domain Squatting

[Michael Petch]

On 2/6/08 8:57 AM, "Albert Silver" <address@hidden> wrote:

> The case should be good enough. The same logic on the name applies to them. What other reason could they have to use the name gnubg, other than for being the common abbreviation of GNU Backgammon. There is the clear-cut similarity with GNUBG.org, which is further evidence that it is to receive traffic that is mistakenly sent to the .com site. No need to be Sherlock Holmes here.

I have to agree. We may be an open source project without the deep pockets of Gammon Logic but the reality is they are using the value of our brand to promote themselves – And as far as I know we have no affiliation with them. I saved the current webpages they have and they don’t even reference us (Goes to motive). We definitely can show that our brand has existed far longer than the domain. I think good faith on Gammon Logic’s part.

I have a feeling on September 20th, 2005 Gammon Logic had a sales meeting trying to discover ways to increase traffic to their site. Someone decided “hey lets cybersquat and try to get traffic for other high quality products to our doorstep”. Then on September 21st the sales team registered both Netgamon dot com and Gnubg dot com (Yes, interesting both those were registered on same day – I don’t believe in coincidence).

It wasn’t until about last August (2007) when I sent someone to .com by accident, AND the person signed up and then told me they couldn’t find documentation/downloads for gnubg. Of course I was surprised about the person having to sign up and even more baffled by how you can miss gnu docs and downloads. Became clear when I went there. Some people on the net have inadvertently advertised gnubg via the .com URL (and I noticed there was a discussion last September about this same topic in another forum) - I happened to google around a bit.

Do I believe this was done in bad faith. Sure it was. The reality is that they use our brand recognition, but I doubt that Gnubg would want to associate with their brand. GammonLogic sites *seem* to have questionable business practice (And I don’t think I’m the only one who holds that opinion). I wasn’t surprise by the response on the rgb forum to my crosspost (And it identifies my point about how they are perceived by some).

Mike