Actually, Searches For ...

Just last week, Google was promoting the fact that “Google+” was the No. 2 fastest-growing search term of the year in its annual Zeitgest list. And it did have an amazing pop when it hit “ 10 million members ” a couple weeks after launch last summer. People wanted to know what this new Google+ thing was all about. And since it didn’t exist the year before, on a percentage basis the growth in the number of searches for the term was astronomical. If you are not paying close attention and hear that “Google+” was the No. 2 search term of the year, you might assume that a lot of people are still searching for it. But you would be wrong. The Zeitgeist site shows all sorts of stats about that pop in searches for “Google+” back in July. What you won’t find there is the overall trend of searches for the term, and the fact that searches have been declining. In order to find that you have to go to Google Insights for Search , a terrific tool that lets you plot search volume for any term. You can see the chart for “Google+” above. The trend is not good. There was an initial spike at launch, then a lot of hype around the 10-million-user announcement, and then a smaller spike in September when it opened up to everyone. Then the search volume just kind of peters out. Why is this important? Searches are an indication of pure intent. People search for what they intend to do. Venture capitalists look at search volume data all the time as a gut check to see whether there is any interest in a startup’s product. The same logic applies to products at big companies like Google. If fewer and fewer people are searching for “Google+”, it makes you wonder if anyone is actually using it. Remember, just because Google+ has tens of millions of registered users, that doesn’t mean those people ever came back after Google made them click to register. All you have to do for a reality check on this approach is compare searches for “Twitter” to “Google+” (see chart below). Interest in Twitter dwarfs Google+. (Don’t even try to compare it to searches for “Facebook”—that spike turns into a flat line). People search for what they intend to do or want to learn more about. They even search for “google” or “gmail,” but not so much for “google+.” The fact that the “Google+” line isn’t as big as the one for “Twitter” or “Facebook” would be fine if it was growing. But it’s not. It’s going in the opposite direction.

Google’s Fruitless Atte...

Last August, Google filed a complaint with the National Arbitration Forum to finally get a hold of the domains names goggle.com, goggle.net and goggle.org (don’t visit these). Yesterday, the organization dismissed its claims . That doesn’t mean the owner of the domain names – a shady company called Goggle.com Inc. – should break out the champagne just yet, though. The Internet search and advertising giant’s complaint in itself is interesting. Apparently, Google isn’t merely claiming that the disputed domain names are ‘confusingly similar’ to its trademark and that they currently lead to a website that hosts a phishing scam, but also that it had previously entered into a confidential settlement agreement with the former owner of the domain names. I’m lifting the relevant parts from the Forum’s decision (which you can also find here ) and copying them below, with emphasis added. Note that the complainant is Google; the respondent is Goggle.com Inc: Complainant states that it had previously filed a UDRP proceeding against the original registrant of the disputed domain names. Complainant states that the parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement and the proceeding was dismissed. Complainant further states that since the domain names have been subsequently transferred to a third-party with whom it has no prior dealings, the agreement was not set forth in the Complaint. Those trademark rights, in any event, predate the transfer to Respondent. Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s GOOGLE mark . Those domain names contain a misspelled version of the GOOGLE mark where the domain names simply replace the letter “o” with the letter “g” and add a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant contends that it has not authorized Respondent to use or register the disputed domain names. Further, Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names even though the WHOIS information indicates that the registrant is “Goggle.com, Inc.” because an Internet search does not return any results for that company name as a legitimate business. Complainant further argues that Respondent cannot claim to be offering legitimate goods and services through the domain names because it is diverting Internet users to a website that intends to copy the look and feel of Complainant’s website and deceiving users into signing up for expensive text messaging plans . Complainant contends that such use is invariably a “phishing” scam in which Respondent receives the personal and financial information of unsuspecting Internet users, and turns around to turn a profit with such information. Further, Complainant submits screen shot evidence to show that the website resolving from the domain name looks and feels just like Complainant’s official website while using a close variation of Complainant’s logos. Complainant alleges that Respondent gained possession of the disputed domain names in 2007 or early 2008. Complainant argues that Respondent acquired the domain names in order to effectuate some kind of phishing scheme in which Internet users are made offers for devices such as an “iPad 2” so long as they give personal information and sign up for text message plans for cellular phones. Goggle Inc., meanwhile, asserts that it purchased the domain names in good faith and on reliance of a previously signed ‘Co-existence Agreement’, which would mean rights transferred to the company when they bought the domain names. They also state that ‘goggle’ is a real word that has nothing to do with Google’s trademark, and that Google “does not have an exclusive monopoly on the term on the Internet”. They also note that Google’s possible motive in bringing this UDRP claim is “that it has recently launched a new mobile service called Google Goggles”. From the NAF decision (emphasis mine): Respondent asserts that it purchased and registered the domain names in good faith and on reliance of the Co-existence Agreement. Respondent attaches the Co-existence Agreement (between Complainant and Knowledge Associates, the original registrant) and a Purchase and Assignment Agreement (between the original registrant and a company identified as 1158860 Alberta, Ltd). Further, Respondent submits a letter, which was sent to Complainant before the purchase giving Complainant the right of first refusal as required under the terms of the Co-existence Agreement. Respondent states that it purchased the domain names from the original registrant based upon the Co-existence Agreement that was expressly placed within the Purchase and Assignment agreement, and that it has followed the required sections of that agreement. Lastly, Respondent states that the very terms of the Co-existence Agreement expressly and specifically contemplated such a future sale of the domain names and permitted such, so long as certain aspects of the agreement were also agreed to by the new purchaser. Respondent argues that the domain names all contain the separate and unique term “goggle,” and cannot be found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s good mark . Further, Respondent references the Co-existence Agreement that states, “the word goggle will not be considered as a misspelling of the word google.” Respondent argues that the term “goggle” of the domain names is a real and separate word from Complainant’s mark, therefore permitting the Panel to find that the domain names are not confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent also references the Complaint that states that “the manner in which Respondent is using the Domain Names” is the issue here. Respondent contends that such a statement is an admission by Complainant that the domain names are not similar to the GOOGLE mark, and that Complainant is trying to prove confusing similarity by bringing in Respondent’s use of the domain name instead of an objective analysis of the mark’s and the domain names’ similarities. Respondent argues that, contrary to Complainant’s assertions, it is in fact known as “Goggle” because its corporate name is “Goggle.com, Inc.,” and that it has carried out business under this name for nearly four years. Respondent submits its corporate registration as part of its annexes to show that it is in fact registered as a business under the “Goggle.com, Inc.” name. Respondent further notes that its banking information is under the “Goggle.com Inc.” name and that it receives all payments from third-party advertisers under its corporate name. Respondent contends that it is using the disputed domain names in the same manner as the previous registrant did for advertising and marketing solicitations. Respondent argues that such uses were known, accepted, and condoned by Complainant before it signed the Co-existence Agreement with the prior registrant. Respondent notes that it is able to conduct the same type of business activity under the disputed domain names because the Co-existence Agreement that Complainant signed contemplated such use by future purchasers. Respondent contends that Complainant’s recent objection about the recent use of “an arguably similar graphic logo” does not nullify Respondent’s long-standing use of the domain names for its advertising and marketing solicitations. Respondent also states that it removed the allegedly infringing logo from its website since that time, and that it has only been used for a short period of time. Respondent maintains that it has not violated the terms of the Co-existence Agreement, and that it has rights in the domain names. Respondent also argues that the term “goggle” of the disputed domain names is common and generic, and therefore, Complainant does not have an exclusive monopoly on the term on the Internet . Respondent alleges that Complainant has acted in bad faith and is engaging in reverse domain name hijacking by initiating this dispute. Respondent contends that Complainant is attempting to deprive Respondent, the rightful, registered holder of the disputed domain names, of its rights to use those names. Respondent contends that Complainant buried the fact of the existence of the Co-existence Agreement . The only reference to the fact of its existence was hidden away in the only footnote to its entire 15-page Complaint. Respondent notes that the terms of the Co-existence Agreement were all followed, and that Complainant had the right to purchase the domain names per that agreement and chose to let Respondent register them instead. Respondent further notes that Complainant’s possible motive in bringing this UDRP claim is that it has recently launched a new mobile service called “Google Goggles,” and wishes to use the domain names for its own gain. Therefore, Respondent contends that Complainant knew at the time of filing this Complaint that Respondent did not register or use the domain names in bad faith. The three-person National Arbitration Forum panel that made the decision to dismiss the case aren’t necessarily agreeing with either party. Rather, the panel says it declines jurisdiction in the matter and suggests national courts are better equipped to handle such ‘contractual or business disputes’. I suspect Google will indeed be taking this to court next. To be continued, sadly. Crunchbase GOOGLE Company: Google Website: google.com Launch Date: July 9, 1998 IPO: NASDAQ:GOOG Google provides search and advertising services, which together aim to organize and monetize the world’s information. In addition to its dominant search engine, it offers a plethora of online tools and platforms including: Gmail, Maps and YouTube. Most of its Web-based products are free, funded by Google’s highly integrated online advertising platforms AdWords and AdSense. Google promotes the idea that advertising should be highly targeted and relevant to users thus providing them with a rich source of information.... Learn more

T-Mobile’s New Terms &a...

Anyone who’s ever taken a stab at reading through a Terms & Conditions agreement knows that they normally rival the Iliad in length. There are two reasons companies do this: first, the more words, the more coverage and protection that company gets within its T&C, and second, the less likely you are to actually read it and find out that you’ve agreed to sell your first born child as payment for this or that product. Or worse, your warranty ends after the first month. Since no one but lawyers ever enjoys reading these lengthy contracts, we’ve taken it upon ourselves to figure out what’s new in T-Mobile ’s Terms & Conditions, which were updated July 24 . In truth, not much has changed. However, a new clause regarding changing plans has found its way into the contract. Section Five now reads: “Changes to Your Service: You may be unable to change your Rate Plan, including services and features associated with your Rate Plan. You may request to change to another Rate Plan during your Term, and if we authorize the change, you may be charged a migration fee of up to $200 for each line of service, and you may continue to be bound to your existing Term or an extended Term. The amount of the migration fee will decrease as the time remaining on your Term decreases. For specific information about changing your Rate Plan, including migration fee details, call T-Mobile.” This updated version of the T&C was released alongside a new set of cheaper smartphone plans from T-Mobile called “Value” plans . This new clause is meant to transition people from the old to the new plans. If you’re interested in switching from a Classic plan to a Value plan, here are some things to think about: The reason the Classic plan is more expensive is because it includes subsidies for new phones, and discounts when you’re eligible for an upgrade. With a Value plan, you’re required to pay the full price of the phone when purchased from T-Mobile, whether that be in one lump sum, or with a down-payment followed by monthly installments. That bit in the T&C about “if we authorize the change” may sound a bit overbearing but T-Mo is actually just looking out for you. If you happen to be a repeat upgrader, than the lower monthly bills from Value plans may not be very helpful. The saved cash will likely have to go towards your next smartphone, since opting out of the Classic plans excludes you from any subsidies or upgrade discounts. By adding this to the T&C, T-Mobile is making sure that both parties are aware of the consequences that a plan switch-up might bring along. On the other hand, if you own a travel phone or a secondary phone that you don’t plan on upgrading/replacing any time soon, a switch over to a Value plan may be your best choice. You’ll just have to eat that $200 migration fee.

One Book Every Entrepre...

Editor’s Note:  This is a guest post by Mark Suster ( @msuster ), a 2x entrepreneur, now VC at  GRP Partners . Read more about Suster at his  Startup Blog ,  BothSidesoftheTable. tl;dr version: If you’re an entrepreneur or VC or will be working in this industry -  buy this . read it. live it. When I first started as a startup CEO in 1999 there were no guides on raising venture capital. There were no explanations for all of the confusing details outlined in a term sheet. Drag along rights? Um, OK. That sounds fine to me. I barely understood it. I asked my lawyer for an explanation. He gave me the human explanation for what the term meant. It sounded logical enough, so I moved on to the next point. Only later did I learn how it could be used to screw me. Redemption rights? Sounds harmless enough. But know that every term in your term sheet is there as a result of some dispute of the past between shareholders or between shareholders & management.  Founders don’t often think about “primary” stock vs, “fully diluted” stock in terms of voting rights. I never did. VCs always know the voting thresholds and no number in your term sheet is there by accident. To this day I’m still surprised how few CEOs really understand the differences between 2x liquidation preference and a liquidation preference with a 2x cap. Or what “participating preferred” stock is and how it can screw you. Or what “flat spots” on a cap table are. If you want to see a quick summary of some terms & a video that walks you through how VCs view a cap table my colleague Kelly Hwang & I produced a quick tutorial here : In fact, some of the biggest surprises I learned about term sheets were: 1) how the language never says anything remotely like “blocking rights” for terms that VCs want to use to block certain actions of your company. Liquidation preferences never say things like “participating preferred” although we all talk about it. It’s hidden in legal language. Blocking rights and liquidation preferences exist for rational reasons and when used properly are fair. Used egregiously and you’ll have problems later. You need to understand them. 2) how seldom lawyers walk you through the “how can this term be used against you” scenarios or the “pragmatic guide to VC terms” overview. They are helpful, certainly, but often if you don’t know the right questions to ask you’ll be left unawares. 3) VCs are anal about things like voting thresholds, seniority of their stock, protective provisions, etc. – entrepreneurs never seem to focus on anything other than ownership percentage. It’s no surprise that I got a bit fawked on my first company. There was no guide. No book. VCs were negotiating with asymmetric information . Brad & Jason’s, Venture Deals , aims to change this. I was significantly wiser by 2005 when I started my second company. Even so, I found myself reading Feld.com every day. I think that’s around the time when Brad & Jason did their famous “term sheet series,” which was the authoritative guide I never had the first time. I read every post several times. This series inspired me to start my blog as a VC. I also decided never to spend much time on term sheets on my blog because they had already covered it far better than I thought I ever could ( Jason was a lawyer with Cooley Godward, one of the top VC law firms, after all). From there VentureHacks was then launched which gave entrepreneur advice on fund raising from your point of view. It is also a must read. Now Brad & Jason have raised the bar. They’ve written this comprehensive book called Venture Deals that should be read by anybody dealing with funding of startups – whether you’re a startup CEO, CFO or other founder or whether you work in the ecosystem (lawyer, debt provider, banker, VC). It goes far beyond any other book I’ve seen on the topic in helping you understand the key terms, plan the negotiation and understand the motives of the various actors at the table. It’s a gem. I think the industry works better when all sides are informed. The fact that Brad so routinely puts out information like this is what earned him the number one spot on this list of VCs that entrepreneurs most respect . And while Jason is less high profile as the ever-present Brad Feld, I think even Brad would acknowledge that when it comes to the knowledge supplied in a book like this, Jason is the man with the deep knowledge. Let’s get rid of the information asymmetry problem. Every startup needs the knowledge in this book.

Apple Strikes Back in A...

Shockingly enough, Apple isn’t down with Amazon’s claim that the term “app store” is generic, and recently denied such a claim during the ongoing tiff between the two application providers. Amazon argues that the term “app store” is generic, and when the words are put together, they signify a store where one can buy and download applications. Read more…