Google's New VC Fund Lacks Domain Name

Discussion Policy

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Robin Wauters

TechCrunch.com
Tuesday, March 31, 2009; 3:43 AM

Now that Google has come out of the closet with its proper venture capital fund, dubbed Google Ventures, I'm curious as to how many people will be going to googleventures.com today, only to find that the domain name is neither owned or operated by the company.

We're not sure if this is an oversight or if Google has actively tried but failed to claim ownership over the domain name, but the fact is googleventures.com was first registered back in 2004, and that it's currently supposed to expire in June of this year.

Update: as reader George Kirikos correctly points out, Google has filed a UDRP (Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy) case for the domain name. See the National Arbitration Forum website for details (case number 1249421).

Since the WHOIS information at this point is unprotected, hence public information, we know that the domain name was registered by a James Hung from Connecticut. Hung is the CEO of The Hive, a "global venture consulting firm comprised of business and technology gurus, entrepreneurs, and strategic partners in the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Africa." The domain name is not being forwarded to the firm's website, but only displays an image saying that site is currently unavailable.

We've contacted both Hung and Google for comment.

In case you're wondering, Google's Terms of Service prohibit the use of "any of Google?s trade names, trade marks, service marks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features", so this is clearly a violation.

Cease & decist in 3, 2, 1 ¿