Maybe I'm missing something, but at first glance "Cuiler" and "Cuilest" seem like pretty blatant trademark infringements of "Cuil."
Possibly there's a parody defense; I dunno.
(See generally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement for an overview of how trademark infringement claims are analyzed, especially the "eight digits of likely confusion" test. The sophistication-of-the-purchaser factor might be significant here, but some courts also recognize what's been called "initial-interest confusion.")
Moreover, the Cuiler and Cuilest Web pages look _remarkably_ similar to the Cuil search page, and nothing like DDG's own search page. This makes me wonder about copyright infringement.
(Again, possibly there's a parody defense.)
If DDG didn't get a license from Cuil, perhaps Mr. Weinberg should anticipate getting a letter from Cuil's lawyers.
Is there something I'm not aware of that changes things?
Yes, it's meant to be and to be interpreted as a parody, i.e. fair use, etc. No cease and desist or lawsuit filed yet :). I did email them after the fact saying no hard feelings and hoped they continue the joke, but we'll see!
Possibly there's a parody defense; I dunno.
(See generally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement for an overview of how trademark infringement claims are analyzed, especially the "eight digits of likely confusion" test. The sophistication-of-the-purchaser factor might be significant here, but some courts also recognize what's been called "initial-interest confusion.")
Moreover, the Cuiler and Cuilest Web pages look _remarkably_ similar to the Cuil search page, and nothing like DDG's own search page. This makes me wonder about copyright infringement.
(Again, possibly there's a parody defense.)
If DDG didn't get a license from Cuil, perhaps Mr. Weinberg should anticipate getting a letter from Cuil's lawyers.
Is there something I'm not aware of that changes things?
(This isn't legal advice, etc., etc.)