Google trademark lawyers protest Google being used as a verb |
Loading ...I’m not a trademark lawyer and don’t pretend to understand the intracies of trademark law. I also own Google stock. Neither of these truths should prevent me from exercising common sense which the following story seems to be lacking — on the Google side, via Washington Post:
Google, evidently, took offense to this passage in last month’s article: “Google, the word, now takes its place alongside the handful of proper nouns that have moved beyond a particular product to become descriptors of an entire sector — generic trademarks.”This characterization of Google, the letter warned, is “genericide” and should be avoided. Such letters are cranked out every day by companies keen on protecting their trademarks.
I do understand that from a legal perspective a brand must be protected or the trademark can be invalidated, but wouldn’t your name being treated as a verb strengthen the brand? Maybe I’m missing this one completely and need some lawyer readers to school me on why this dilutes the brand for people and publications to use Google as a verb?
They aren’t going to use Google as a verb to discuss something that isn’t related to Google (ok, maybe some writers will), so it all ties back into the brand. Normally, I would google search Google for the answer.
Somebody get Professor Strunk. Omit needless words!
Yeah, it’s bizarre. I liked Kent Newsome’s idea: “try to have your cake and eat it too”.
Comment by Sterling Camden — August 14, 2006 @ 2:31 pm PST
[…] Speaking of the importance we attach to naming things, TDavid says …Hmmm? about Google’s reported efforts to convince people to avoid using “Google” as a verb. […]
Pingback by StrayPackets » Google It, and Xerox Me The Hard Copy — August 14, 2006 @ 9:06 pm PST
Yeah, having a brand name become genericized has worked out sooo badly for so many companies. I mean, who’d want to copy the failure of Xerox? The makers of Scotch Tape certainly didn’t stick around. And Kleenex’s market has taken a real nose dive. Poor Sony and their Walkman. Poor Johnson & Johnson and their Band-Aid. If I was Google, I’d sure want to make sure people weren’t using my brand name every hour of every day, reinforcing the utility of my company with their friends and family. That’s clearly death to any brand.
Comment by Stuart Maxwell — August 14, 2006 @ 10:23 pm PST
[…] TDavid doesn’t understand their behavior this week, though. […]
Pingback by Scobleizer - Tech Geek Blogger » Google lawyers NOT evil — August 15, 2006 @ 3:52 am PST
The issue is making it generic. If the term becomes generic then anyone can call their vacuum cleaner a “Hoover”. Every tissues becomes a Kleenex. And every MP3 player an iPod.
Apart from the product confusion this can cause, what you’re saying is that it is okay for a newcomer to a market to use a strong brand name to promote their product nomatter the quality of the product. I could package up any old crap search engine and start to promote it as “googling”.
I know you’re not a trademark lawyer but the successes of Xerox, Sony, Hoover etc come at the expense of building a strong brand - the mechanism which includes the pursuit of those who would attempt to steal or dilute the brand. Sure, becoming a common noun is great for a company as it shows they command the market - but commoditized words become totally generic and can be used by anyone.
When you create a product and try and differentiate it in the market, then you’ll understand the difference. Especially if someone starts using your name to sell their own products.
Comment by MJ — August 15, 2006 @ 4:15 am PST
MJ wrote: “I could package up any old crap search engine and start to promote it as “googling”
What does going after media — the people who have protected speech for criticism, review and the like — for using their name as a verb have to do with a competing business? I’ve created lots of products and if I created a search engine and tried to use any variation of Google for advertising it, that would deserve contact from their trademark lawyers.
But that isn’t what is being threatened here. It is the use of their name as a verb, not as a noun. I’d like to see any case documented where a company’s brand has been hurt by their name being used as a verb. Ever. I don’t think one exists but I’ll await somebody, anybody to present this information.
Comment by TDavid — August 15, 2006 @ 6:51 am PST
“What does going after media … for using their name as a verb have to do with a competing business? … But that isn’t what is being threatened here. It is the use of their name as a verb, not as a noun. ”
It IS what is being threatened. IANAL myself, but allowing the name to be used as a verb means that the name becomes a common word, and so they cannot hold trademark on the noun as well. If “google” is a verb then anyone can allow people to google with their own services, regardless of whether it’s related to Google or not.
Does it hurt in the long run? Not sure. But it might. Sure, Xerox, Kleenex, at al, are still around, and doing fine. But people are repeatedly xeroxing documents on their xerox machines bought from companies which are not related to Xerox, and buy kleenexs on the supermarket without Kleenex getting a dime. What Google want to prevent here is the case where people will go and “google” stuff on Yahoo or Ask.com when they want to “google” something.
It’s semantically like you may not like it if everyone will start to tdavid their opinions on their own blogs.
Just like MJ wrote. If it’s a verb, then anyone can use it.
It’s a perception thing. If people think of the verb “google” instead of search, then when they want to search something they go to google. But if the verb becomes *too* common, people will not link it to them and Google will be just yet another place where you can google stuff.
Comment by Yaron — August 15, 2006 @ 1:03 pm PST
[…] - Google trademark lawyers protest Google being used as a verb (7) [aug 14] - What neck surgery is like in 2006 (5) [aug 16] - Stuck? 49 ways to crack writer’s block (9) [aug 16] - Yes you can, says Team Hoyt (0) [aug 17] - Review: no wimpy Snakes on a Plane (3) [aug 18] […]
Pingback by Make You Go Hmm: » Hmmcast #19: Catching up — August 18, 2006 @ 3:53 pm PST
Sorry folks, but google as a verb has been around at LEAST since July 8th, 1998 when Larry Page himself used it in this post:
http://web.archive.org/web/19991009052012/www.egroups.com/group/google-friends/3.html
Google needs to get over themselves. Theyre a verb. Deal with it.
Comment by Jonathan van Clute — August 18, 2006 @ 11:04 pm PST
[…] Recently there was controversy over Google being used as a verb and this page struck me as a good reference of how many terms Google has trademarked. It could be interesting to compare this list to Microsoft’s trademarks list. […]
Pingback by Make You Go Hmm: » A list of 92 Google trademarks — August 21, 2006 @ 1:45 pm PST
[…] A couple months ago there was a dustup over Google being used as a verb in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. I just noticed this post on the Google blog trying to make some sense out of trademark nonsense: Usage: ‘Google’ as verb referring to searching for information via any conduit other than Google. Example: “I googled him on Yahoo and he seems pretty interesting.” Our lawyers say: Bad. Very, very bad. You can only “Google” on the Google search engine. If you absolutely must use one of our competitors, please feel free to “search” on Yahoo or any other search engine. […]
Pingback by OK to use Google as a verb as long as it’s googling Google and not competitors » Make You Go Hmm — October 25, 2006 @ 11:34 pm PST
As Google is referred by the 99% of the public as a noun or a verb, I believe it is time to allow Google to go into the public domain. That doesn’t mean someone else can use Google as the name of their website, or business … but it does mean that Google needs to accept the fact that a generic name cannot be trademarked. It is true, that Google’s success is to blame for this “genericide,” (which, bye the way, I wish the person or person’s who coined this legal term of art had stayed away from, as it is too closely related to the worst form of human tradegy and behavior) … but that is what happens when the public believes they have a greater interest in the free expression of ideas and the universal right to use words in the dictionary, any way they want. Google is an American company, as just as they benefit from the internet developed and maintained by many people and organizations over 30 year now, they must repect the law of the land: A trademark which becomes generic is no longer protected by trademark rights. Period.
Charles
Bklyn
Comment by Charlesbklyn — May 9, 2007 @ 11:22 am PST
This is a Kodak moment.
Comment by Todd — December 9, 2007 @ 1:26 pm PST