Slashdot Mirror
Verbing Weirds Google
MoNickels writes "Back in January, the American Dialect Society voted the neologism "to google" as the most useful word of 2002. Now bring on the lawyers! Google's have sent a cease-and-desist letter to Paul McFedries, creator of the famous Word Spy site, demanding he remove google as a verb from his lexicon, or else. Frank Abate, an American editor for the Oxford English Dictionary, points out, however, that you can't claim proprietary rights to a verb." Update: 02/26 03:19 GMT by T : MoNickels writes with an update: "Frank Abate is not
an editor of the OED, but he is a former editor of the New Oxford
American Dictionary, both published by Oxford University Press." Thanks for the amendment!
Of course, the downside is that if Google loses it's trademark then other companies can use the term for themselves. Alltheweb can say, for example, "come google with us".
On the other hand, unlike the situation with Nintendo, no one can take google's domain name. If google does become a term meaning "to search the internet with an effective relevancy calculator" then their domain name will always be synonymous.
Personally, though, I say screw google. They put autopr0n on the 11th page on a search for "autopr0n", which doesn't make any damn sense. And no one is ever going to say "Let me Alltheweb for it."
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I think that an update should be posted at the article level ASAP - this way, with the "or else" clause, it just shows the editor never read the linked in material, and makes /. look bad.
VKh
They actually sent a cease and desist because use as a verb is clear signs that a trademark is becoming (or has become) generic. See TMEP 1209.01(c). As such, another party can use that as a defense if Google tries to claim trademark infringement. So I'm not surprised they sent the cease & desist and would have done the same thing.
Anybody recall the Xerox ad of a few years ago... "There are two R's in XEROX(r) "? The whole purpose of that ad was to get people to realize that a) XEROX is a trademark and b) to stop using it as a verb (i.e., "I xeroxed this article for my friend") which causes it to lose its trademark status.
Trademarks, though a form of intellectual property, are more about consumer protection than about restricting people from using certain words.
-A
Sorry, no - the noun is googol.
"Google" comes from a pun on googol and a contraction of "Go ogle".
-T
"Google" might be a trademark, but "google" isn't
...
But maybe they fear that something happens to them like to Xerox. If "to google" becomes a common word, maybe then their trademark would be worthless? Next, someone sets up googler.com and defends itself by purporting that "googler" cannot breach a trademark more than "searcher".
I don't know
Apparently you didn't read the linked article (it's okay - not the first time on Slashdot, and won't be the last).
Verb usage is specifically exempted from US trademark law. So while it is true that Google would have to sue to prevent dilution of its trademark in the case of other "Google sites" or "Google services", when it comes to "googling" (esp. as in the current case, that is, dictionary, word, and usage tracking) they have no legal leg to stand on.
Google on, friends.
-renard
Suppose I set up Supergoogle, a web search site. Google wants to go to court and get an injunction to stop me from using that name. To do that, they will need to submit an affidavit from an officer of the company that explains, among other things, how Google has tried to protect its trademark. A typical paragraph of that affidavit could be a short explanation of how Google once sent a letter to a person whose web site implied that Google wasn't a trademark. A copy of the letter would be attached to the affidavit as one of many such exhibits.
The primary purpose of sending the letter on this occasion was to prepare for that possibility.
Apple Computer had to deal with Apple Inc because they claimed that the Apple Computer was a musical device, which I can kinda see. The "settlement" was largish sums of money.
On a related note, Apple paid royalties to Coca Cola for using the word "Classic" to describe a product.. damn USPTO again I guess.
My daughter said she was googling for her other sock,
yesterday. I think it's coming to mean much more
than just searching online. More like, searching
every possible location. A comprehensive search.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
And you're what, an armchair trademark attorney?
The fact is, that the public has immense power to influence trademarks. If PEOPLE generically use Xerox to mean 'to copy documents,' 'photocopiers,' and/or 'copied documents,' then the trademark will die. This is known as genericide, since a generic word cannot be trademarked. (Which is why you can't trademark Apple with reference to the fruit; that's the generic name! Has nothing to do with the computer company.)
Asprin, heroin, cellophane... these all _used_ to be trademarks. Xerox and kleenex have been on the verge for ages. Sanka just barely managed to save their mark.
Personally, I think it's fun, and I often use marks as generic words (for example, being from the South, I call all soft drinks coke unless I'm trying to specifically discuss one in particular).
Thus, if people DO use google to mean to search for something online, this will destroy the Google trademark over time. I say, let's do it!
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.