Google Sends Legal Threats to Media Organizations

rm69990 writes "Google, becoming more and more concerned about the growing use of the word google as a verb, has fired off warning letters to numerous media organizations warning them against using its name as a verb. This follows google (with a lowercase g) being added to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary in June. According to a Google spokesperson: "We think it's important to make the distinction between using the word Google to describe using Google to search the internet, and using the word Google to describe searching the internet. It has some serious trademark issues.""

Comments

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[James_Aguilar]

I agree on your analysis of what Google is doing. I also have a question. They're trying to avoid losing their trademark by keeping the name from becoming too mainstream a word. However, do they actually have to succeed in order to maintain the trademark? Or, do they only have to demonstrate that they are trying?

Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[interactive_civilian]

from eldavojohn's link:

+ google /gogl/ (also Google) v. informal [intrans.] use an Internet search engine, particularly Google.com: she spent the afternoon googling aimlessly. [trans.] search for the name of (someone) on the Internet to find out information about them: you meet someone, swap numbers, fix a date, then Google them through 1,346,966,000 Web pages. ORIGIN: from Google, the proprietary name of a popular Internet search engine.

(emphasis mine)

Would it not be more correct to make the exact definition of the verb "google" to be "to use the Google.com search engine to search for information on the internet"? I mean, with the current definition, a person could say, "Yeah, I just googled it on MSN." I'm surprised Google hasn't gone after the dictionary to get the definition changed.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[andrewman327]

I take it you're from the South. The Coke example is interesting, as Pepsi is the primary one fighting it with their long running Ask for Coke campaign. Pepsi does not want people associating "Coke" with cola.

There is merit in defending the word "Google." After all, how many people (Simpsons fans excluded) associate the Dumpster brand with excellent trash bins? Similar to Google, the Xerox company has attempted to reclaim its name from generic use as a verb. After all, a TrashCo bin is not a dumpster. A store brand tissue is not a Kleenex. A bandage made by anyone other than J&J is not a BandAid. A Ricoh copier is not a Xerox machine. Yahoo! Search and Windows Live Search are not Google.

Japanese

[kahei]

Aww, the Japanese verb 'guguru', to search on the internet, is almost the only import from English that I don't hate. It's cool the way it becomes a proper verb with a full set of conjugations:

guguru -- google it
guguritakunakunaru -- to no longer want to google it
guguriyagaru -- f@@king google it
gugureba -- archaic pluperfect tense, now used as a subjunctive
gugurikarikeri -- poetic form: 'to have once been googled... and perhaps to be googled again'

Possibly from proto-Japonic '*gugumi', c.f. Goryeo '*g-g-o'.

Mind, I suppose it would depend on whether Google trademarked 'google' spelt in katakana.

Google = hypocrites

[Hao Wu]

Google copied their own name from "Googol", which has been claimed by the descendants of Milton Sirotta who invented the term.

They also stole "Googolplex" to name their corporate offices.

Google is as bad as Micromart, Wal-soft, and LOL. Part of their success is making you think otherwise.

They want to avoid the Sony fate

[Opportunist]

Sony lost its "walkman" trademark for just the same reason: It became an everyday word for a portable cassette player with earphones, so everyone may call his product "walkman".

I can understand the move. They sure as hell don't need more "market presence", they already have it. But isn't it interesting how things change? During my marketing courses, our teacher was running up and down with the primary goal to make your product name the "generic" name for the product group, so your brand is on everyone's mind when they think about the product group. Today, it's the worst thing that could happen to you, you may well lose your brand that way.

Did I already say today that brand/patent/copyright laws are sometime a little off the path of common sense?

Aspirin trademark -- not in the US since

[Secrity]

Bayer AG lost the aspirin trademark at the end of WW1 when the US confiscated Bayer AG's holdings. Sterling Drug bought the American and Canadian "Aspirin" and "Bayer" trademarks from the US government. In the US, aspirin was ruled to be a genericized trademark in 1921. In Canada, Aspirin remained a Sterling Drug trademark. Bayer AG bought Sterling Winthrop (and the Aspirin and Bayer trademarks) from SmithKline Beecham in 1994.

Heroin was also a Bayer trademark until the end of WW1. Bayer AG was merged into IG Farben sometime after WW1. After WW2, IG Farben directors were convicted of massive war crimes, as a result, IG Farben was broken up in 1951 -- Bayer AG was again a separate company.