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

Generic Brand Name Issue

[eldavojohn]

I think the reasoning behind this is that Google is attempting to preemptively stop any possible legal issues with their name. I mean, you run into issues when things are known by a brand name. Take for instance Kleenex, Jell-O, Frisbee & Hoover. You know what all these are and there's a fairly good chance you've called an imposter brand the same name.

What I speculate Google is worried about is that the verb "googled" becomes generic for search as in "I googled it." And the law says you can't trademark something that is generically used. Essentially, if a case occurred with a rival search engine putting "Just google it!" at the top of their page and the court said they could do that because 'google' is a generic term, then you would have precedent for millions of Google imposters seeking to make money off the Google name (since it just means search to the general public).

Google figures it already is a household name. The last thing they need is the media dumping 'google' as a verb in the papers because if they start putting it in headlines and stories--it's a much easier case for another company to claim it is part of the English language. Hell, it's already in two entries in the Oxford dictionary. I think you could already argue a case to use the word "google" to mean search on your site.

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?

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[babbling]

What I speculate Google is worried about is that the verb "googled" becomes generic for search as in "I googled it."

There's no need to speculate. That's exactly what they're claiming!

"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."

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[howlatthemoon]

There is no need to speculate as to why they need to do this. Marks work differently than patents or copyright. Failure to defend a mark can allow it to fall into the public domain. Google could lose the exclusive right to use google as a mark. They do not need to pursue every infringement, but need to demonstrate that they are defending the mark. They need to take special care to defend it against significant infringement which could weaken their case for exclusive use. IANAL (as if you couldn't figure this out by my taking time to read and post), but my spouse use to to work in mark protection, so I learned a bit about it.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Hal_Porter]

Trademarks can be revoked if they become generic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining _trademark_rights_.E2.80.94_abandonment_and_generi cide

Further, if a court rules that a trademark has become "generic" through common use (such that the mark no longer performs the essential trademark function and the average consumer no longer considers that exclusive rights attach to it), the corresponding registration may also be ruled invalid.

For example, the Bayer company's trademark "Aspirin" has been ruled generic in the United States, so other companies may use that name for acetylsalicylic acid as well (although it is still a trademark in Canada). Xerox for copiers and Band-Aid for adhesive bandages are both trademarks which are at risk of succumbing to genericide, which the respective trademark owners actively seek to prevent. In order to prevent marks becoming generic, trademark owners often contact those who appear to be using the trademark incorrectly, from web page authors to dictionary editors, and request that they cease the improper usage.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[TEMMiNK]

I know that in Australia (which counts for nothing) simply acting to defend your trademark is enough to keep it, if you allow people to utilise it and don't protect it you then run into a problem when you try to sue them for millions.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[skoaldipper]

Or, do they only have to demonstrate that they are trying?

Like the former googlegear.com? Now it's zipzoomfly.com. Lindows anyone? On and on it goes, where it stops nobody knows. When does it end? I predict by the year 2037, the Blue Union Labor League Society Helping Industry Trade will mandate that all our children lose their first and last name to avoid any future trademark lawsuits, using their social security numbers instead.

"Do you 103569872, take 324091256 to be your lawfully wedded wife? To have and to hold, until death or soylent green do you part?"...

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[James_Aguilar]

Read this Wikipedia section about trademark abandonment and genericide and you will understand.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[flumps]

I would have done but its been slashdotted. Or is that Slashdotted. erm.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[spun]

Yes, but did you know the number of horns and hooves used in Jell-o brand gelatin has tripled in the last three months?

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Penguin]

That article could use a couple of more clear examples. Like the elephants in Africa that lost the rights of their own name since elephants tripled in population without preventing it themselves.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[NMerriam]

Wait a minute. Doesn't anyone know that the word google isn't a verb, isn't owned by a company, but actually refers to a mathematical number?

Google is a made up word. Googol is a one followed by a hundred zeros.

Trademarking a made-up spelling of a real word is perfectly acceptable, and quite common.

Trademark :-(

[ExE122]

What the hell is Google thinking? Any mention of their name is great publicity and they should be happy with it. Instead they look like a bunch of corporate penny mongers trying to be a general inconvenience.

It almost reminds me of the time that Despair, Inc. patented the frowney emoticon :-( and threatened to charge anyone that used them. "Let our message to trademark violators be clear. Whether you are a 4th grade nothing using your momma's AOL account, or you are Time Magazine's 'Man of the Year', we are going to hunt you down, and when we do, we're really going to give you something to :-(® about."

The only difference is that Despair was only joking :-P.

--
"A man is asked if he is wise or not. He replies that he is otherwise" ~Mao Zedong

Did anyone hear about...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone hear about that one site that got slashdotted the other day after it got posted on Digg? It was down for ages!

Too late

[ral315]

Like many other companies, they didn't worry about it until it became too mainstream to stop. It's like LEGO wanting people to call them "Lego bricks" instead of "Legos", or Kleenex using "Kleenex brand tissues"- it's not going to happen, and at some point they will lose their trademark rights because of it.

Re:Too late

[peipas]

...and at some point they will lose their trademark rights because of it.

I think Kimberly-Clark will have to worry about losing their Kleenex trademark no sooner than Disney's copyrights expire. Read: never.

Not offtopic

[Red Flayer]

Anyone hear about that one site that got slashdotted the other day after it got posted on Digg? It was down for ages!

Someone please grasp the subtlety of the parent (though I wish they hadn't posted AC)... The motivation for modding it offtopic is exactly why Google seeks to keep 'to google' out of the vernacular.

Obviously, some moderator was upset that 'to be slashdotted' was associated with Digg in the parent. I think this just validates why Google is taking this action.

Anyway, nice one, AC.

Re:Not offtopic

[andphi]

I agree. Both 'google' and 'slashdot', as verbs, have very specific meanings that are lost in generalization. For example, the other day, on some news site or other, I saw two links at the top of the story: "digg this" and "slashdot this". What they meant to say, of course, was "submit this story to (digg|slashdot)". However, to a long-time slashdotter (I have two UIDs, one orphaned, one active), "slashdot this" struck me as a Very Bad Idea, as it actually said "reduce this server to multi-kilobuck toxic sludge."

Protecting Trademark

[chad9023]

No, this does not make Google evil. Like any company, they have to protect their trademark, or they risk losing it. If some other company can show that people are using the term Google generically (not referring to Google itself), that Google knew about this and did not take action to prevent it, then they can challenge the trademark.

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

[anagama]

"Yeah, I just googled it on MSN."

"I'll have a coke. .... No, not the red one. I want the green coke, the one with the number 7 on it."

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.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[jopet]

That depends on whether a dictionary should be seen to be normative or descriptive. As far as I know this dictionary is intended to describe how a term is actually used, no matter how a third party (or indeed the creators of the dictionary) think it *should* be used.

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[SpiceWare]

I always hated that when I worked at KFC.

Customer,"I'll have a coke"
Me, "here ya go"
Customer, "That's not what I wanted, I wanted orange!"
Me, thinking, "then why didn't you ask for orange, ya friken moron"

After that happened a number of times, I started asking which soda they wanted, which would end up turning into

Customer,"I'll have a Coke"
Me, "what kind of soda would you like?"
Customer, "Uh, what do you mean, I said Coke..."
Customer, thinking, "is this guy dense or something?!?!"

It was a lose-lose situation. Even though I didn't drink Pepsi, I was glad when they bought KFC. That turned it into:

Customer,"I'll have a coke"
Me, "We don't sell Coke, we have Pepsi"
Customer, "That's OK, I want orange."

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[WormholeFiend]

Pepsi does not want people associating "Coke" with cola

Moot point. Have you ever been to a restaurant that serves BOTH Coke and Pepsi products?

Last time I tried to be funny with a waiter, I told him I wanted a Pepsi, and he replied "how about a Coke".

Me: "No I want a Pepsi"
Waiter: "Well, I could say 'ok' and bring you a Coke and not tell you about it"

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[slack-fu]

Obviously his recipe for Pepsi was (Pepsi = Coke + Spit) I never give my waiters a hard time :/

Re:Dictionary definition appears to be wrong

[quigonn]

Whenever I ask for coke, all I get is this expensive white powder...

Re:Evil

[tgd]

How is protection of a trademark evil?

If they don't do that, then Microsoft could legally set up "google.microsoft.com" and run all their searches through there.

IE could say "Google: " and point the query at MSN.

Google is a business. If they don't protect their trademark, they're committing suicide. If the management doesn't, they're going to be sued into oblivion by their shareholders.

Evil? Just because you don't understand an action doesn't make it evil.

Googled does sound dirty though

[Rik Sweeney]

Anyone remember Buffy The Vampire slayer?

Willow: Have you Googled her yet?
Xander: Willow, she's seventeen!

"Help" Season 7, Episode 4

Re:Evil

[gEvil (beta)]

See, Google is starting to become Evil.

Don't worry. I'm still in the early beta stages. I'll let you know when I've become fully actualized.

Googling woes

[Rob T Firefly]

Once I was feeling artistic, so I Googled how best to Xerox my head onto a Playboy Bunny, maybe using some Scotch Tape, but found out I could Photoshop it instead. So, I had a Coke, grabbed some Kleenex, and got to work.. but was disturbed by my mom coming in to Hoover. So I quickly shut down the PC, and decided to use Crayolas and Play-Doh instead.

Brand Mismanagement?

[Viceice]

Before everyone starts with the "OMG, Google is Evil!" let me say this.

Companies have collective wet dreams about their product names replacing generic terms, like Panadol instead Paracetamol, or Coke instead of Cola. But this is always as a reenforcement of their brand, if the term "brand" is understood NOT as simply a logo and pakaging, but all the intrinsic values of the product combined. For instance, if you ask for Panadol, it's for the brandname drug that is fast acting and effective in a low dose.

So when we say "to google" we mean to use this very efficient search engine with a low signal to noise ratio to quickly come up with a useful fact. Googles beef with this is the use of "to google" to mean "Use any search engine to...", this is akin to you going to a restaurant and upon asking for a Coke, you are instead served a Pepsi or Dr. Pepper.

I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Could someone Xerox it for me?

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[kzinti]

Oh gawd! I need an Aspirin.

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[Comboman]

That's just a Band-Aid solution.

Re:I can't find my copy of the memo from Google,

[hackstraw]

Could someone Xerox it for me?

That is funny, but it also says volumes (in triplicate!)

Google, like other companies, has issued press releases in the attempt to preserve their brand name. But with the Xerox example, that is a little different.

Xerox started out as a photocopying company, and Xerox used to be synonymous as a verb to do photocopies. But now, that term (at least in the US) has lost its uniqueness with just "copy" or "photocopy" and I guess the reason is that the technology is not new anymore, and Xerox does not hold anywhere near a monopoly on the market anymore.

Now with Google, I would bet the same thing would have to apply. Google may lose the monopoly on searches, but I surely don't see the company going away in at least 20 or so years. My hunch is that they are going to be around for a loonng time, and that is a good thing(tm).

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.

Re:Evil

[badfish99]

Protection of a trademark isn't evil, but Google made a big mistake when they chose the "don't be evil" motto. Now every negative press article about them quotes the motto, in a context that makes it look hypocritical. Just look at TFA, which begins "... Google, known for its mantra "don't be evil", has fired off a series of legal letters ...".

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.

Re:Google = hypocrites

[ZeroExistenZ]

Google is as bad as Micromart, Wal-soft, and LOL.

Not to forget Mike Rowe, the bastard...

*shakes fist*

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?

What Google means at Google

[null etc.]

Amongst the general population, the accepted usage of the term "google" is to denote the process of performing a search via the Google Internet search engine. However, at Google's own corporate campus, the verb form of the word "Google" takes on several different meanings, depending upon context. Following are some examples to illustrate the multi-faceted use of the word "Google":

"He insisted on programming the solution in Perl, but I googled him around a bit and he finally reprogrammed it in PHP." Translation: to bully.

"The manager wanted the TPS reports yesterday, but I told him my email must have been googled and that I would have to resend it." Translation: to get lost in a mess of seemingly incomprehensible data.

"She has nice legs, but I heard that one guy who asked her out got reprimanded by the googles." Translation: overly sensitive PC/PR lawyers who retain power through the threat of incoming litigation.

"I checked my stock balance the other day an my shares had dropped $200! I lost over a million dollars! Then I woke up and realized it was just a google." Translation: nightmare.

"I wanted to buy the new GM hybrid, but after I read the consumer safety warnings about its sneaky legal tactics, that googled me over to Toyota." Translation: to drive away customers via bad corporate reputation.

There HAVE to be at least TEN ALTERNATIVES...

[The_REAL_DZA]

The Top-10 Alternatives to "I googled it" (note the lower-case 'g'):

• 10 "I AltaVista'd it" (potential ad campaign: "Hasta la vista, Google!")
• 9 "I Yahoo!'d it" (Good luck with that lawsuit; it's been in the official motto of several states for decades!)
• 8 "I Asked it" (AKA "I just axed it", since they "axed" poor Jeeves...)
• 7 "I HotBot'd it" (She's not all that hot these days...)
• 6 "I WebCrawler'd it" (Crawl being the operative word; no speed records broken here!)
• 5 "I Accoona'd it" (Possibly illegal to admit in several states)
• 4 "I Lycos'd it" (Not to be confused with "I Pecos'd it" from the 1950's...)
• 3 "I Netscaped it" (That's netscaped not netscraped)
• 2 "I AOL'd it" (Roughly analogous to "I screwed it up")

  and the #1 alternative to "I googled it":
 

• 1 "I Dogpile'd it" (Imagine Cartman in the "red rocket" scene...)

 

YouTube is suing Stevens

[slashdotmsiriv]

On related news, YouTube is taking legal steps against the US Senate for using its brand name to describe the internet ... Senator Stevens was not available for comment ...

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.