Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules the "Google" Trademark Isn't Generic
ericgoldman writes Even though "googling" and "Google it" are now common phrases, a federal court ruled that the "Google" trademark is still a valid trademark instead of a generic term (unlike former trademarks such as escalator, aspirin or yo-yo). The court distinguished between consumers using Google as a verb (such as "google it"), which didn't automatically make the term generic, and consumers using Google to describe one player in the market, which 90%+ of consumers still do.
...then I'll just have to start calling it the googley.
But how long until googling becomes the standard term for any web search? It is conveniently shorter, after all. And probably more specific, since search engines sometimes search stuff not directly on the web.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Hey I'm just here to warn you! Don't get scroogled! Use Microsoft Bing for all your search needs! Why just the other days I Binged for some tips on my Microsoft Xbox One home entertainment system with Kinect and I got a high score!
This message brought to you by MS's laughably inept advertising department.
You might even say this opens windows into trade mark law.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Just wondering...
Generic doesn't begin to describe it.
"Get the EEG, the BP monitor, and the AVV."
"And get the machine that goes 'bing!'."
"And get the most expensive machine - in case the Administrator comes."
"Ah, I see you have the machine that goes 'bing!'. This is my favorite. You see, we lease this back from the company we sold it to - that way it comes under the monthly current budget and not the capital account."
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Nice try..
Who was it?
Apple, M$? Some other vested interest?
In any case, people know exactly what you are saying when they refer to "Googling".
And it ain't Bing!
Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
I'm shocked -- shocked! -- that Google isn't another generic Silicon Valley company.
We had this conversation on a thread not long ago, but the consensus was the brand of a new product that garners the biggest market share stands the best chance of eventual induction into the Generic Hall of Fame.
It's self-evident your product was marketed FTW if your competitor's customers ask for your product's nickname when they shop. My personal example is when I one and a hundred zeros some random information I need to look up.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Let me Xerox off a few examples of when similar Noun/Verb phrases lost their trademark in the past
Before Xerox came out with the photocopy machine which uses plain-paper for duplicating purposes, were there any such machine on the market?
No?
Before Google was online, was there any online search engine?
Yes!
Yahoo, Astavista, ... amongst others
Coke gets to retain its trademark precisely because Coke wasn't the first mass-marketed bottled soft drink either
The one big problem with Yahoo is it cluttered up its interface - even from the start we users already complained about their interface, but they just won't listen, and when Google came out with its back-to-basic minimalist interface users flocked to Google (including me) and since then the only time I go to yahoo is when I need to log on to my yahoomail account
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
As a pedant, I'd like to note that aspirin did not become a generic as a result of its mass usage nor as the result of a court case, but was part of war reparations with Germany. See here for more detail, or just google it :-)
That's really interesting how companies expend such huge efforts to make their brand a household name, and then they say they still want to own it for themselves exclusively. For example, so many people talk now about iphones, ipads and ipods as generic terms. That's sort of good for the vendor, but then when it really does become a generic term, they bring a ton of legal bricks down on anyone who does use their name generically. In other words, heads we win, tails you lose.
Another really evil example is "windows", which used to be a generic term, e.g. for the X window system. Microsoft continually tries to use words out of the dictionary to get "mind-share", and then they sue people who use their chosen dictionary words as they had existed for centuries. (The word "windows" comes from old English meaning "wind-holes". Maybe that's not what they really want you to think about though.) In my opinion, it is truly pernicious that so many companies are trying to steal words from the dictionary and pretending they own them. They should be obliged to invent their own words.
In this case, Google did at least get a nonsense word and slightly change it. I still have a children's book published in 1961 by Wonder Books: "The how and why wonder book of mathematics" by Esther Harris Highland and Harold Joseph Highland, where on page 4 it says: "What is a googol? It is 1 followed by 100 zeros. It is a number so large that it exceeds the number of raindrops that would fall on New York, Los Angeles and Chicago in more than a century. Yet, it is smaller than infinity." In the Introduction on page 2, they say: "If you wanted to find a googol, where would you look? In a zoo? Through a telescope? In a deep well? No, you would look in a mathematics book." Well, at least Google does seem to have changed the spelling a bit, which is to their credit.
I mean, specifically GO TO FUCKING GOOGLE.COM and use the search engine there. Not Bing, not whatever else, and especially not your "ask.com" tool bar that infected your computer. GOOGLE. Nobody uses it generically, they all mean specifically go to Google to search. It's you retards that don't know how to search that think we mean something else.
I doubt anyone's going to confuse Google's Android package filename extension with the Slashdot kook who's always banging on about hosts files like they cure AIDS and raise the dead, spamming Slashdot in the process. It's kind of strange as your divine hosts solution is supposed to stop advertising, yet it can do nothing to stop yours.
Kardashian is still not a trademark..
People say they need a Kleenex and grab a generic brand facial tissue. Few people say they'll "Google" something then proceed to use Bing.
That's sportscasters, not human beings. You can't generalize to intelligent life-forms.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Looks like the plaintiff in the case is one David Elliott, who owns the domains "googleDonaldTrump.com" and "googlegaycruises.com" (maybe others as well? I don't know...). Getting rid of spam URL's like these should improve the overall Internet.
My references to the exaggerated benefits were an attempt at humour. It's unsurprising you didn't get it, as poor humour detection is a symptom of schizophrenia.
None of this doesn't change the fact that your hosts files can't stop the deluge of spam coming from you, whereas a correctly-configured AdBlocker most certainly can. Surely you can see the irony.
The fact you seem to think I'm a nothing in the field of computing is a great example of how you leap to conclusions. You don't know me, but as I challenged your beloved hosts files, you decided that the best way to deflect my accurate criticism is by attempting to belittle me. Normal, sane people who read your posts can see this, whereas I'm assuming you seem to think it as some wonderful debating technique.
I'm not laughing - you need some serious help, as you are clearly mentally unwell.
So you rail against being called schizophrenic with a textbook example of a schizophrenic rant? Brilliant. It doesn't take a doctor to diagnose a broken leg, just as it doesn't take a psychiatrist to know that someone who keeps vomiting nonsense on slashdot in the particularly acidic, uncoordinated, and generally nonsensical fashion as you do might need some help.
As I said before: AdBlockers can block specific spammy parts of websites, which HOSTS files can't do. For example, a good AdBlocker can block all your posts from Slashdot by simply matching some content and hiding it using CSS or even removing it using JavaScript. HOSTS can't do anything of the sort.
Which is my entire point - your posts are spam, and your own product can't hide them if the user wanted. The irony is palpable.
As pitiful as pretending to be someone else, APK? Hint: If you're pretending to be someone else, don't use your same writing style (change the subject, preferably using colons), and don't use similar working you used in the previous post.
I'm not denying all those things, I'm simply pointing out that it takes an AdBlocker to block your spamming, as hosts files can't do that. That's it. Please learn to read and understand what I wrote before launching into a schizophrenic rage.
APK - why are you pretending to be someone else? I know multiple personalities are not a classic symptom of schizophrenia, so perhaps you also suffer from something else? You really should get some help - this is embarrassing and so unnecessary.
1. As I pointed out, it doesn't take a psychiatric doctor to recognise the signs of a severely mentally-ill person, just as it doesn't take a chartered surveyor to recognise a house's roof has fallen off.
2. I don't have to show you proof of anything, as I merely pointed out that you defensively jumping to conclusions about my abilities merely illustrates your tenuous grip on reality, and a complete lack of being able to conduct yourself in an open, public discussion
3. I only pointed out that hosts files can't block spam such as your rambling slashdot posts. That's it. I'm not debating the rest of their abilities, as hosts files are so ridiculously simple to understand and implement, any 8-year-old could explain them in depth after 2 minutes of being told what they are and how they work.
Why are you referring to yourself in the third person, APK? More mental instability?
APK, no, I was not "destroyed". I pointed out a short-coming in the hosts system, which you failed to counter. That's it. Please stop this charade - it's pathetic.