Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Asked To Nullify the Google Trademark (arstechnica.com)
Is the term "google" too generic and therefore unworthy of its trademark protection? That's the question before the US Supreme Court. From a report: What's before the Supreme Court is a trademark lawsuit that Google already defeated in a lower court. The lawsuit claims that Google should no longer be trademarked because the word "google" is synonymous to the public with the term "search the Internet." "There is no single word other than google that conveys the action of searching the Internet using any search engine," according to the petition to the Supreme Court. It's perhaps one of the most consequential trademark case before the justices since they ruled in June that offensive trademarks must be allowed. The Google trademark dispute dates to 2012 when a man named Chris Gillespie registered 763 domain names that combined "google" with other words and phrase, including "googledonaldtrump.com."
Chris Gillespie sued and lost so he appealed to the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS), which is his right. However, the justices have not yet ruled on whether they'll even hear his appeal. My guess is they won't hear it and will let the previous ruling (against Gillespie) stand. I do know that one of the ways you can lose a trademark is not to defend it and nobody can accuse Google of doing this.
Isn't that that great porn search engine, where it will offer raunchier and raunchier suggestions as you keep clicking through them?
I'm asking for a friend...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
google is used as a synonym for search. I hear it all the time.
Like Kleenex is for facial tissue. Q-tip for cotton swab. And more.
I think Google saw it coming and hence that name Alphabet - a completely dumb choice but whatever.
Nitpick: TFA claims that the trademark for "aspirin" was lost through generic use. This is wrong. Bayer was forced to abandon the trademark because Germany lost the First World War. Bayer also lost the trademark to "Heroin".
Judge Learned Hand, in Bayer v. United Drug Co, actually noted the "genericization" of "aspirin" began before the First World War, so no, you're wrong. Go read the opinion.
You only had to take a look at a can of "Diet Coke" or the wikipedia link I originally included to realize what you are saying is completely wrong.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire