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."

Comments

bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

to google means to search on google.
I don't know what kind of morons this guy talks to, but I never hear people say google when they mean bing, or yahoo or whatever.
The verb for those is "search".

Re:bullshit

[Archangel Michael]

Bing
Is
Not
Google

Re:bullshit

[ShanghaiBill]

to google means to search on google.

Indeed. I have never heard anyone say "Google it with Bing" except as a joke.

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".

Re:bullshit

[ShanghaiBill]

I've heard "Just google it on bing. Works a lot better."

I doubt it. I have never heard anyone say that Bing "works a lot better".

Re:bullshit

[TWX]

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...

Re:bullshit

[EvilSS]

Bayer also lost the trademark to "Heroin".

Well that turned out to be short sighted. The war on heroin would be over today if Bayer could go after street dealers for trademark infringement!

Re:bullshit

[vux984]

Indeed. I have never heard anyone say "Google it with Bing" except as a joke.

Practically nobody says "can you pass me a kleenex from that box of puffs facial tissues" unless they are making a joke too. They just say 'pass me a kleenex'. But they'll point at the puffs box while asking without awareness or irony.

Likewise people do say 'just google X' all the time as a generic synonym for "search for it on the internet". And they'll open their browser and use the default search without any real awareness that its actually yahoo or bing.

I don't know that its sufficiently generic for loss of trademark. But lets not kid ourselves here, I will say 'google something' yet I use duckduckgo on all the systems at home. The word 'search' doesn't automatically mean 'on the internet' ... if i say 'can you search for my drill' it's not immediately obvious that I want an internet search (e.g. for its specs / support / accessories / current price ), as opposed to finding my actual drill in the garage. And if I say 'google my drill' it means find a product page for my drill on the internet. And I don't care, or even intend for anyone to actually use google to do it.

What is before SCOTUS is an appeal not a case

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

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.