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.""

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.

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 [wikipedia.org]

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.

Theft?

[krell]

"Would these be the same media companies whose content Google is stealing on Google News?"

I google the news on Google News a lot. However, I've never seen stolen news there. I've seen copied news, but nothing stolen. I'm always able to find the original source, still there, easily.

There's lots of precedent

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Q-tip, Xerox, Escalator, Velcro, and Band-Aid are some more that haven't been mentioned yet.
Wiki entry for Genericized Trademark here [wikipedia.org]

Re:Grammar correction: team is idiots.

[Seraph]

I'm probably responding to a troll, but take a gander at this [learnenglish.org.uk].

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:Hoover?

[BridgeGarth]

Yes. In Britain we use the verb hoover almost always in stead of "vacuum". Some people simply use "sweep". We also, like everyone else, use coke to mean generic cola. But we use photocopy/photocopier and almost never Xerox. We use a plaster and never a Band-Aid. We certainly don't have dumpsters, only bins. We don't use the word Kleenex, we call them tissues. Jell-O is, erm, jelly (your jelly is jam, except when smooth and then its jelly!). Amusingly a news reporter this morning got into a mess when she tried to avoid a proprietry name for a handheld gaming system: "A mother was sure her two small boys would be able to take their (pause) playboys onboard their plane". In fact, apart from Hoover and Coke I think we generally don't use brand names. I await the many corrections.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:They want to avoid the Sony fate

[courtarro]

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".

While it's true that Sony lost the Walkman trademark in Austria [wired.com] due to technicalities, it remains under their control everywhere else.

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.

Re:Generic Brand Name Issue

[Khashishi]

There is no synthetic gelatin. Vegetarians, Jews, and Muslims would be rejoicing if there were.