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.