Verbing Weirds Google

MoNickels writes "Back in January, the American Dialect Society voted the neologism "to google" as the most useful word of 2002. Now bring on the lawyers! Google's have sent a cease-and-desist letter to Paul McFedries, creator of the famous Word Spy site, demanding he remove google as a verb from his lexicon, or else. Frank Abate, an American editor for the Oxford English Dictionary, points out, however, that you can't claim proprietary rights to a verb." Update: 02/26 03:19 GMT by T : MoNickels writes with an update: "Frank Abate is not an editor of the OED, but he is a former editor of the New Oxford American Dictionary, both published by Oxford University Press." Thanks for the amendment!

Re:finally

They kind of have to try, actually. Trademarks can only be held if you actively defend them - if Google didn't take *some* kind of action to protect it's trademark, they could lose it!

That said, it really sucks that it had to happen - I wonder if Google has to actually sue this guy in order to satisfy the defense clause for trademarks... I would hope not.

Genericity

I thought that was patents that you had to defend?

The problem Google is faced with here is defending their trademark from Genericity. At least in some jurisdiction around the world, when your trademark becomes 'generic' you loose the right to enforce it. That is why Xerox pushed the name 'Photocopier' when they realised people were begining to call it a 'Xerox machine.' Problem is, if 'Xerox machine' enters into the language, any manufacturer could call their photocopier a "Xerox machine" and Xerox would be unable to stop them. This is also why McDonalds threatens any one who calls their restaurant McX.

Redifference between uppercase and lowercase

quote from the letter: I have recently become aware of a definition of "google" on your website, www.wordspy.com. This definition implies that "google" is a verb synonymous with "search." Please note that Google is a trademark of Google Technology Inc

"Google" might be a trademark, but "google" isn't. A good example is "Ford" - the motor company, versus "ford" - a shallow place in a body of water that can be crossed (forded) easily :-)

Re:Redifference between uppercase and lowercase

"Google" might be a trademark, but "google" isn't

But maybe they fear that something happens to them like to Xerox. If "to google" becomes a common word, maybe then their trademark would be worthless? Next, someone sets up googler.com and defends itself by purporting that "googler" cannot breach a trademark more than "searcher".

I don't know ...

Re:Redifference between uppercase and lowercase

Google didn't try to sue him. They just held up (coded in lawyer speak) a big fat "Stop"-sign. Yes, they could have called just called this guy, but they choose not to. But in effect they are the only ones having a disadvantage, because they have to pay their lawyers. It's clear that the letter isn't written to make him any problems.
It contained clear directions for the guy how he could resolve the matter:

"We ask that you help us to protect our brand by deleting the definition of "google" found at wordspy.com or revising it to take into account the trademark status of Google." (emphasize mine).

They sent him the letter, but they gave him free legal advice at how to avoid any problems, and following this advise can't hurt him in any way and does't cost anything.

Re:Redifference between uppercase and lowercase

To elaborate a bit:

Suppose I set up Supergoogle, a web search site. Google wants to go to court and get an injunction to stop me from using that name. To do that, they will need to submit an affidavit from an officer of the company that explains, among other things, how Google has tried to protect its trademark. A typical paragraph of that affidavit could be a short explanation of how Google once sent a letter to a person whose web site implied that Google wasn't a trademark. A copy of the letter would be attached to the affidavit as one of many such exhibits.

The primary purpose of sending the letter on this occasion was to prepare for that possibility.

Re:Redifference between uppercase and lowercase

""We ask that you help us to protect our brand by deleting the definition of "google" found at wordspy.com or revising it to take into account the trademark status of Google." (emphasize mine)."

Google isn't being unreasonable here. Look up 'kleenex' at dictionary.com and you get (trademark) added to it. Check it out:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kleenex [reference.com]

I haven't skimmed the comments yet, but those of you who have your pitchforks raised can lower them.

Re:Redifference between uppercase and lowercase

Funny, slashdotters never call it "free legal advice" when Microsoft sends lawyer-letters about their trademarks.

So Google microsofted Wordspy?

Re:Redifference between uppercase and lowercase

Isn't this similar to the very common vacuum manufacturer "Hoover". Everyone I know says they will "hoover the carpet" e.g. "I'll google for it".

Again, it is similar to Xerox being used when photocopy was meant. I'm not sure if "making a xerox" is used so much nowadays thanks to the proliferation of photocopy machines but it certainly was common.

Having said that my old copy of bookshelf has TM next to the term. Same for Xerox.

Re:finally

Ironically, according to what I've read in the retail industry, one of the best things that can happen to your brand is that it become colloquially accepted as the overall term for a group of products.

ie:

a "coke" instead of a carbonated beverage
a "thermos" rather than a... err a thermal flask?
a "kleenex" instead of a paper tissue

On the otherhand... according to this [netpreneur.org] the quickest way to lose your copyright is to have your brand perceived as a generic term.

By the way, I found the above article by googli^U^U^U using the search engine Google [google.com]®.

;P

never work

The post office has been pretty peeved over the usage and meaning of the term "Going Postal", but haven't had much success stopping it's usage. The makers of Spam the meat haven't been to thrilled with it's usage when referring to junk email either, but haven't stopped it. Even if Google gets "to google" out of the lexicon, it will still be used rampantly. The only thing they will accomplish is making themselves look like asses for complaining in the first place.

Re:never work

Actually, Hormel has given up on the spam thing. They used to say that it was OK to use the work in lower case to refer to junk email, but would actively contact and even threaten folks using it in its capitalized form. However, they've apparently decided that any publiclity is good publicity.

Google's intent here is clearly to protect their trademark -- they don't really have a choice. If they aquiesce and agree that "to google" is a generic word and not a brand reference, you can bet that Inktomi and Overture-those-fraudulent-bastards-it's-a-classifi ed-ad-engine-not-a-search-engine will call their offerings "Googlers" or something similar. Which would be a moral victory for Google, but perhaps a commercial disaster.

Cheers
-b

Re:never work

However, they've apparently decided that any publiclity is good publicity.

Have you seen their recent TV ad, with the guy at the dinner table who turns to the camera, puts on the funniest shit-eating grin you can imagine, and screams "MORE SPAM!!!!" Then a truck carrying Spam(TM) crashes through the wall into the dining room.

Kind of like spam mail crashing into your inbox, interrupting whatever you were currently in the middle of doing... It's a brilliant ad.

Spam: My Review

I watched the ad and went out and bought some Spam (TM).

First, Spam comes in a neat can. It's curved and low-to-the-ground. I like that. It's very appealing to purchase something and actually like the way it's packaged. I consider this a successful purchase.

Next, the can opens easily. Again: this is a good thing. The little pull-tab is nice.

Now, I expected lots of Spam juice to come dripping out when I yanked off the top, but I was pleased to see that no Spam juice flew forth.

Even better, the spam actually *filled* the can. It's not like a bag of potato chips. Open the bag and you're lucky to see fifteen chips.

Spam is most definitely "old-school" when it comes to packaging: they have a product, have a nice can, and fill the can with the product. Thumbs up, boys.

There are recipes on the side of the can. Better still, the recipes are fairly easy to make. I opted for the "fried Spam". The recipe indicated that I should scramble some eggs. I did this, toasted some Butternut Texas toast (thick slices of bread, in case you're not sure what 'Texas Toast' is), and then got my tried-and-true non-stick frying pan (lots of teflon for those of us who, like myself, have no idea what 'seasoning a skillet' means and so buy into the non-stick hype.)

Out of the can, Spam is a little on the pinkish side. It definitely needed some "color" (as they say) before it was completely palatable. I'm sure raw Spam would taste no different than cooked Spam, but I wasn't sure about the level of processing Spam underwent, so -- in the interested of safety -- I fried thin slices until they were dark brown and slightly burnt at the edges.

I slid the Spam onto the plate (thanks to teflon), slid the eggs onto the plate, and pulled the two pieces of Texas toast from the toaster. I slathered some *real butter* on the toast, cut it in triangles like they do at all fine restaurants, and went to sit in my favorite chair. I had to leave the food for a moment and go back into the kitchen because I forgot my Red Bull. But when I went back to the plate, the Spam was still warm, the eggs were perfect, and the butter had melted into my toast.

The fried Spam -- pork shoulder and ham -- was good. It wasn't great. It wasn't like Jimmie Dean sausage flavored with maple syrup. And it certainly wasn't like Pigs-in-blankets (pancakes wrapped around sausage) but it was damn good. It was a little bland. But it had texture -- a lot of it -- and felt good when I chewed.

The sweet, medicinal Red Bull sorta cast a pall on the otherwise good meal, but Red Bull at breakfast is a necessity for me, so I didn't have much choice.

Re:Spam: My Review

You, sir, have managed to make a story about SPAM interesting. I applaud you, and I applaud SPAM!

Unfortunately, to celebrate you, I thought it fitting to take down SpamAssassin for a brief moment. Now I have a sore .. member .., a computer full of rather unpleasant porn, and my entire estate now belongs to the Nigerians. What a world!

Re:Spam: My Review

I have a genuine Spam(TM) key on my keychain. Its been there since grade school (a looooong time ago). I always had the strangest notion that one day, if I ever ran away from home, I would walk along some railroad tracks and come across a dead hobo with a backpack full of Spam(TM). I always assumed that he would have lost the key, partly because he was a hobo, but mostly because he was a dead hobo.

The key is still on my keychain, probably the only thing (besides my imagination and various birthmarks) that I've ever kept for so long.

You want to know why?

a colleague of mine used to work in a canning factory.

you want to know why the spam fills the can, and there is no "juice" that falls out when you open it?

because they cook it in the can.

the ingredients go in, they seal it, then they cook it.

mmm mmm good. D:

Re:never work

You are making a very bad mistake.

Your analogy to Apple does not hold water. No one will mistake an 'apple -- see fruit' for an 'Apple --computer/business'. You have correctly pointed this out.

However, this is not a good analogy because the word 'google' *means* to search for something online. Precisely what the company/trademark is all about!

So if another internet search engine uses the new word 'google' in marketing or in general usage then it is not a trademark infringement because 'google' is now a general word and they would be using it correctly.

Re:never work

No.

When Apple first formed as such, they were involved in a trademark dispute with the British recording label Apple (the Beatles label, BTW). They settled because Apple Computer would be in a different business. (For more, search on 'Apple+sosumi'.) Furthermore, it has also been resolved that 'Apple' can not be used as a trademark when selling the actual fruit.

Google does NOT mean to search for something online. Check here [reference.com] or your closest paper dictionary. In the vernacular it has come to mean search in much the same way xerox has come to mean copy documents, kleenex has come to mean tissue, and scotch tape has come to mean transparent tape.

Ergo, if another internet search engine uses the term 'google' it would be as much as fault as a copier company advertising with the word 'xerox'. The fact that 'Word Spy' has noted that it is now in common use to mean search is irrelavent.

Re:never work

They settled because Apple Computer would be in a different business. (For more, search on 'Apple+sosumi'.)

Be honest. You originally wrote "google for" and then you erased it and wrote "search on," didn't you?

;-)

Re:never work

Apple Computer had to deal with Apple Inc because they claimed that the Apple Computer was a musical device, which I can kinda see. The "settlement" was largish sums of money.

On a related note, Apple paid royalties to Coca Cola for using the word "Classic" to describe a product.. damn USPTO again I guess.

Re:never work

And you're what, an armchair trademark attorney?

The fact is, that the public has immense power to influence trademarks. If PEOPLE generically use Xerox to mean 'to copy documents,' 'photocopiers,' and/or 'copied documents,' then the trademark will die. This is known as genericide, since a generic word cannot be trademarked. (Which is why you can't trademark Apple with reference to the fruit; that's the generic name! Has nothing to do with the computer company.)

Asprin, heroin, cellophane... these all _used_ to be trademarks. Xerox and kleenex have been on the verge for ages. Sanka just barely managed to save their mark.

Personally, I think it's fun, and I often use marks as generic words (for example, being from the South, I call all soft drinks coke unless I'm trying to specifically discuss one in particular).

Thus, if people DO use google to mean to search for something online, this will destroy the Google trademark over time. I say, let's do it!

Re:Search engines are specific

My daughter said she was googling for her other sock,
yesterday. I think it's coming to mean much more
than just searching online. More like, searching
every possible location. A comprehensive search.

Spam vs spam, and Google vs google

Hormel has stated that people can use the term spam to refer to junk mail as long as they don't capitalize it, so I think Google should do the same (so the verb would be "to google", not "to Google").

Re:never work

They have to go after it, because it is an infringing use of their Trademark. Otherwise, they lose the trademark.

Granted, it will probably still be used, like "Xerox" for making copies, but it is not in Google's best interests to encourage it.

Re:RTFA

Actually, that was one of the nicest C&D letters I've ever seen. The lawyer specifically mentions that:

[the WordSpy.com]...definition implies that "google" is a verb synonymous with "search."

Which, IMO (and others already voiced) is incorrect. To google, or googling specifically implies using google.com to search...not just any search engine. I don't know how the definition was listed beforehand, but the current definition includes

"...people are using google as a more general verb meaning "to use an Internet search engine, particularly google.com""

which is closer to the truth.

The C&D letter then points out that

we want to make sure that when people use "Google," they are referring to the services our company provides and not to Internet searching in general

which is perfectly reasonable, considering that it was their name and search engine that is being used as part of popular slang.

And then, they even give wordspy.com an easy out:

We ask that you help us to protect our brand by...revising [the definition] to take into account the trademark status of Google.

which seems reasonable to me, once again. Why not honor the search engine that has become a daily part of life for millions of users? It does no harm to the usage or definition of the verb, and is actually more accurate.

All in all, I wouldn't even call this a C&D letter. More like a, "Hey! Show us some respect" letter.

Dictionaries and the like.

Dictionaries are in the business of reportage. People are using the word "google" as a verb, and that's a fact. The dictionary is reporting this fact. Any objection to their reportage is a straightforward suppression of free speech.

Re:never work - But it must

Thats why it is called Kleenex(tm) facial tissue, or Lycra(tm) spandex or Spam(tm) luncheon meat.

Huh. I always thought Spandex was the brand and Lycra was the fabric...

Turns out that you are right, though. Lycra is the trademark. To confirm that you were correct, I googled for the answer.

Re:never work - But it must

Introducing Spamdex, the luncheon underwear.

Re:Editorial

You know Timothy, if you just attached a pair of clippers to bottom of your puns you could give some Slashdotters nice buzz cuts.

bill watterson

maybe one day language will be a complete impediment to understanding

as in...

..to Xerox

Re:ok, so he removes it from his lexicon so what?

If he does remove it from his web site, will it still be available via the Google cache?

Re:ok, so he removes it from his lexicon so what?

actually, the c&d letter alternatively asked him to note that "Google" is a of Google Technology Inc. Which is what he appears to have done.

Naturally, the submitter above chose to ignore that and focus on the "please remove" part of the letter.