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.

Lets make Google a pejorative instead.

Lets make Google a pejorative instead.

I need to take a google.
He's a total google.
What a google.

Seems to work.

Re:Lets make Google a pejorative instead.

Lets make Google a pejorative instead.

I need to take a google.
He's a total google.
What a google.


Well, right now I'm about to stop slashdotting and take a massive lawyer.

Re:Lets make Google a pejorative instead.

or use the law to water down other trademarks.

microsoft. v.
1. To write bad quality code.
"I was too hungover to write quality code, so I microsofted all day instead"

2. to crash without warning
"My car was playing up; it microsofted twice on the way in"

What they're scared of...

...is that it becomes a term, and they lose their trademark on it. For example, Thermos is a noun but it used to be a trademark of the Aladdin corporation.

Google is just fine with Josh on The West Wing telling Donna to "go Google it", but they're terrified once it goes into print.

What I wonder is this - did Google ever just ask the site to take it down nicely? Did they just go straight to the cease-and-desist order? And if they did, is this for some indisputable legal "we'll look like dicks, but..." reason? I'd hate to see a chink in the "we're all for them" online armor they have right now.

Re:What they're scared of...

Actually I did just read the letter and it says that it needs to take into account the trademark - so "googling" doesn't have to be removed, just amended to note that "Google" is a copyright. And yeah it didn't sound like a cease-and-desist letter in the "little prick" sense of the word.

Re:What they're scared of...

"For example, Thermos is a noun but it used to be a trademark of the Aladdin corporation."

Who, in turn, were sued by Shahrazad violating one of her trademarks...

Just a guess, but..

.. it seems reasonably likely to me that 'Google' is constructed from 'go ogle'. If this is indeed the case, it seems especially hypocritical to be trying to defend from 'verbing' a trademark that is itself derived from a verb.

If I'm completely wrong, then.. well, this still sucks. This kind of behaviour inevitably leaves a bad taste in people's mouths -- a real shame, since Google's been doing a lot of things reasonably well..

From Google.com

What Google means

Google is a play on the word "googol", which was coined by Milton Sirotta, nephew of American mathematician Edward Kasner, to refer to the number represented by 1 followed by 100 zeros. A googol is a very large number. There isn't a googol of anything in the universe. Not stars, not dust particles, not atoms. Google's use of the term reflects the company's mission to organize the immense, seemingly infinite, amount of information available on the web.

(from Google's Corporate History [google.ca])

Who cares about google...

What about Slashdotting?

Come on Timothy, we know what you're thinking ;-)

Re:Who cares about google...

In related news, the Root Directory and the Current Directory of Unix(tm) have sent a cease and desist letter to the site slashdot.org....

We've seen this before.

Looks like Google is Amazoning WordSpy.

Re:The English Language has nouns as well!

The English language has a noun, google, as well. It means 10^100,

Sorry, no - the noun is googol.

"Google" comes from a pun on googol and a contraction of "Go ogle".

-T

Trademarks and loss of trademarks

*If* Google wants to keep their trademark, and there are good reasons for them to do so, then this is exactly what they need to do, whether you like it or not.

Many products have lost their trademark through changes in the language. Aspirin used to be a trademark. Everyone else had to sell "headache powder" or something similar. Now, aspirin is a generic term. Something similar is happening now with Kleenex, Post-It Notes, and White Out.

The question you should ask yourself is: Is it right for there to be a website that calls itself "Google: by Microsoft"? Because if Google looses its trademark, there's nothing to stop Microsoft from producing its own google. Just like there is now Bayer aspirin, St. Joseph's children's aspirin, etc.

So if Microsoft's google is ok, then Google is wrong. But if you don't want Microsoft to have the ability to rebrand MSN Search as Microsoft's Google, then Google needs to do this.

Re:Trademarks and loss of trademarks

*If* Google wants to keep their trademark, and there are good reasons for them to do so, then this is exactly what they need to do, whether you like it or not.

Apparently you didn't read the linked article [linguistlist.org] (it's okay - not the first time on Slashdot, and won't be the last).

Verb usage is specifically exempted from US trademark law. So while it is true that Google would have to sue to prevent dilution of its trademark in the case of other "Google sites" or "Google services", when it comes to "googling" (esp. as in the current case, that is, dictionary, word, and usage tracking) they have no legal leg to stand on.

Google on, friends.

-renard

RTF Cease & Desist....

From Google's Cease and Desist:

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.

The story makes this out to be a whole lot worse than it is. It doesn't seem like they're being unreasonable. They're likely not going to go on an all out attack, they just want the trademark status accounted for.

Re:RTF Cease & Desist....

Agreed. This is not unreasonable at all.

IMO, the phrase in the definition that Google's lawyers are taking issue with is "such as": "google: v. To use an Internet search engine such as google.com to look for information." That's what the letter means when it says: "This definition implies that "google" is a verb synonymous with "search.""

The implication is that I would say, "Hey, I googled X" when I had in fact used some other search engine. AFAIK, this is not a common use. In part because of the widespread popularity of Google, the search engine, when people use "google" as a verb, they always mean Google (at least in my experience). If someone starts using "google" as a verb to simply mean "an Internet search engine" then Google will, naturally, show a legal interest. As the letter says: "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."

If the definition read "google: v. To use the Internet search engine google.com to...", then I doubt McFedries would have received the letter.

Its not a Cease and Desist!

READ THE LETTER!

This is just a "request" from a lawyer:

"....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."

Lawyers do this all time. You have the option of saying "No".

It is NOT a Cease and Desist letter.

thanks Timothy for more FUD.

Verbs

" ..you can't claim proprietary rights to a verb."

Bill: Boy, we sure Microsofted that company, eh Steve?

Steve: You bet Bill, good work!

Bleh

Of course, the downside is that if Google loses it's trademark then other companies can use the term for themselves. Alltheweb can say, for example, "come google with us".

On the other hand, unlike the situation with Nintendo, no one can take google's domain name. If google does become a term meaning "to search the internet with an effective relevancy calculator" then their domain name will always be synonymous.

Personally, though, I say screw google. They put autopr0n on the 11th page on a search for "autopr0n", which doesn't make any damn sense. And no one is ever going to say "Let me Alltheweb for it."

So change the description

The letter from Google says:

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.

So why not just mention google is a trademark in the definition - that is all they are asking!

Googling

Using "google" as a verb should be just fine... as long as you are talking about using Google to do your search. Otherwise, it's diluting their trademark. If people start saying "go to Alta Vista and Google around for it," then suddenly it becomes like how people were starting to say "Curad Band -Aids" instead of "Curad bandages" before the makers of Band-Aid bandages began going to great lengths to protect thier brand.

It reminds me of how "Coke" has become a generic word for soda pop in some parts of the South. If you order a "Coke" in some sourthern establishments, the redneck bartender will ask you "what kind of Coke do y'all want? Orange? Pepsi? Root Beer?"

For a while, Pepsi was selling really cheap to restaurants (to get more customers accoustomed to the taste). If you went into a restaraunt and ordered a "Coke," you would often get Pepsi... until recently. These days, if you order a "Coke" and they only have Pepsi products, your server will have been trained to ask "is Pepsi okay," because Coke occastionally sends reps out to look for restaurants who are substituting Pepsi for Coke orders without telling customers, and suing the asses off anybody they catch doing it.

Trademark laws are not set up to favor the nice guys. The law is pretty much, "be a bastard about your trademarks, or they become part of the language and it will be okay for your competition to use them."

Re:Googling

...the makers of Band-Aid bandages began going to great lengths to protect thier brand.

For that, they used a Brand-Aid(tm)

*thwack*... Ow! What was that for!?

used as verb in _Pattern_Recognition_

'google' is used as a verb in William Gibson's new novel _Patter_Recognition_. I think it's hard to say that it hasn't entered common lexicon as a verb.

I hope this catches on..

Today on the way to work some guy Macintoshed my car. I am going to court to Microsoft him! IF that doesnt work I think I may hire some thugs to Exxon his ass and Nike his wife!

Nicest C-and-D letter I've seen

The lawyer's letter ends with:

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.

That seems like a perfectly reasonable and polite request. The folks at Google are now on record as trying to protect their trademark, and they were pleasant about it to boot. Note also that they provided a reasonable alternative to deleting the entry altogether. Presumably something along the lines of:

google: v To search, particularly on the Internet. Et.: Google is the trademarked name of the Internet search engine at www.google.com

would be sufficient for all involved. This sounds like much to do about nothing.

Cease? Desist?

Google's have sent a cease-and-desist letter to Paul McFedries, creator of the famous Word Spy site

I can't believe this is being called a "cease and desist" letter. What is the deal with this bottom-sucking sensationalism? The letter simply said, look, that's our trademark, and we want you to either reference it adequately or remove it. It's since been referenced. Now, if Google doesn't think it's been referenced adequately enough, you might expect a second letter, which, if not followed up properly, might turn into a future cease and desist letter... but geez, this one was hardly threatening, and, as far as I know about copyright law, it was well within Google's rights to request that he reference their trademark.

I suppose it's too much to ask for the submissions to not always have the aura of inane paranoia...

B

Use as a verb is step towards generic

They actually sent a cease and desist because use as a verb is clear signs that a trademark is becoming (or has become) generic. See TMEP 1209.01(c) [uspto.gov]. As such, another party can use that as a defense if Google tries to claim trademark infringement. So I'm not surprised they sent the cease & desist and would have done the same thing.

Anybody recall the Xerox ad of a few years ago... "There are two R's in XEROX(r) "? The whole purpose of that ad was to get people to realize that a) XEROX is a trademark and b) to stop using it as a verb (i.e., "I xeroxed this article for my friend") which causes it to lose its trademark status.

Trademarks, though a form of intellectual property, are more about consumer protection than about restricting people from using certain words.

-A

Is Google a GENERIC verb?

The real question is not "Is google a verb?" but "Is google a GENERIC verb?"

The lexicon suggests that google is a verb that can apply to any search engine. I would counter that the correct and current usage is that you only google on google.com.

By way of contrast, I believe that "slashdotting" is a generic verb because for example, a listing in memepool might cause a site to be slashdotted.

Andrew

New Definition: google

google
v. googled, googling

1. To search for as in on the Web. After the Internet based search engine company. Usage: I googled my blind date before got ready to go and found out she's a felon.
2. To engage in the practice of sending stupid cease and desist letters in an attempt to alter the natural evolution of language usage. After the same. Usage: Holy Crap! My Star Trek fan site just got googled by Paramount.

Do domain names make trademarks obsolete?

For a company which does its business online, and which owns its domain name, surely the concept of a trademark becomes somewhat obsolete. Wouldn't the common usage of the verb "to Google" meaning "to search" increase the value of the domain google.com?

IMHO, this is a typical case of a laywer being too trigger-happy to appreciate the big picture. If I owned google.com, widespread use of the term "google" would be music to my ears, trademarks be damned.

WTF, dating? ? ?

google (GOO.gul) v. To use an Internet search engine such as google.com to look for information related to a new or potential girlfriend or boyfriend. (Note that Google(TM) is a trademark of Google Technologies Inc.) -The World Spy - google [wordspy.com]

No, just no. Google has nothing to do with looking for a potention girlfriend or boyfriend or friendly friend. Not even an adequate definition. To google is NOT to use "a" search engine, it is to use Google. I don't call it "googling" unless I use GOOGLE!

What the hell is wrong with these people?!?! Dating . . . any search engine . . . these people have never GOOGLED!

Typical Slashdot beat-up

The /. story seems to me to greatly exagerate the facts.

The letter is a polite request - not a 'cease-and-desist'. All that they ask is that the dictionary entry acknowledge their trademark:

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

Do they have the right to demand this? According to one of the links in the story, probably not. It is polite and sensible for Word Spy to do this? Yes. Have they done this? Yes:

(GOO.gul) v. To use an Internet search engine such as google.com to look for information related to a new or potential girlfriend or boyfriend. (Note that Google(TM) is a trademark of Google Technologies Inc.)

Google doesn't have a choice

Trademarks (in the US at least) tend to be divided by courts into four strengths in the US. The strongest are made-up words, then the next strongest are regular words applied to product competely unrelated to the word. In other words, "Linux" or "Coca-Cola" are very strong marks because they are made up words. "Google" might be construed as a made up word, and thus very strong. But even if "Google" is interpreted as just a form of the math term "googol", it is still strong because it isn't applied to math. Thats how people can trademark regular english words with almost the same strength as a made up word. But I couldn't trademark "Red Apple" brand apples easily or at all because it just describes what it is.

The problem is that if Google doesn't actively protect their mark and it becomes a word on it's own, then in effect the word "Google" just describes "Google" because it is a word with it's own meaning, refering to a type of search engine. Then they lose the ability to renew their trademark and prevent others from using it.

So then I would be able to create www.googleit.com or www.gogoogle.com. That wouldn't be very good for their business.

Did anyone _read_ the letter?

That was one of the nicest cease-and-desist letters I've read, since it was quite reasonable, and gave an option that wasn't "take it down" or "pay money".

If you didn't read it, basically they're asking him to either remove it OR mention that "google" is a trademark of Google Technology. Yeesh. All he has to do is add one sentence to the definition, but instead it's "Waaah, I got a cease and desist letter, I don't know what to do, panic, panic, panic". He says he doesn't want to remove it, but he doesn't know what he should do. How about doing what they said, and mentioning the trademark?

Certainly, mentioning the trademark would even improve the definition. When I tell someone, "Go Google for information on this", I mean go to www.google.com. If they come back to me and say "It wasn't on yahoo's search engine", I'll say "That's because you didn't do what I told you to do." Yeesh. It's a trademark, and all they're asking is that you acknowledge it as such. Just do it. You're not giving up any rights of your own.

If you're really concerned about stupid trademark cease-and-desist stuff, there are bigger battles to fight, like the PCI thing, or MS's trademark of the word "windows".

Updated definition - check site

As of a few minutes ago, the WordSpy definition is:

(GOO.gul) v. To use an Internet search engine such as google.com to look for information related to a new or potential girlfriend or boyfriend. (Note that Google(TM) is a trademark of Google Technologies Inc.)

So he did what Google asked: noted that it was a trademark. The site's still up. The definition's still valid. Presumably the Google lawyers are happy. I don't feel my civil or lexical rights have been trounced upon.

As has often been said...move along folks, nothin' to see here.

What a crappy definition!

To use an Internet search engine such as google.com to look for information related to a new or potential girlfriend or boyfriend.

What the hell? WTF is that? So when I was googling for Linux kernel panic information earlier, I was really looking for a potential girlfriend? Gah. Leave off everything past "google.com."

An inciteful view from one of the lexicographers

Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:19:26 -0800
Reply-To: American Dialect Society
Sender: American Dialect Society Mailing List
From: Ben Ostrowsky
Subject: Re: Google trademark concerns
Comments: To: [e-mail]
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I'd guess that you can report accurately that many people use 'google' as a generic term, especially if you can cite some utterances.

And you could send them a pamphlet of your own about the difference between prescriptive and descriptive definition-writing -- a sort of Lexicographer's Apology (like the Actor's Apology, "this is fiction, don't blame us if it looks painfully familiar to you") to explain that you're not urging people to use 'google' but merely recording the fact that some do, and what they mean by it.

Good Lord, the OED had better watch out -- it's got 'xerox' and 'Kleenex', at the very least, and might get sued by companies after their trademarks have become common words.

This argument sounds familiar: "I'm not responsible for the fact that this exists; I'm just recording that fact." Isn't that how Google's counsel would likely respond to charges that their site enables pedophiles to find depictions of illegal sex, like so?

http://www.google.com/search?q=young+girl+erotic a

If they have no duty to remove this from their site, what duty do you have to remove a harmless bit of lexicography?

Re:Isn't google a number?

Different spelling. The number is "googol" (see http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/cyc/g/googol .htm), equal to 10^100.

Re:Isn't google a number?

That's spelled googol, googol.com was already taken, most people spell it google, anyway, and you can trademark it. So they went with google.

I don't see 'google' as a generic word for 'web search', like 'xerox' is 'to copy'. 'To google' means 'to go to google.com'.

Re:Isn't google a number?

You don't see 'google' as a generic term for 'web search'? But it's the only ... oh ... oh my god ...

you're not implying that there are other search engines out there, are you?