Verbing Weirds Google 856
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!
finally (Score:2)
suing over a verb, indeed.
Re:finally (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Redifference between uppercase and lowercase (Score:5, Informative)
"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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
So Google microsofted Wordspy?
Re:Redifference between uppercase and lowercase (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Redifference between uppercase and lowercase (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Redifference between uppercase and lowercase (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt that. More likely the surname is derived from the geographical feature.
I can't be sure of course, but I think the original poster may have been making a reference to that bit about how Tolkien chose "Frodo" as a single letter transliteration of "Fordo", which was a name that meant "doom-bringer" or something like that (as in "Enri the Fordo" (sometimes "Enri the Fordoer" or "Enri duFordo"-- all apparently the same guy. He was that Saxon noble who went on a rampage after the battle of Hastings). I recall at that time there was some talk of the name "Ford" being a shortened version of "Fordoer" or "duFordo" or something like that (the root of all of them is the verb "to fordo" which meant to destroy something by tearing out its insides). Certainly that kind of subtle word play was right up Tolkien's alley-- making "Frodo" a sort of anti-fordo.
It's probably just as well that the Ford family name was changed before they got into assembly line production. Otherwise I suppose that Chevies and other auto makerrs would have been unable to make any four door models (since that would have been a clear mockery of the Fordoer Motor Company's name and disallowed by trademark law).
Does anyone use 'rede' (in the Ethelred the un~ sense) these days?
I had to re-read the AC's post, but I think that was his point. That is, if I have reded his words correctly. (I think I got that right... yep, that usage agrees with the 20 pound Webster).
Re:finally (Score:5, Informative)
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]®.
Genericity (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Genericity? (Score:3, Insightful)
To the tune of...M-I-K...K-I-E...M-O-W-S...
Think I'll start a music award called the Grannys...
"Kill the lawyers."
never work (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:never work (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
Unfortunately, to celebrate you, I thought it fitting to take down SpamAssassin for a brief moment. Now I have a sore
Re:Spam: My Review (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Be honest. You originally wrote "google for" and then you erased it and wrote "search on," didn't you?
;-)
Re:never work (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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!
And here's the proof (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Search engines are specific (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:never work (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, it will probably still be used, like "Xerox" for making copies, but it is not in Google's best interests to encourage it.
Dictionaries and the like. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
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
which is closer to the truth.
The C&D letter then points out that
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:
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.
Re:never work (Score:3, Funny)
When discussing Spam, the context demands that all mention of "meat" be enclosed in quotes.
For example:
The makers of Spam the "meat" have given up trying to stop the use of their trademark when referring to junk email. This is because Spam is easily confused with everything except meat, including unsolicited electronic messages downloaded to unwilling recipients' computers.
Re:never work (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:never work - But it must (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:never work - But it must (Score:3, Interesting)
You can trademark what is in common usage, as long as the usage does not have anything to do (within reason) with what you're using the trademark to refer to.
Thus, Microsoft's trademark of "Windows" does not in any way stop Andersen from using the term in conjunction with their glass products. The question would still remain, however, as to whether "windows" in the computing sense (ie boxes on screen with text and/or graphics within them that are movable and so forth...) renders the term untrademarkable in that environment.
But, if I wanted to launch a new candy bar, I could call it Windows, and even trademark that term within the limited domain of "food products".
Thought Google was supposed to be a "good" company (Score:2, Interesting)
bill watterson (Score:5, Funny)
as in... (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares. (Score:2, Funny)
ok, so he removes it from his lexicon so what? (Score:2, Redundant)
Does it hurt Kleenex that people refer to facial tissue as Kleenexes? Yeah, I didn't think so.
Re:ok, so he removes it from his lexicon so what? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ok, so he removes it from his lexicon so what? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but they have to at least be seen as trying to protect against the dilution of their trademark.
Wouldn't Google want this sort of publicity? Become a common-place-word?
If "Google" becomes the common word that means "to search on a search engine", then everybody can and will set up "google engines". That can confuse people, and allow competitors to ride on the marketing and popularity of Google. I remember an advertisement from Xerox that pleaded for people to use "photocopy" instead of "xerox", for the same reason.
Worse, when it stops being a trademark, the company loses control over the meaning of the word. Over time, "microsoft" can become "mean and ugly", and the original trademark holder will have to suffer the connotation or change names.
Re:ok, so he removes it from his lexicon so what? (Score:5, Informative)
Naturally, the submitter above chose to ignore that and focus on the "please remove" part of the letter.
trademarked? (Score:2, Insightful)
Although in this case, googling something means going to google, and not a generic search.
Lets make Google a pejorative instead. (Score:5, Funny)
I need to take a google.
Seems to work.He's a total google.
What a google.
Re:Lets make Google a pejorative instead. (Score:5, Funny)
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. (Score:5, Funny)
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"
To Google, To Xerox... (Score:2, Informative)
What they're scared of... (Score:4, Informative)
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... (Score:4, Funny)
Who, in turn, were sued by Shahrazad violating one of her trademarks...
Re:What they're scared of... (Score:4, Informative)
Just a guess, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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])
Re:From Google.com (Score:3, Interesting)
>universe. Not stars, not dust particles, not atoms.
I think you mean a googol-plex, which is a googol raised to a googol. That's more than the number of atoms in the universe.
de facto (Score:2, Insightful)
courtesy of http://www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: xerox
Pronunciation: 'zir-"äks, 'zE-"räks
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: from Xerox
Date: 1965
1 : to copy on a Xerox copier
2 : to make (a copy) on a Xerox copier
Who cares about google... (Score:5, Funny)
Come on Timothy, we know what you're thinking
Re:Who cares about google... (Score:5, Funny)
We've seen this before. (Score:5, Funny)
Trademarks and loss of trademarks (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
The English language is a living, constantly-changing entity. New words and new meanings for established words appear nearly every day. Remember when "gay" meant "happy," or when a "joint" was a saloon? Although this may be a boon to the dictionary-makers (who roll out a new edition every year or so) and a headache for trademark lawyers (who need to take out ads in magazines to get writers not to use product names as verbs), it's evidence that our communication is constantly changing.
And sometimes it's the words themselves that change, as well as the medium in which they're embedded. Any attempt to freeze words or even to own them is doomed to failure in a vibrant language.
Besides, it's hard for me to feel sorry for the companies who seem to be a victim of their own success. Although I can certainly appreciate the irony that making something a household word is both a wonderful testament to the power of advertising and at the same time threat to a company's trademark, I am unwilling to turn control of the language over to corporations, courts and lawyers.
So I'll still do my xeroxing on a Savin machine, thank you very much. And eat generic jello. I may not go rollerblading, but I will use kleenex (even if it's not made by Kimberly-Clark).
Re:Trademarks and loss of trademarks (Score:3, Insightful)
If Google was sueing someone for using the word Google in - for example - a novel or film then your argument might be relevant. But someone who compiles a dictionary isn't using the word, they are reporting the fact that other people do so. They are in effect journalists.
In the same way, it would be illegal to burn down Google's HQ, but they couldn't do anything against journalists who reported that it had happened (assuming their reports were true).
At the end of the day, all we should conclude is that wealth has turned the guys who run Google into the same sort of offensive facists who run most other corporations. Any sane person would welcome the extra free publicity. And BTW, I don't try any of this "If they don't defend their trademark then the will lose it" tripe. You can only lose your trademark if you don't defend it when it is infringed, failure to defend it when it isn't being infringed (as in this case) is irrelevant!
Re:Trademarks and loss of trademarks (Score:3, Insightful)
Your comment is insightful like a brick. They are dealing with this in exactly the correct manner, whether or not this is an infringing use of the trademark. They have simply asked this guy to note that Google is a trademark of Google corporation. They did not say, "You cannot call Google a verb." They are not suing. They did not threaten to sue.
Re:Trademarks and loss of trademarks (Score:5, Interesting)
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.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
yes, no "or else" there at all (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:RTF Cease & Desist.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
"
Bill: Boy, we sure Microsofted that company, eh Steve?
Steve: You bet Bill, good work!
Bleh (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Googling (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
For that, they used a Brand-Aid(tm)
*thwack*... Ow! What was that for!?
used as verb in _Pattern_Recognition_ (Score:5, Informative)
I hope this catches on.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I hope this catches on.. (Score:3, Funny)
You mean he painted it lime-green and charged you four times the price of a beige paint-job?
- Stealth Dave
Proud owner of an Apple iBook.
Nicest C-and-D letter I've seen (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
would be sufficient for all involved. This sounds like much to do about nothing.Re:Nicest C-and-D letter I've seen (Score:3, Insightful)
Cease? Desist? (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Funny)
v. googled, googling
Do domain names make trademarks obsolete? (Score:3, Interesting)
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? ? ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
(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! (Score:3, Funny)
An inciteful view from one of the lexicographers (Score:3, Insightful)
Reply-To: American Dialect Society
Sender: American Dialect Society Mailing List
From: Ben Ostrowsky
Subject: Re: Google trademark concerns
Comments: To: ADS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
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+eroti
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Isn't google a number? (Score:3, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
you're not implying that there are other search engines out there, are you?
Re:Editorial (Score:5, Funny)
Re:you can't claim proprietary rights to a verb. (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason why they don't want it genericised is that once that happens, they lose any proprietary rights in the word "Google" and any other party can use it at will. So, it's not really surprising at all that they are trying to prevent someone adopting it in a lexicon.
The same thing happened with Rollerblades, Thermos, Hoover etc etc.
The perils of a too popular Trade Mark! It may be free marketing, but they lose any rights to the name if/once it is 'adopted' into the language.
and his already done it... so... bfd (Score:3, Informative)
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.)
--Googling pp.
Re:On ER... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:On ER... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The English Language has nouns as well! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, no - the noun is googol.
"Google" comes from a pun on googol and a contraction of "Go ogle".
-T