Guy Files Lawsuit To Strip Google Of Its Trademarks
from the good-luck-with-that dept
We all know that "Google" has become a verb (i.e., "just Google it") but has it reached the point that it refers generically to all search? One... er... enterprising guy is trying to make the legal case that this is so. David Elliott has filed a lawsuit to have Google's trademarks in its own name declared cancelled because the term has become generic. As you may or may not know, if a trademarked term is judged "generic," then trademarks on those terms can be cancelled -- which is why many trademark holders on near-generic words often fight hard against them becoming so generic. It's why terms like Xerox, Kleenex, White-Out, Band-Aid and the like -- which defined a category and often led people to assume that all such products were called that -- are often seen as dangerous failures in trademark circles, rather than massive successes for so dominating a category.In this case, Elliott is pissed that Google won a ruling against him after he registered over 750 domain names that used Google's marks in some manner. He's got a pretty big uphill battle here. While "google" may be a verb, it seems like it's a verb in the context of using Google's search engine, not using another alternative search engine. Elliott's claims seem to focus on the fact that google is used as a verb, rather than that it's generic. For example, he quotes CEO Larry Page telling people to "have fun and keep googling!" and then seems to think this supports is case. It does not. It's not hard to see how it actually suggests the exact opposite. You would assume that someone in Larry Page's position would say something like that because he wanted people to keep using Google's products, not because he wanted them to generically search the internet with anyone's search engine.
I'd be quite surprised if this actually got anywhere.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: david elliott, generic brand, larry page
Companies: google
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahem. I'd say the judge will look, laugh internally at the Guy and dismiss the case with a straight face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> some audience "have fun and keep bingling!"
Wouldn't Ballmer say:
Shouldn't someone in Larry Page's position have statements vetted by lawyers? Instead of saying:Shouldn't he say:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
On a side note I really wanna see suggestions for the empty space above, I feel it could be an interesting collective experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
See? It can be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sorry Microsoft, you lost, it'll be forever known as googling. Accept defeat and try to beat them at coming up with the next innovation, rather then chasing after them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Go Bing yourself."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Branding for any company that doesn't want to sound like a porn studio is tricky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me: "Open your internet browser"
Them: "You mean Google?"
Me: "Well kind of, just double click on the 'e' icon"
Them: "Yea, Google"
(Clarification, if I were offering more than quick advice, I'd Suggest getting Chrome/Firefox. In fact i'll use cmd line FTP to download firefox before opening IE on a fresh install.)
Although I don't think we should evaluate trademarks based on people that are illiterate in the subject area.. but that's never stopped the government from doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Almost there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Almost there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Almost there
I'm just planting little nudges & seeds where I can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Almost there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Almost there
http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/news.html
Have you tried that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Almost there
I can make them play. I am just disgusted that I have to do all this to make them play when it should be simple matter of clicking play. I still find it ironic though that their copy protection does nothing but annoy people who actually bought the disk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Almost there
There is also this player there, maybe it works who knows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Almost there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Almost there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Almost there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Almost there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Almost there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Almost there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Almost there
Oops, I am.
You do know that MacOS is a Unix kernel, right? There's scripting and a command line there with everything you need. Oh, and Objective C is lightyears beyond C++.
So it will fully support someone with a very high level of skill and understanding of computers.
Not a Mac fanboy. I dislike all fanboisms. Linux Fanboism is no exception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYVCk10AzS0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Generic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Generic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Hey Darryl, I binged your mom last night"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google
I actually think this guy SHOULD have a good case. It's really not unlike escalator and the like and, unlike Kleenex, Google doesn't seem to have an active, regular enforcement policy regarding the using of "googling" for non-Google products.
Google itself is a counter-factual. Search for define:googling:
"googling present participle of goo·gle (Verb)
Verb:
Use an Internet search engine, particularly Google.com: "she spent the afternoon googling aimlessly".
Search for the name of (someone) on the Internet to find out information about them."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google
I started thinking Google should probably lose it's trademark on the term when I started noticing TV shows use the term "google" even when they use a made up search engine.
However, they should keep their trademark on their colorful logo. That is distinctly Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Google
How is any company supposed to police people's daily conversations?
Additionally, not only would it be impossible, but it would be a living hell for the general populace if they had to adhere to trademark restrictions in their casual conversations.
I'm really torn on this, and I'm not sure there is a clean legislative or even judicial solution.
I don't think Xerox should have to police the general popular cultural use of Xerox to mean copy in order to prevent Cannon from marketing their copier as a "Xerox" machine.
On the other hand, I also don't think Xerox should be able to market copying as "Xeroxing".
It's a puzzle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Glossed the most important part of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Glossed the most important part of the story
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Glossed the most important part of the story
I think whether he could actually make money if Google didn't shut him down is pretty much beside the point. The point is whether "Google" is generic, and also, whether the rules for "generic" should be as they are.
I'm not defending Google. In a post upstream, I have expressed how I am torn on this issue, and the guy seems to have a valid case under current law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Glossed the most important part of the story
And so he can do what anyone with half a brain and access to any search engine can do. Though I don't like trademarks in general and don't think Google should be taking his domains, that's potentially 750 fewer useless links to show up every time I search for something... on Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sick of the shtick
but math says it's One with an oodle.
any Judge will see through,
how this lawyer's nose grew,
when he tries for the kit-n-kaboodle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He has a premature point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow!! This guy has a LEGITIMATE USE for 750 domain names!! He must have had some astoundingly good idea of how to make use of them. If that's the case, I wish himn all the success in the world.
Either that, or he's an asshole squatting on 750 domain names for the sole purpose of preventing anyone else with a legitimate use for them from using them unless they pay him ransom for the names. If that's the case, I hope Google crushes him like the insect he is, even if I'd rather see him in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree that this guy is domain squatting, which is sleazy.
1) Being sleazy does not require relinquishing all of your rights. (Should it? well ...)
2) I could be mis-remembering, but when YAHOO! was the predominant search engine, I don't recall a lot of people saying "YAHOO! that". "Google that"' without regard to a particular branded search engine, if in common use, presents a problem. It is in common use.
3) I think in most of these generics trademark battles, I don't agree that the culturally prevalent product should lose trademark, but I also believe that the culturally prevalent product should not be allowed to usurp a category with their brand. I am not suggesting this has happened.
4) There are brands who are trying to usurp words, not just brands. See Monster Cable. This needs to stop, and it needs to stop at the legislative level with penalties for trivial litigation at the least.
This is a tough one to write laws for that make sense and be consistently applied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm writing to inform you that you have violated the trademark on "Monster Cable" (tm) by writing this post. Please note that we shall be adding a second count as you had to think of the words "Monster Cable" (tm) at least once as your wrote the post.
You may avoid the embarrassment of appearing in court and the 200% certainty that you will lose this action by remitting a certified cheque or money order to this office by 10am June 1st and an apology witnessed by a notary public in the amount of $25,000,000.00. It will also be necessary that you acknowledge and agree that we own the words "Monster" and "Cable" used in that or any other order in this context or not. Further, you promise and certify that you will promote and make known to all and sundry that ownership of the words "Monster" and "Cable" are our exclusive property in particular to the word pirates of Websters Dictionary and the OED and to "pirate Mikey".
We also accept payment via Visa, MasterCard, American Express and PayPal.
We look forward to receiving your payment within the next 72 hours.
Sincerely
Alpha Trolls, Barristers and Solicitors
Attorneys At Law LLC
Nuclear Bomb Town, NV
Alternative Offices
Hamilton, Bermuda
"We thank you for your custom and look forward to screwing you blue in the near future. Not that we also offer surgical procedures at half price at our special clinic in Zimbabwe."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
google is evil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: google is evil
[ link to this | view in chronology ]