Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Google Sends Legal Threats to Media Organizations

Posted by samzenpus on Mon Aug 14, 2006 07:47 AM
from the you-wouldn't-like-google-when-it's-angry dept.
Businesses Google The Internet IT
rm69990 writes "Google, becoming more and more concerned about the growing use of the word google as a verb, has fired off warning letters to numerous media organizations warning them against using its name as a verb. This follows google (with a lowercase g) being added to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary in June. According to a Google spokesperson: "We think it's important to make the distinction between using the word Google to describe using Google to search the internet, and using the word Google to describe searching the internet. It has some serious trademark issues.""
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Google Makes Peace With Media Companies 67 comments
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Google is bringing some of the biggest media companies into its camp and sharing revenue with them, after drawing their ire last year with moves to search video and books, the Wall Street Journal reports. From the article: 'Google's improved relationships with media and entertainment companies reflects the confidence those companies have gained in online distribution in the past year, amid rapid growth in Americans' consumption of Web video and other Internet content. But just as importantly, it illustrates a coming of age in Google's approach to the owners of content it wants to search.' Google has hired executives from the media world to conduct the negotiations. One of them, David Eun, formerly of Time Warner and NBC, said, 'The biggest challenge is explaining to them we're friend and not foe.'" Just don't use google as a verb. Pretty please?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Google Sends Legal Threats to Media Organizations 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • I think the reasoning behind this is that Google is attempting to preemptively stop any possible legal issues with their name. I mean, you run into issues when things are known by a brand name [everything2.com]. Take for instance Kleenex, Jell-O, Frisbee & Hoover. You know what all these are and there's a fairly good chance you've called an imposter brand the same name.

    What I speculate Google is worried about is that the verb "googled" becomes generic for search as in "I googled it." And the law says you can't trademark something that is generically used. Essentially, if a case occurred with a rival search engine putting "Just google it!" at the top of their page and the court said they could do that because 'google' is a generic term, then you would have precedent for millions of Google imposters seeking to make money off the Google name (since it just means search to the general public).

    Google figures it already is a household name. The last thing they need is the media dumping 'google' as a verb in the papers because if they start putting it in headlines and stories--it's a much easier case for another company to claim it is part of the English language. Hell, it's already in two entries in the Oxford dictionary [searchenginewatch.com]. I think you could already argue a case to use the word "google" to mean search on your site.

    • Re:Generic Brand Name Issue (Score:5, Interesting)

      by James_Aguilar (890772) <aguilar,james&gmail,com> on Monday August 14 2006, @07:58AM (#15901918) Journal
      I agree on your analysis of what Google is doing. I also have a question. They're trying to avoid losing their trademark by keeping the name from becoming too mainstream a word. However, do they actually have to succeed in order to maintain the trademark? Or, do they only have to demonstrate that they are trying?
    • from eldavojohn's link:
      + google /gogl/ (also Google) v. informal [intrans.] use an Internet search engine, particularly Google.com: she spent the afternoon googling aimlessly. [trans.] search for the name of (someone) on the Internet to find out information about them: you meet someone, swap numbers, fix a date, then Google them through 1,346,966,000 Web pages. ORIGIN: from Google, the proprietary name of a popular Internet search engine.
      (emphasis mine)

      Would it not be more correct to make the exact definition of the verb "google" to be "to use the Google.com search engine to search for information on the internet"? I mean, with the current definition, a person could say, "Yeah, I just googled it on MSN." I'm surprised Google hasn't gone after the dictionary to get the definition changed.

    • Re:Generic Brand Name Issue (Score:5, Insightful)

      by babbling (952366) on Monday August 14 2006, @08:01AM (#15901942)
      What I speculate Google is worried about is that the verb "googled" becomes generic for search as in "I googled it."

      There's no need to speculate. That's exactly what they're claiming!

      "We think it's important to make the distinction between using the word Google to describe using Google to search the internet, and using the word Google to describe searching the internet. It has some serious trademark issues."
    • Trademarks can be revoked if they become generic

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Maintaining _trademark_rights_.E2.80.94_abandonment_and_generi cide [wikipedia.org]

      Further, if a court rules that a trademark has become "generic" through common use (such that the mark no longer performs the essential trademark function and the average consumer no longer considers that exclusive rights attach to it), the corresponding registration may also be ruled invalid.

      For example, the Bayer company's trademark "Aspirin" has been ru

      • (I assume) Google already trademarked their name, so popularizing the term will not make it impossible for them to trademark it, cause they already hold the trademark.

        One of the requirements of holding a trademark is that you must both use it and defend it from intrusion by others. If you don't do those things, the government can rule that you don't really care about it, and remove its protection. It's not like a patent where you can hold it without using it for anything.

        At the very least, their bran

  • Trademark :-( (Score:5, Funny)

    by ExE122 (954104) * on Monday August 14 2006, @07:50AM (#15901881) Homepage Journal
    What the hell is Google thinking? Any mention of their name is great publicity and they should be happy with it. Instead they look like a bunch of corporate penny mongers trying to be a general inconvenience.

    It almost reminds me of the time that Despair, Inc. [despair.com] patented the frowney emoticon :-( and threatened to charge anyone that used them. "Let our message to trademark violators be clear. Whether you are a 4th grade nothing using your momma's AOL account, or you are Time Magazine's 'Man of the Year', we are going to hunt you down, and when we do, we're really going to give you something to :-(® about."

    The only difference is that Despair was only joking :-P.

    --
    "A man is asked if he is wise or not. He replies that he is otherwise" ~Mao Zedong

  • Did anyone hear about... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 14 2006, @07:50AM (#15901883)
    Anyone hear about that one site that got slashdotted the other day after it got posted on Digg? It was down for ages!

    • Not offtopic (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Red Flayer (890720) on Monday August 14 2006, @07:59AM (#15901925) Journal
      Anyone hear about that one site that got slashdotted the other day after it got posted on Digg? It was down for ages!
      Someone please grasp the subtlety of the parent (though I wish they hadn't posted AC)... The motivation for modding it offtopic is exactly why Google seeks to keep 'to google' out of the vernacular.

      Obviously, some moderator was upset that 'to be slashdotted' was associated with Digg in the parent. I think this just validates why Google is taking this action.

      Anyway, nice one, AC.
      • Google copied their own name from "Googol" [wikipedia.org], which has been claimed by the descendants of Milton Sirotta who invented the term.

        They also stole "Googolplex" [wikipedia.org] to name their corporate offices.

        Google is as bad as Micromart, Wal-soft, and LOL. Part of their success is making you think otherwise.

      • I agree. Both 'google' and 'slashdot', as verbs, have very specific meanings that are lost in generalization. For example, the other day, on some news site or other, I saw two links at the top of the story: "digg this" and "slashdot this". What they meant to say, of course, was "submit this story to (digg|slashdot)". However, to a long-time slashdotter (I have two UIDs, one orphaned, one active), "slashdot this" struck me as a Very Bad Idea, as it actually said "reduce this server to multi-kilobuck toxic sl

  • Too late (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ral315 (741081) on Monday August 14 2006, @07:51AM (#15901885)
    Like many other companies, they didn't worry about it until it became too mainstream to stop. It's like LEGO wanting people to call them "Lego bricks" instead of "Legos", or Kleenex using "Kleenex brand tissues"- it's not going to happen, and at some point they will lose their trademark rights because of it.

    • Re:Too late (Score:4, Insightful)

      by peipas (809350) on Monday August 14 2006, @08:05AM (#15901958)
      ...and at some point they will lose their trademark rights because of it.

      I think Kimberly-Clark will have to worry about losing their Kleenex trademark no sooner than Disney's copyrights expire. Read: never.

  • Protecting Trademark (Score:5, Informative)

    by chad9023 (316613) on Monday August 14 2006, @07:59AM (#15901926)
    No, this does not make Google evil. Like any company, they have to protect their trademark, or they risk losing it. If some other company can show that people are using the term Google generically (not referring to Google itself), that Google knew about this and did not take action to prevent it, then they can challenge the trademark.

  • Not taken aback. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ayeco (301053) on Monday August 14 2006, @08:04AM (#15901954)
    From the article: Web veterans have also been taken aback by Google's suddenly humourless approach.

    I'm not sure why The Independant is speaking for this web veteran. I'm not taken aback. I respect this move by Google. This seems like a perfectly legitimate way to defend their trademark.

  • Googled does sound dirty though (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Monday August 14 2006, @08:04AM (#15901957) Homepage
    Anyone remember Buffy The Vampire slayer?

    Willow: Have you Googled her yet?
    Xander: Willow, she's seventeen!

    "Help" Season 7, Episode 4

  • Googling woes (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Monday August 14 2006, @08:09AM (#15901979) Homepage Journal
    Once I was feeling artistic, so I Googled how best to Xerox my head onto a Playboy Bunny, maybe using some Scotch Tape, but found out I could Photoshop it instead. So, I had a Coke, grabbed some Kleenex, and got to work.. but was disturbed by my mom coming in to Hoover. So I quickly shut down the PC, and decided to use Crayolas and Play-Doh instead.

  • Brand Mismanagement? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Viceice (462967) on Monday August 14 2006, @08:16AM (#15902023)
    Before everyone starts with the "OMG, Google is Evil!" let me say this.

    Companies have collective wet dreams about their product names replacing generic terms, like Panadol instead Paracetamol, or Coke instead of Cola. But this is always as a reenforcement of their brand, if the term "brand" is understood NOT as simply a logo and pakaging, but all the intrinsic values of the product combined. For instance, if you ask for Panadol, it's for the brandname drug that is fast acting and effective in a low dose.

    So when we say "to google" we mean to use this very efficient search engine with a low signal to noise ratio to quickly come up with a useful fact. Googles beef with this is the use of "to google" to mean "Use any search engine to...", this is akin to you going to a restaurant and upon asking for a Coke, you are instead served a Pepsi or Dr. Pepper.

  • There's lots of precedent (Score:3, Informative)

    by $RANDOMLUSER (804576) on Monday August 14 2006, @08:22AM (#15902051)
    Q-tip, Xerox, Escalator, Velcro, and Band-Aid are some more that haven't been mentioned yet.
    Wiki entry for Genericized Trademark here [wikipedia.org]

  • Japanese (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kahei (466208) on Monday August 14 2006, @08:23AM (#15902062) Homepage

    Aww, the Japanese verb 'guguru', to search on the internet, is almost the only import from English that I don't hate. It's cool the way it becomes a proper verb with a full set of conjugations:

    guguru -- google it
    guguritakunakunaru -- to no longer want to google it
    guguriyagaru -- f@@king google it
    gugureba -- archaic pluperfect tense, now used as a subjunctive
    gugurikarikeri -- poetic form: 'to have once been googled... and perhaps to be googled again'

    Possibly from proto-Japonic '*gugumi', c.f. Goryeo '*g-g-o'.

    Mind, I suppose it would depend on whether Google trademarked 'google' spelt in katakana.

  • They want to avoid the Sony fate (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Monday August 14 2006, @08:39AM (#15902162)
    Sony lost its "walkman" trademark for just the same reason: It became an everyday word for a portable cassette player with earphones, so everyone may call his product "walkman".

    I can understand the move. They sure as hell don't need more "market presence", they already have it. But isn't it interesting how things change? During my marketing courses, our teacher was running up and down with the primary goal to make your product name the "generic" name for the product group, so your brand is on everyone's mind when they think about the product group. Today, it's the worst thing that could happen to you, you may well lose your brand that way.

    Did I already say today that brand/patent/copyright laws are sometime a little off the path of common sense?

  • What Google means at Google (Score:5, Funny)

    by null etc. (524767) on Monday August 14 2006, @08:50AM (#15902227)
    Amongst the general population, the accepted usage of the term "google" is to denote the process of performing a search via the Google Internet search engine. However, at Google's own corporate campus, the verb form of the word "Google" takes on several different meanings, depending upon context. Following are some examples to illustrate the multi-faceted use of the word "Google":

    "He insisted on programming the solution in Perl, but I googled him around a bit and he finally reprogrammed it in PHP." Translation: to bully.

    "The manager wanted the TPS reports yesterday, but I told him my email must have been googled and that I would have to resend it." Translation: to get lost in a mess of seemingly incomprehensible data.

    "She has nice legs, but I heard that one guy who asked her out got reprimanded by the googles." Translation: overly sensitive PC/PR lawyers who retain power through the threat of incoming litigation.

    "I checked my stock balance the other day an my shares had dropped $200! I lost over a million dollars! Then I woke up and realized it was just a google." Translation: nightmare.

    "I wanted to buy the new GM hybrid, but after I read the consumer safety warnings about its sneaky legal tactics, that googled me over to Toyota." Translation: to drive away customers via bad corporate reputation.

  • The Top-10 Alternatives to "I googled it" (note the lower-case 'g'):

    • 10 "I AltaVista'd it" [altavista.com] (potential ad campaign: "Hasta la vista, Google!")
    • 9 "I Yahoo!'d it" [yahoo.com] (Good luck with that lawsuit; it's been in the official motto of several states for decades!)
    • 8 "I Asked it" [ask.com] (AKA "I just axed it", since they "axed" poor Jeeves...)
    • 7 "I HotBot'd it" [hotbot.com] (She's not all that hot these days...)
    • 6 "I WebCrawler'd it" [webcrawler.com] (Crawl being the operative word; no speed records broken here!)
    • 5 "I Accoona'd it" [accoona.com] (Possibly illegal to admit in several states)
    • 4 "I Lycos'd it" [lycos.com] (Not to be confused with "I Pecos'd it" from the 1950's...)
    • 3 "I Netscaped it" [netscape.com] (That's netscaped not netscraped)
    • 2 "I AOL'd it" [aol.com] (Roughly analogous to "I screwed it up")

      and the #1 alternative to "I googled it":
     
    • 1 "I Dogpile'd it" [dogpile.com] (Imagine Cartman in the "red rocket" scene...)

     

  • YouTube is suing Stevens (Score:5, Funny)

    by slashdotmsiriv (922939) on Monday August 14 2006, @09:40AM (#15902566)
    On related news, YouTube is taking legal steps against the US Senate for using its brand name to describe the internet ... Senator Stevens was not available for comment ...

    • Re:Evil (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tgd (2822) on Monday August 14 2006, @08:00AM (#15901934)
      How is protection of a trademark evil?

      If they don't do that, then Microsoft could legally set up "google.microsoft.com" and run all their searches through there.

      IE could say "Google: " and point the query at MSN.

      Google is a business. If they don't protect their trademark, they're committing suicide. If the management doesn't, they're going to be sued into oblivion by their shareholders.

      Evil? Just because you don't understand an action doesn't make it evil.

      • Re:Evil (Score:4, Insightful)

        by badfish99 (826052) on Monday August 14 2006, @08:28AM (#15902094)
        Protection of a trademark isn't evil, but Google made a big mistake when they chose the "don't be evil" motto. Now every negative press article about them quotes the motto, in a context that makes it look hypocritical. Just look at TFA, which begins "... Google, known for its mantra "don't be evil", has fired off a series of legal letters ...".

    • Re:Evil (Score:5, Funny)

      by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Monday August 14 2006, @08:08AM (#15901976)
      See, Google is starting to become Evil.

      Don't worry. I'm still in the early beta stages. I'll let you know when I've become fully actualized.
    • '' How does it hurt google for it's name to used as a verb? ''

      Same as it hurt Xerox that their name was used as a verb. Once it becomes part of the language, it can lose its trademark status. Like Xerox, Google doesn't really care if you use the word, they are just legally obliged to send you a threatening letter.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.