Not allowed to 'google' anymore

BillytheImpaler said:
I've always hated when people verbed nouns.
Click to expand...
*Chuckles*



However, I think if it bothered Google TM so much, they wouldn't have allowed Merriam-Webster to use that definition in their dictionary. A LOT of research goes into a word before it is added, and one of those research points would have had to include the head honchos at Google TM.



Edit: BTW, you can't trademark a word, AFAIK. Google can only trademark the logo.

Trademark Licensing Office said:
Copyrights do not generally protect individual words or slogans but will protect creative designs. Therefore, a logo design could be protected by both copyright law and trademark law.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
google.gif
 
I'm just going to use Google (TM) to find some images of LEGO® and vacuum cleaners manipulated using Adobe® Photoshop®

vs.

I'm just gonna google some photoshopped lego men with hoovers.

I don't think I'll be using the first one.
 
cleanbluesky said:
2) It provides attention and nice PR to complain about it...
Click to expand...
Exactly! This sort of public recognition is any company's dream come true - why their marketting department would want to stop it is surely the height of insanity, or at the very least criminally culpable idiocy!

Sirrel Squirrel said:
They probably don't want to become like Hoover where people say all vaccum cleaners and the process of vaccuming is known as hoovers and hoovering.
Click to expand...
But Hoover haven't exactly been harmed by this identification have they? I doubt the brand would still be around if they didn't have the sort of recognition their name brings behind them!

I'm just gonna google some photoshopped lego men with hoovers.
Click to expand...
:eek: You sick, sick perv!

:p
 
manveruppd said:
Exactly! This sort of public recognition is any company's dream come true - why their marketting department would want to stop it is surely the height of insanity, or at the very least criminally culpable idiocy!
Click to expand...

Why do you think they're making an issue of it?

Please tell me you were aware of that and that CBS and myself aren't the only people to realise that this entire episode is an elaborate PR exercise :(

Stan :)
 
Bigstan said:
Please tell me you were aware of that and that CBS and myself aren't the only people to realise that this entire episode is an elaborate PR exercise :(
Click to expand...

Calm down wise-guy, you've not seen through anything. They're just having to balance brand-recognition with brand dilution, as any trademark holder must. As a trademark owner, you must attempt to enforce a trademark, or else it loses its status as a registered mark through genericide--which is obviously not good for Google. This has happened with things like aspirin, which used to be a trademark of Bayer, for example, and is a very real possibility for companies like Google, Xerox, Adobe (as you can see above) and others. One of the penalties of success, I guess.

This is just a half-arsed attempt at enforcing it, so that they can show that they tried--and so that they retain the ability to enforce it when they need to. It's just like Adobe's photoshop press-release; they don't actually expect anyone to stop using it, but they can show that they attempted to avoid genericide.

Interestingly, I believe trademarks should only be used as adjectives (or attributive modifiers)--"a Google search", "LEGO bricks" etc--so I'm not sure what the legality of attempting to enforce the trademark of a verb ("to google") is. I'm not a lawyer, though, and Google have lots of clever lawyers, so I'm sure it's above board.
 
robmiller said:
Calm down wise-guy, you've not seen through anything. They're just having to balance brand-recognition with brand dilution, as any trademark holder must. As a trademark owner, you must attempt to enforce a trademark, or else it loses its status as a registered mark through genericide--which is obviously not good for Google. This has happened with things like aspirin, which used to be a trademark of Bayer, for example, and is a very real possibility for companies like Google, Xerox, Adobe (as you can see above) and others. One of the penalties of success, I guess.

This is just a half-arsed attempt at enforcing it, so that they can show that they tried--and so that they retain the ability to enforce it when they need to. It's just like Adobe's photoshop press-release; they don't actually expect anyone to stop using it, but they can show that they attempted to avoid genericide.

Interestingly, I believe trademarks should only be used as adjectives (or attributive modifiers)--"a Google search", "LEGO bricks" etc--so I'm not sure what the legality of attempting to enforce the trademark of a verb ("to google") is. I'm not a lawyer, though, and Google have lots of clever lawyers, so I'm sure it's above board.
Click to expand...

Pretty pink flowers.

Every time someone says Google, the brand is advertised - same as Hoover, Photoshop, Word, Excel etc.

Brand dilution is a myth - every company in the world wants as many customers as possible to hear their name as often as possible - regardless of how they hear it.

Stan :)
 
Bigstan said:
Every time someone says Google, the brand is advertised - same as Hoover, Photoshop, Word, Excel etc.

Brand dilution is a myth - every company in the world wants as many customers as possible to hear their name as often as possible - regardless of how they hear it.

Stan :)
Click to expand...

Can you read :confused:

I said that they're balancing their desire for brand recognition, which they obviously want, with their need to enforce their trademarks--if they want to retain them, anyway. So, whilst Google would love a world where "to google" was a trademarked but ubiquitous verb, it's not a realistic expectation and so they have to make some attempt to enforce their trademarks.

I'm not talking about brand dilution in some colloquial sense--the fact that people use "hoover" to refer to any brand of vacuum cleaner, for example, or the fact that people refer to acetylsalicylic acid as "aspirin" regardless of its manufacturer--but in a very real legal sense. If Google don't protect their trademark of "Google", they will lose the ability to enforce it when they need to, such as for resolving cyber-squatting disputes, or rip-off services, or competitors etc. etc. They have to do this, it's not a PR exercise.
 
Brand dilution is a myth - every company in the world wants as many customers as possible to hear their name as often as possible - regardless of how they hear it.
Click to expand...

Thats true! In reality, Google's reaction was pretty much logical and its not the first nor the last company to do such stuff.
 
Bigstan said:
Please tell me you were aware of that and that CBS and myself aren't the only people to realise that this entire episode is an elaborate PR exercise :(
Click to expand...
Do you mean that, far from making a genuine attempt to stop the use of "google" as a verb, they are merely trying to draw attention to the fact that it IS used as a verb and thus has entered colloquial speech in so pervasive a way?
In which case you're basically agreeing with robmiller who also says it's not a serious attempt, but for different reasons (to allow them the ability to demostrate that they've attempted to enforce the copyright).
In any case, it's quite possible that either or both of you are right, in which case I'm the one who didn't see through anything. :p But I've heard marketting folks spout such drivel over the years that you can't blame me for taking their statements at face value!:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom