Advertisement

April 16, 2014

Is It Proper To Say You Google On GOOGLE®?

Do you “google?” That is the essence of the question before the Federal District Court in Arizona in a Complaint filed on May 21, 2012 by David Elliott against Internet search engine giant Google, Inc. In Elliot v Google, Inc., CV-12-1072-PHX-MHB, Elliot claims that Google’s once distinctive mark GOOGLE® has become generic and lacks trademark significance due to its common use as a transitive verb. After losing to Google in UDRP proceedings involving many “Google-related” domain name registrations that he owns, Elliott now seeks a declaratory judgment that his domain names are rightfully his, that they do not infringe any trademark rights Google may own, and that all Google’s registered GOOGLE® marks should be cancelled since “google” is now a common generic word worldwide that means “to search the Internet.”

Under trademark law, a trademark is an identifier of a source of a product or service. It is a unique brand identifier that distinguishes one person’s products or services from another’s. If a trademark becomes “generic,” meaning the common name for a product or service, all trademark rights are lost.  Marks can become generic without any fault of the trademark owner, and often can become generic as a consequence of the trademark owner’s own success. It is through misuse either by the public or the trademark owner or both that a once famous trademark can fall into the general vernacular of the public and be stripped of its trademark status. Some formerly protected trademarks, which are no longer protected because they were the subject of public “genericide,” are aspirin, cellophane, linoleum, heroin, zipper, thermos, videotape, and escalator. Current marks that are actively fighting the good fight to try to prevent genericide include  XEROX®, KLEENEX®, ROLLERBLADE®,  CHAPSTICK®, BAND-AID®, and BUBBLE WRAP®.

The kiss of death for a trademark can occur when the trademark is included in a dictionary as the common commercial name for a product or a service. Currently, several online dictionaries list two entries for “google”: (1) as a noun identifying “Google” as a trademark or a brand name for an Internet search engine, and (2) as a verb to mean “to search for (something on the Internet) using a search engine,”  “to check (the credentials of someone) by searching for web sites containing his or her name,” and “to search the Internet for information about (a person, topic, etc.). In his Complaint, Elliott identifies many other sources for generic definitions of “google,” including a research report that claims to have located verbal forms of the word “google” in, at least, 19 languages. This is not good news for Google.

So if you are a trademark owner, what can you do to try to ensure that your mark does not fall into the public domain? First, always use your own trademark as an adjective modifying the product on which or service with which it is used (e.g., BAND-AID® adhesive bandages). If you own a federal registration, use the ® registration symbol with your mark. If your mark is not registered, use the unregistered ™ designation with your mark. Never use your own mark as a noun or as a verb. This can sometimes be very difficult to do depending on your marketing strategy. Marketing specialists do not like (and often ignore) this rule of trademark law in creating advertising for clients. It is up to the trademark owner to vet its advertising materials and keep a tight rein on its marketing staff and outside consultants to be sure it does not destroy the very trademark rights the trademark owner is trying to create and protect.

The second thing trademark owners need to do is to monitor the use of trademarks by third parties, such as the media, customers, competitors, etc. Mistakes in the proper use of a trademark can mushroom over night if they catch on with the public. As a trademark owner, your job is to nip those mistakes in the bud as soon as possible. Contact media sources and advise them on, for example, the erroneous reference or use of your mark in an article and educate them on the proper use of your mark. Correct customers, suppliers, distributors, or dictionary publishers if a mark is used or listed improperly. Xerox, for example, for years has undertaken a very public campaign, taking out full page ads in major newspapers for this very purpose, asking the public not to misuse its XEROX® trademark as a verb – “xeroxing” – or as a noun – “xerox machine.” You have to be your own keeper on this and police your mark at regular intervals, not only for this purpose but to ensure other unauthorized and infringing uses are not taking place.

It will be interesting to see if Mr. Elliott (whose name coincidentally is “David”) takes his case against the Goliath Google to the mat. Stay tuned for further updates.

©1994-2014 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Susan Neuberger Weller, Trademark Attorney, Mintz Levin, Law Firm
Member

Susan is a member in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office and has managed the firm's trademark practice for over 10 years. For over 25 years, her practice has involved all aspects of intellectual property and related corporate business transactions, with a particular emphasis on domestic and international trademark and copyright searching, prosecution, enforcement, counseling, and litigation. She specializes in trademark, copyright, domain name, trade dress, and related areas of Internet, e-commerce, unfair competition, customs, and advertising law, as well as intellectual...

202-585-3510

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.