Cory wrote: "Oren, you're incorrect. Allowing the generic use of "to google" by critical/academic sites like WordSpy does *not* constitute an abandonment of trademark (in fact, trademark abandonment involves a *very* high standard that is far in excess of allowing people to casually use your mark). What's more, trademark specifically does NOT protect your mark from use in criticism, parody, instruction, and other first amendment contexts."

If this is correct, then why do magazines such as Writer's Digest (oh the shame) carry full page ads from Xerox, etc. reminding writers to respect the trademark? Are they being overly cautios? Excuse me, I have to go take a Google (tm).

Edited by author 02-26-2003 01:36 PM
Cory,
That's a phrase, which is copyrightable (is THAT a word?). However, I don't believe that a verb is. I could be wrong though. I only had Media Law for one semester during a summer two years ago.



But I did get an A. :)

P.S. I'm going to copyright the adjective "copyrightable," so don't anyone get any bright ideas.

Point: FedEx encourages the use of their trademark as a verb.

It's too bad; the whole existence of the "google-it" meme is what vaulted them to the "Brand of the Year" spot ( http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?id=143#more ) this past year with virtually nothing spent on marketing.

hey, google: do you want ketchup on the hand that's feeding you, or would you prefer steak sauce?

That's a loser idea, which is odd from Google. FedEx has the right idea -- it's free word of mouth advertising. People use to think of Frigidaires when they thought of refrigerators -- that free advertising is long gone. Google, you are not immune.

Off-topic:

I've got a rotten cold too, Cory, and my advice is to get the Kleenex that say "Lotion" on the box. I've gone through two boxes and my nose isn't even red! They don't feel greasy, either, like the first-gen lotion Kleenex did.

Edited by author 02-26-2003 02:38 PM
So what about Googlecaching (or whatever that meme was called last year)?

I like Google as a search engine, but I think they're lame as a corporation -- they strike me as arrogant. I'd asked them time and time again to remove some old stupid posts I made in university (we were younger and naiver back then) and it wasn't until recently that they fully complied. Maybe what Google's doing now over this verb thing is a form of tit for tat: DMCA is forcing 'em to remove posts and sites, maybe Google's doing this to get revenge in a way?

Off topic, too, but advice from a recent cold sufferer: Tylenol Daytime and Nighttime Cold tablets. Babies work like a charm.

great...now that they own blogger, are they going to try to trademark that word too?

Edited by author 02-26-2003 04:31 PM
Colds: yes to lotion kleenex. Also Zicam nose gel, at the beginning of the cold (it has zinc in it) and cold-eze zinc lozenges. And echinacea. and anything http://www.drweil.com says. And quit smoking.

There's a major problem going on in this very discussion.

It's a "Google search engine". "Google" is the trademark. Trademarks of this type are adjectives. If your trademark becomes a noun, you'll have to stick cellophane over your mouth and take the escalator down from the trademark mountain.

Slogans, sounds, colours, shapes, numbers - any distinctive indicator of your goods or service can be a trademark. The apple logo, 967-11-11, "Drivers wanted.", and the Microsoft Sound are all trademarks.

Perhaps they need to teach people to do a "google search".

Wait... Google stole their name from the word googleplex, so someone should be issuing them letters telling them that 'A google is a number with 100 zeros, not a search engine. You'll have to change your company name'.

Hey Cory, is this why your book bio says "using Google to look up interesting facts" instead of "googling for"?

Mattbots, that's a googol not a google.

Naw, I just figured a lay audience wouldn't uderstand the colloquialism.

Edited by author 02-26-2003 04:26 PM
"Wait... Google stole their name from the word googleplex, so someone should be issuing them letters telling them that 'A google is a number with 100 zeros, not a search engine. You'll have to change your company name'."

A little confusion here.

True, googol = 10^100, or 1 followed by 100 zeros.

But googolplex = 10^10^100, or 10^googol, or 1 followed by a googol zeros.

Regardless (or "irregardless", if you are G.W. Bush), what I wrote earlier stands. They are entitled to defend their trademark "Google" as it is used to identify a search engine or related products and services ONLY.

If you want to name your new breakfast cereal "Crunchy Google Bits", you are well within your rights. It's only if you name your new search engine "Google" (or even "Geugle" or "Joogle" or "Ur-Google") that those inevitable lawyer's letters actually become cause for concern.