Edited by author 02-27-2003 06:09 PM
Red Headed Ba*d wrote:
"Nonsense. When I wrote of "trademark dilution", I was referring to misrepresentation on the part of a competitor to gain undue market share, not the entry of that trademark into common usage."

I'm incorrect about my use of the term - 'Trademark Dilution' is a claim a holder brings against a party. I wasn't responding to your use of the term, as I hadn't read it.

The correct term for what I was speaking of is 'Genericity'. The two terms share a common lay meaning, so it's easy to confuse them sometimes.

If a court decides, as they did in Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., that 'shredded wheat' is too generic a term, the trademark can be lost. 'Cellophane' and 'Aspirin' suffered similar fates for the same reason, although Bayer lost 'Aspirin' during WWI, so politics have always been rumored to have played a part (Bayer is a German company).

When determining whether a trademark has become generic, courts will look for *dictionary definitions* amongst other mediated examples (newspapers, magazines). They will also look for evidence that the trademark holder has tried to protect its mark.

So, to defend my original point, by ignoring the generification of its trademark, Google risks losing it. Not this week or the next - but at some indeterminate point. If the legal staff didn't send a letter to Word Spy, they'd be remiss.

Whether or not it seems ridiculous that 'Google' would enter the same realm as 'Cellophane' isn't for a lawyer to decide because, hey - you never know.

~ scott