Google this, Google

Google’s lawyers are trying to crackdown on people using Google as a verb. Yes, that’s what lawyers do. But what makes it especially absurd is that every new internet company dreams of becoming a verb.

  • http://www.beatcanvas.com Brett Rogers

    Hmm… well, when I buy Kleenex, I prefer Puffs.

  • AC

    They are at real risk of loosing trademark protection for the name Google unless they demonstrate that they have made commercially reasonable efforts to protect it. If “google” enters Webster’s as a generic term for internet searching, Google will have to send Webster’s a pro forma letter every year protesting their misuse of the

    Kimberly Clark does not have trademark protection on the name “Kleenex” but does have trademark protection on the distinctive script in which it is written.

    See here http://ecommercelaw.typepad.com/ecommerce_law/2006/07/avoiding_tradem.html
    http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/993921-1.html
    and
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

  • http://AsbestosDen.org Shawn Levasseur

    Hey, at least the verb “google” matches what you do with the noun “Google”

    Just ask the Hormel meat packing company how well their trademark “Spam” has grown as a verb.

  • http://robsterling.com Sterling

    I’m an adjective, which is excellent.

  • Glyn

    Here in the UK people regularly use ‘to hoover’ to mean ‘to use a vacuum cleaner’ and the firm’s copyright lawyers crack down on it whenever they see it in a newspaper or book. Another example over here is ‘sellotape’ instead of ‘sticky tape’. Perhaps these terms spring up whenever a new industry arises.

    I would guess the Guardian paper styleguide (and other style guides) would have a paragraph about that, and you can probably google other examples as well.

    Sounds very stupid though – I think they’re fighting a losing cause.

  • http://www.poconoclassifieds.com Chad Pensiero

    Then why in the hell are they asking everyone to “Google Pontiac” in their commercial?

    Isn’t that a joint advertisment between the two brands?

  • http://johnnytriangles.blogspot.com T.

    The reason why I think this is stupid is that when people say they’re going to “google” something, they are specifically referring to the act of logging onto Google and using that specific site to do a search. People don’t use Yahoo! or Ask.com search when they say they’re going to google something, they use Google in particular. It’s great buzzbuilding and word-of-mouth advertising.

    It’s different than people using “Xerox” as a generic term for all forms of copying or people using “hoover” to describe all types of vacuuming. The use of Google as a verb strengthens the brand, the others are examples of the weakening of the brand.

  • http://rossnotes.com Ross M Karchner

    T: It’s gonna happen. People will eventually say “google” and mean “web search”.

    “Photoshopping” evolved the same way. At one time, people used it “specifically referring to the act of launching Adobe Photoshop and using that specific application to alter an image”, now it just means “alter an image”.

    Not saying that’s good or bad, just inevitable.

  • Pingback: Starked SF, Unforgiving Valley News » Blog Archive » Talk of the Town: Monday, August 14

  • http://www.theblogrevenue.com nawaki

    They have a lot product these day..maybe they want to monopoly all aspect on the internet..

  • Pingback: Google, Yahoo, MSN to PPC advertisers: keep raising bids, grow -- Centplus Tech

  • R. Anderson

    Whether Google likes it or not, the movement has begun, and “googling” will become yet another verb on the street. Accepting this and not trying to monopolize it will keep people on the side of Google, rather than estranging them through outrageous nitpicking.

  • Pingback: It’s a Sad Day When the Lawyers Take Over « Only Once – Matt Blumberg