[ADS-L] Google fights genericide

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

Thanks for posting this.

It is my understanding that, because of the way trademark law works,
trademark owners are required to send out such cease-and-desist letters, even though
they know that there is no legal way that they can compel people to use the TM
in ways that would not appear to contribute to the genericization of the TM.
At least Google did not make empty threats--they took the stance of educating
the author, rather than badgering him (or so it seems).

Whether the lawyers really believe that they can change linguistgic behavior,
they can at least point to their vigorous attempts at doing so (called
"policing" the mark) if their TM rights are ever challenged in court of with the TM
Board. Nobody seems to have been able to think of another way of dealing with
this issue legally, and it is too bad because it does create a lot of ill-will
for the lawyers and companies involved. However, famous trademarks are woth
billions of dollars, and to some extent the public relies on trademarks in
making purchases, so it is only fair--and ultimatelty in the public intrest-[-that
owners protect their investdments in whatever legal ways that they must.

I imagine that the dictionary makers got a lot of vigorous policing
"educational effort" from the lawyers! Good for them for sticking by their conclusion!

In the end, as I undestand it, the only real legal of genericization is what
people know about a trademark. This, of course, can be hard to determine. One
can conduct public surveys of name association and recognition; that is one
legally recognized way of demonstrating to the courts that people think of
Google as a TM. Linguists tend to be suspicious of such surveys, and sometimes
courts are as well, since it is often possible to get pretty much whatever answer
one wants depending on the questions asked. The other chief recognized method
is to look at how real people use the term in question and inductively
determine what they know about the TM on the basis of the objective data. This is the
methodology of traditional lexicography, and it seems to work quite well
(though again, it could be possible for one to apply the methodology irresponsibly
so as to achieve the results that one set out to achieve). Given that
dictionary evidence is probabtive, it follows that the proper application of
lexicographical methodololgy must be probative as well.

I assume that the Merriam-Webster people in their new definition indicated
that Google is a recognized TM, which I feel must be a recognized TM (though I
haven't studied this myself). This would mean that they have reported the facts
as they saw them. It is up to the courts to sort out the legal implications,
if and when theya arise.

In a message dated 8/5/06 7:48:39 AM, bgzimmer at BABEL.LING.UPENN.EDU writes:


>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/04/AR2006080401536_pf.html
>
> Washington Post
> Saturday, August 5, 2006; D01
>
> So Google Is No Brand X, but What Is 'Genericide'?
>
> Last month, we noted that "google" had entered Merriam-Webster's
> Collegiate Dictionary. It was a landmark for the search engine --
> going from nonentity to common usage in only eight years. One would
> think that a company that existed only in the minds of two college
> dudes a few years ago would be happy that a major publication such as
> The Washington Post prominently marked the occasion.
>
> One would, that is, until one got a letter from Google's trademark lawyer.
>
> Google, evidently, took offense to this passage in last month's
> article: "Google, the word, now takes its place alongside the handful
> of proper nouns that have moved beyond a particular product to become
> descriptors of an entire sector -- generic trademarks."
>
> This characterization of Google, the letter warned, is "genericide"
> and should be avoided. Such letters are cranked out every day by
> companies keen on protecting their trademarks. Wham-O Inc. wants
> writers to eschew "Frisbee" for "plastic flying disc," for instance.
> I'll note that in my Palm. Excuse me -- my "personal digital
> assistant."
>
> Google, however, goes the extra mile and provides a helpful list of
> appropriate and inappropriate uses of its name. To show how hip and
> down with the kids Google is, the company gets a little wacky with its
> examples. Here's one:
>
> " Appropriate: He ego-surfs on the Google search engine to see if he's
> listed in the results.
>
> Inappropriate: He googles himself."
>
> But this one's our favorite:
>
> " Appropriate: I ran a Google search to check out that guy from the party.
>
> Inappropriate: I googled that hottie."
>
> It's a matter of debate whether it's appropriate or inappropriate for
> a market-leading company worth $113 billion to use the word "hottie"
> in official correspondence. What is beyond debate is the eye-popping
> fact that Google's trademark complaint arrived via a hand-addressed
> letter in the actual mail.
>
> Wonder if they Google(TM)-d me to get the address.
>
> -- Frank Ahrens
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org