Google doesn’t want you to ‘google’ anymore
This post was published 3 years 3 months 5 days ago and its content may not be valid anymore.If this isn’t splitting hairs, I don’t know what is! Google seems to no longer be the happy fun loving company it once was, with its maturity it seems to have a problem with how people perceive its brand.
In order to ‘preserve its brand’ the search giant has said it intends to crack down on the use of its name as a generic verb, in phrases such as “to google someone.”
“We think it’s important to make the distinction between using the word ‘Google’ to describe using Google to search the Internet and using the word ‘google’ to generally describe searching the Internet. It has some serious trademark issues,” a representative for the search company said.
Come on, isn’t it positive sign when your brand name is synonymous with your product? For example, Band-Aid for bandages, Kleenex for tissues, and Q-Tips for cotton swabs. Why is Google crying when they are the leader in the search industry? I would understand if there was a clone site out there claiming to Google, but for someone to say they are ‘googling’ something when the search the web seems fair game.
This can’t be good for business…
Perfect category…Stupid
I wonder when Nintendo ORDERS us to stop using the word “we”, because it might lead to serious trademark issues…
This is strangly coincidental to Apples current plight.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3482
Apple is warning other companies that it does not want them using the word pod in their products for fear of it might dull the iPod name.
Well, Google can be found in Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary with the description of google
“One entry found for google.
Main Entry: goo·gle
Pronunciation: ‘gü-g&l
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): goo·gled; goo·gling /-g(&-) li[ng]/
Usage: often capitalized
Etymology: Google, trademark for a search engine
: to use the Google search engine to obtain information about (as a person) on the World Wide Web”
So, dosen’t it mean it’s now a part of the common vunacular, and as such the trademark can’t be as strictly enforced?
dude ur so stupid actually lookin in into this dude face it if u have this much time on ur hands then ur r screwd up
He’s stupid? “ur r screwd up”?
It takes all of two seconds to type normally, and another two to look google up on m-w.com.
Ryan, please don’t feed the idiots. They will only breed.
They do have to protect their trademarks…the laws are very subjective, they have to make a conscious effort to stop people from trademark infringement or lose it.
Steven’s right. If Google aren’t seen to be protecting their trademark, they will likely have trouble holding onto the rights for it if it went to the courts and that would be disastrous for them.
You can’t do trademark defence half-heartedly, or some crafty lawyer would tear Google’s trademark down.
Xerox did the same thing back in the 70’s or 80’s
They were the first company to offer photocopying, and since they became the industry standard people became to say they would “Xerox” something instead of photocopy it, this caused issues with branding and sales. Basically as soon as you allow your brand to become a term and not a brand its fair game. If Google was to indeed become a Verb then I could search on MSN and say I Googled something, thus using it as a verb even though I never used Google.
Now if I was to say I went on MSN and Googled (people are stupid) Furry Cats and it didnt’ find a single result, it could lead people to believe Google indeed does not support furry cats, or has a bad search.
In the long run giving up your brand name because you do what you do so well can devalue it, thus google trying to push to get its brand back before it runs ramped.
As mentioned above Xerox did the same thing, releasing a series of ads basically saying
“If it doesn’t say Xerox, its just a photocopy”
Kind of ingenious if you think about it, anyway, Google isn’t the first to do this, and they won’t be the last, that I guarantee.