Use G**gle as a verb, violate trademark

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

sez here!

Just waiting til the ILX0R gods get the notice...

― donut bitch (donut), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:40 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh, yeah? Screw them! Here: I woke up this morning, got some mouthwash, and gargled!

That'll learn 'em.

― Chris P (Chris P), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:44 (twenty-three years ago)

g00gle

― Jonathan Williams (ex machina), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:45 (twenty-three years ago)

woah! there are 12,700 results for g**gled!

― jel -- (jel), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:45 (twenty-three years ago)

9009|_3

― gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:46 (twenty-three years ago)

We will have to start 'googol'-ing things instead. Apparently the name 'google' was derived from the word 'googol', which means the number represented in base-ten by a one with a hundred zeroes after it (it's smelly maths talk). 'Googol' was first coined in 1938 - could we plead that it was a an unfortunate typo?

― Lara (Lara), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:48 (twenty-three years ago)

a place that actually defines it verbally should give the 'origin' of the usage=goo-gle's URL.

― RJG (RJG), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:48 (twenty-three years ago)

G( .)( .)gle.

― Chris P (Chris P), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:49 (twenty-three years ago)

GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.GOOGLE.

― Lara (Lara), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:51 (twenty-three years ago)

Since when does it belong to them? I'm sure it was the users who coined that phrase, and therefore free to all.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:52 (twenty-three years ago)

G( .)( .)gle.

That should be a porn search engine!!

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:52 (twenty-three years ago)

That would have be Booble.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:52 (twenty-three years ago)

gewgle

― Jonathan Williams (ex machina), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:54 (twenty-three years ago)

lots of luck to Google in stopping people from talking how they want to! I'm a big fan of their engine but if they really think that legalities can control the growth of language...well, as I say, lots of luck! Even the French have had to concede failure in that regard.

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:54 (twenty-three years ago)

Those were frog eyes, you cads!*

*No, really they were boobs.

― Chris P (Chris P), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:55 (twenty-three years ago)

And when they were come unto a place called Googlgotha, that is to say, a place of a search,
They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.

― Wintermute (Wintermute), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:57 (twenty-three years ago)

You'd think that the company would be pleased that they'd made such inroads into the collective consciousness that their name would become part of the lexicon. You never heard about someone altavista-ing something, did you? Okay, so maybe it's because g**gling rolls off the tongue a bit better, but still.

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:59 (twenty-three years ago)

they really ought to encourage the term's synonymous use. otherwise they might end up like Pepsi!

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:59 (twenty-three years ago)

(it is a hoax isn't it?)

― jel -- (jel), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 20:00 (twenty-three years ago)

haha "Booble" hahaha!

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 20:00 (twenty-three years ago)

in the meantime, Google THIS, you search engine Mofos!

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 20:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Trademarking issues seem a bit more muddled when you own the domain name and you're a web-based company...

― Chris P (Chris P), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 20:01 (twenty-three years ago)

If I asked you to google something and you used Altavista you would not be doing what I asked you. I think that's all they're saying.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 20:13 (twenty-three years ago)

Wouldn't a better porn search engine name be "Gurgle"?

You're right. Too limited in application...

― Matt Maxwell (Matt M.), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 20:24 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm a big fan of their engine but if they really think that legalities can control the growth of language...well, as I say, lots of luck!

Well not on internet message boards, perhaps. But newspapers are constantly getting into troube with the manufacturers of Tippex and Biros and the organisers of Outward Bound courses for using these terms as generic names for the respective products.

― N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 20:27 (twenty-three years ago)

Even when they don't think they can have any effect, a demonstrable history of defending the proper use of the trademark is the difference between -- for instance -- Coca-Cola going to court and preventing other companies from selling products with "Coke" in the name, and Coca-Cola going to court and failing to prevent other companies from selling products with "Cola" in the name.

It has nothing to do with actually caring whether people use Google as a verb, and everything to do with how the courts have forced companies to behave in order to protect their trademarks -- and prevent advertisements like "Searchengine.com: the best place to google!"

― Tep (ktepi), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 20:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Its very good for them to set the trademark free coz of the whole domain name issue. Like with Xerox protecting its trademark they didn't want other companies to start selling "Xerox machines" and removing their cache. But with google I doubt anything will upset it's domination over the search engine field and the widespread use of their name encourages that domination -- like when someone asks you to "google" something of course yr. going to go to their website. Which is why domain names like "search" and "dictionary" and "money" and etc. were snapped up so quick and became so pricey back in the early days.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 20:32 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, I think the message they sent the guy was mostly reasonable: in essence it's the argument Tracer says, that you shouldn't define "google" as meaning "search" when even in common popular usage it means "search using google(TM)."

But Sterling and John are right that it's not such a loss in the long term. As demonstrated by, say, Band-Aids and Vaseline, both of which have rightfully kept competitors from using their trademarks but haven't kept people from using the names as generics anyway. In the longest of terms this is damned helpful, obviously, because everyone else sells, you know, popsicles, but you sell Popsicles(TM), the original defining King of All Popsicles.

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 26 February 2003 22:58 (twenty-three years ago)

Ever notice how some brands have dominated a product so much, that we call the product by its product name instead of what it is? Like... every nose tissue is a Kleenex. "You have any kleenex?" Or Chapstick? Or Band-aids...huh.

― Lola Falana, Thursday, 27 February 2003 04:33 (twenty-three years ago)

There are a few generic words I never knew came from brand names til someone told me (eg in my writing diploma, doing a history of the english language unit).

Beanbag was one. I never knew beanbag was a brand name. Reading up this thread I have to say I never knew popsicle was a brand name either. I spose that is more googles concern - that the origin of the word and it's branding risks being lost. Personally I think they should be damn pleased it has passed into usage, for as everyone's said, we may say hoovering and kleenex and bandaids but we all know the origins of the trademark. Well mostly anyway.

― Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 27 February 2003 04:38 (twenty-three years ago)

Okay - so what is the word or the term that is used to define a product whose name has become generic, such as:

Jello
Kleenex
Beanbag
Chapstick
Bandaids
Q-tips
...
?

(This has long been a debate around our house - we all agree that at one point or another we knew the word/term, but now we're all drawing blanks on just what it might be.)

― I'm Passing Open Windows (Ms Laura), Thursday, 27 February 2003 07:20 (twenty-three years ago)

jello=jelly. kleenex=tissue. bandaid=plaster

(note, uk specific)

― gareth (gareth), Thursday, 27 February 2003 07:37 (twenty-three years ago)

...and Xerox == photocopy (here in the states at least).

― Colin Saunders (csaunders), Thursday, 27 February 2003 07:48 (twenty-three years ago)

...looks like i'm about to get sued anyway so in the meantime: Google your own adventure!

― Colin Saunders (csaunders), Thursday, 27 February 2003 07:50 (twenty-three years ago)

I think Laura is asking for the word to describe the phenomenon, not the generic word for those items.

(Bandaid = *plaster* in the UK? Hunh. That's not at all what "plaster" means in the US, of course...)

― Chris P (Chris P), Thursday, 27 February 2003 07:55 (twenty-three years ago)

Thanks for the translation, Chris *smile*

But I did kinda like those different words - but I still don't get "boot" for trunk!

― I'm Passing Open Windows (Ms Laura), Thursday, 27 February 2003 08:19 (twenty-three years ago)

what about hoover for vacuum cleaner?

if this is real google are silly people...

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Thursday, 27 February 2003 10:21 (twenty-three years ago)

I tried to Tannoy everyone in the building but the Tannoy was broken, so I Sellotaped it back together. Bring it on!

― MarkH (MarkH), Thursday, 27 February 2003 10:24 (twenty-three years ago)

Colin, where in the U.S. do people still say "Xerox" as opposed just "copy?" (You don't work with the elderly, do you?)

Conversely, I think Kleenex completely qualifies as a generic.

Jello = gelatin
Kleenex = tissue
Beanbag = beanbag
Chapstick = lip balm
Bandaids = bandages
Q-tips = cotton swabs

― nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 27 February 2003 16:31 (twenty-three years ago)

bandaids=plasters
q-tips=cotton buds

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 27 February 2003 16:32 (twenty-three years ago)

oh, I see.

― RJG (RJG), Thursday, 27 February 2003 16:34 (twenty-three years ago)

Aspirin = ASA

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Thursday, 27 February 2003 17:02 (twenty-three years ago)

My dad still says 'photostat'.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 27 February 2003 19:41 (twenty-three years ago)

eleven months pass...

http://www.searchenginejournal.com/index.php?p=229

u&k for the jordache parody ref. alone

― Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Saturday, 31 January 2004 13:18 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.