GROWING PAINS

So it is disturbing to see several recent events cast the company that I adore in a new, less flattering light.

Firstly, it appears that Google wants us to stop “googling”. It has always been a testament to Google’s profound impact on the world that the company’s name was adopted as a noun. In fact, “google” (as in “to google”) was recently admitted into the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. But lawyers have another word for it – “genericide” – an impressively evocative term for when a company’s registered trademark becomes a generic term.

Only the most successful and unique trademarks may morph into generic vernacular. Think Frisbee, Esky, Kleenex, Panadol, Escalator, Hoover, Band-Aid, Xerox, Popsicle, Velcro, Thermos, Hi-Liter, Alfoil, Jeep and Lycra.

Google’s trademark lawyers have been sending out thousands of letters to individuals and organisations requesting that they refrain from using Google’s trademark in generic context. One such letter was sent to Frank Ahrens of the Washington Post in August. Google’s legal eagles even suggested helpful ways for Mr Ahrens and his colleagues to avoid such trademark genericide in the future:

• Appropriate: He ego-surfs on the Google search engine to see if he’s listed in the results. Inappropriate: He googles himself.
• Appropriate: I ran a Google search to check out that guy from the party. Inappropriate: I googled that hottie.

It raises the question: despite the hip tone of the letters, is this action something of a litmus test for determining when a company crosses over from fresh, exciting upstart to plump corporate overlord?

A case has been made that Google needs to send these cease and desist letters out for their trademark to remain valid. But loss of trademark due to genericisation involves far more than the odd person ‘googling for hotties’. But what other explanation? Most internet companies would happily trade their entire executive team for the level of ubiquity that Brand Google has cultivated.

A CATALOGUE OF HUMAN INTENTIONS

GROWING PAINS

So it is disturbing to see several recent events cast the company that I adore in a new, less flattering light.

Firstly, it appears that Google wants us to stop “googling”. It has always been a testament to Google’s profound impact on the world that the company’s name was adopted as a noun. In fact, “google” (as in “to google”) was recently admitted into the Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. But lawyers have another word for it – “genericide” – an impressively evocative term for when a company’s registered trademark becomes a generic term.

Only the most successful and unique trademarks may morph into generic vernacular. Think Frisbee, Esky, Kleenex, Panadol, Escalator, Hoover, Band-Aid, Xerox, Popsicle, Velcro, Thermos, Hi-Liter, Alfoil, Jeep and Lycra.

Google’s trademark lawyers have been sending out thousands of letters to individuals and organisations requesting that they refrain from using Google’s trademark in generic context. One such letter was sent to Frank Ahrens of the Washington Post in August. Google’s legal eagles even suggested helpful ways for Mr Ahrens and his colleagues to avoid such trademark genericide in the future:

• Appropriate: He ego-surfs on the Google search engine to see if he’s listed in the results. Inappropriate: He googles himself.
• Appropriate: I ran a Google search to check out that guy from the party. Inappropriate: I googled that hottie.

It raises the question: despite the hip tone of the letters, is this action something of a litmus test for determining when a company crosses over from fresh, exciting upstart to plump corporate overlord?

A case has been made that Google needs to send these cease and desist letters out for their trademark to remain valid. But loss of trademark due to genericisation involves far more than the odd person ‘googling for hotties’. But what other explanation? Most internet companies would happily trade their entire executive team for the level of ubiquity that Brand Google has cultivated.