"To Google, or not to Google?"That is the question posed my many a legal conjurer.According to dictionary.com: to 'google' is to search for information about a specific person through the Google search engine.Last month, 'google' (note the lowercase 'g') won a spot in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.Other examples abound...Oi, but here's the rub. In an uncharacteristic move Google has lashed out at the media, respectfully asking them to refrain from use of their trademarked name as a verb. Here's a thought...why?Was Xerox bothered when the name of its product became synonymous with photocopying?Did kleenex shed a tear when the term 'tissue' went out of vogue?Did Christmas care when we officially re-named it?Ok. Yes. Google needs to protect itself and its intellectual property. But this has encouraged copyright-happy Apple to follow suit, leading my mind to wander to places I'd nay visited before.Can Creative hit us with a copyright for the word zen? What about ask.com? Heck, I know there are others - and I'm just drawing me a blank right now. Can y'all think of any?
Oh, and by the way: Googdesk, anyone?
1 comment:
Yes, Xerox was bothered. In fact, they had a huge ad campaign with ad headlines that read, "Xerox is not a verb."
Yes, Kleenex was bothered because they lost sales if competing products became generically known as "kleenex" rather than "tissues."
Post a Comment