Google this: Court rejects businessman’s claim against Google trademark

Mouse Guard - Available Now @ DriveThruComics.com
Springs Hosting
Springs Hosting
Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Create Your Own Eberron D&D Adventures @ Dungeon Masters Guild
Current D&D Campaign Adventures - Mythic Odysseys of Theros

WASHINGTON – A federal appeals court this week rejected a businessman’s claim that Google cannot trademark the verb form of its name because “to google” has become synonymous with internet searching.

David Elliott sued Google after the company tried to block the 763 internet domain names he registered using google as a verb, for sites like googlebarackobama.net, googlemittromneysdog.com, googlenewlaptops.com, googleuganda.com and more.

Elliott argued that under the federal Lanham Act governing trademarks, “google” has become a generic word that warrants a cancellation of its trademark. But a U.S. District Court judge in Arizona disagreed in 2012, and a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling in an opinion released Tuesday.

“The mere fact that the public sometimes uses a trademark as the name for a unique product does not immediately render the mark generic,” Judge Richard Tallman wrote in the appeals court ruling.

The court also rejected Elliott’s claim that the district court wrongly granted summary judgment for Google in the face of the “sheer quantity” of evidence he produced – including consumer surveys, media reports and linguistic experts – to support his claim. That evidence, while hefty, was not relevant to the underlying argument and did not merit a full trial, the court said.

“Elliott cannot survive summary judgment based on ‘sheer quantity’ of irrelevant evidence,” Tallman wrote.

An attorney for Elliott said in an emailed statement Wednesday that they are considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Google won another round in its fight to keep a trademark on its name, after a federal appeals court rejected an Arizona man's claim that the word is no longer unique but is synonymous with internet searching.(<a href="https://flic.kr/p/7zhKsr" target="_blank">Photo</a> by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dudleycarr/" target="_blank">Dudley Carr</a>/<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" target="_blank">Creative Commons</a>)
Google won another round in its fight to keep a trademark on its name, after a federal appeals court rejected an Arizona man’s claim that the word is no longer unique but is synonymous with internet searching.(Photo by Dudley Carr/Creative Commons)

“It is under consideration. No decision has been made, but it is likely,” the attorney, Thomas Foster, said of a possible appeal.

Foster said the circuit court’s decision sets precedent on the question of “verbbing” a trademarked name.

“Regardless of whether this issue reaches the Supreme Court, this will be the landmark case addressing the ‘verbbing’ of trademarks,” Foster’s statement said. “Until now, the effect of ‘verbbing’ of a trademark has been undecided.”

The Lanham Act, passed in 1946, governs trademarked products. One element of the act allows for a trademark to be canceled for a variety of reasons, including if a trademark is “genericized,” or used so much that the trademark loses significance. That has happened with aspirin, cellophane and thermos, all common words that used to be trademarks.

“The Lanham Act gives a framework protects cases nationwide. It set parameters for what you can and can’t do with a brand name,” said Jon Schiffrin, a private attorney who used to be a trademark examiner for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

He said the issue in Elliott’s case is “genericide, which occurs in the event that a trademark gets overused to refer to a type of product, instead of the name.” But Schiffrin said that Google has promoted itself as more than a search engine.

“Google had done enough to promote itself as a brand to overcome any finding that the public indiscriminately refers to search engines as googles,” Schiffrin said.

Josh Gerben, an attorney based in Washington said, agreed that genericness is “something where a trademark is no longer able to identify a particular source of a product or service.” But he said that that people understand that “google” is different from “search the internet.”

“If I say the word ‘Google,’ everybody knows what it means to google something and that you’re probably referring to their search engine.”

Creative Commons license

JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER

Subscribe for free updates!

Newsletters

View previous campaigns.

Powered by MailChimp

Nerdvana Media will use the information you provide on this form to be in touch with you and to provide updates and marketing. Please let us know all the ways you would like to hear from us:

You can change your mind at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in the footer of any email you receive from us, or by contacting us at news@nerdvanamedia.com. We will treat your information with respect. For more information about our privacy practices please visit our website. By clicking below, you agree that we may process your information in accordance with these terms.

We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here.

About the author

Avatar

Nerdvana

Nerdvana has hosted many occasional contributors over the years. If you're interested in being one, reach out to us!

Add Comment

Post a comment...

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Samurai Comics