The Fein Law Firm
  • About
    • Eric D. Fein
    • Hilda M. Hahn
    • Vickie S. Brandt
  • Business Law And Litigation
    • Business Contracts
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Telecom Law
    • Trademark And Copyright Law
    • Construction Contracts And Litigation
    • Insurance Claim Disputes and Litigation
    • Franchise Law
  • Accomplishments
  • Blog
  • Contact
Select Page

Google is One of a Kind, Says 9th Circuit

On behalf of The Fein Law Firm | Oct 18, 2017 | Firm News

google

What do the words “aspirin,” “thermos,” and “escalator” have in common? They all used to be trademarked brand names, but have become so generic that they can no longer be legally trademarked. A trademark exists to protect a business’ goodwill and reputation by letting it protect a word or image that denotes who it is, but if a brand name becomes commonly used to refer to similar products then it is said to be “generic.” The tech giant Google recently went to court to fight for its own identity against the forces of normalcy.

In the case Elliot v. Google, Inc. (856 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2017), a cybersquatter registered hundreds of domain names that contained the word “Google” and other famous brands (e.g. googlecartier.com). The goal was to direct unwitting internet users to its own sites, which were unrelated to Google. Elliot sued after the National Arbitration Forum transferred his domain names to Google. Elliot argued that Google’s trademark was no longer legally protectable because the word “google” was now commonly used to mean “look something up on the internet.” The term “to google” is in common usage in media, and even defined in the Oxford dictionary (go ahead, google it).

However, the Court was not moved. The test for determining whether a mark is generic is if the common usage stops referring to “who” holds the mark, but rather any iteration of the product itself. The Court stated that the Google mark had not devolved to point of becoming generic because it still referred to the search engine itself rather than simply the action of searching the internet on one of any number of search engines. The fact that it had become a verb by itself was not enough to render the Google mark generic. The Plaintiff did not present evidence that the term “googling” had reached the same level of generality as other ubiquitous trademarks. For example, when someone asks for an aspirin they could be referring to any painkiller and not specifically acetylsalicylic acid, but when someone suggests that a reader google a fact the reader is more inclined to imagine the website Google.com (even the Oxford definition refers to using the search engine Google to search for information on the internet).

This victory was a big win for Google. This case ensures that Google’s trademark will likely be protected for many years to come.

Recent Posts

  • 5 tips for preventing partnership disputes
  • Why should businesses register their trademarks?
  • YETI, Amazon, sue over counterfeit mugs
  • How Can A Business Protect Its IP?
  • The importance of business contracts in every business relationship

Archives

  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • July 2019
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017

Categories

  • Business Formation
  • Business Law
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Firm News
  • Franchise Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • Telecommunications Law
  • Trademark & Copyright
  • Uncategorized

RSS Feed

Subscribe To This Blog’s Feed

FindLaw Network

Let’s Talk About Your Business

How can we help you and your business thrive? Send us an email to learn what our counsel can do for you.

The Fein Law Firm

15455 Dallas Parkway
Suite 1225
Addison, TX 75001

Phone: 214-522-9596

Map & Directions

© 2021 The Fein Law Firm. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw, part of Thomson Reuters

Review Us
  • Follow
  • Follow
  • Follow
LGBTQ+ flag icon