Google wards off ‘genericide’, escapes fate of aspirin, yo-yo
US court rejects argument that Google has become so popular as a verb that it should lose its status as a protected trademark
- Samsung Galaxy A8s launched in China: Specifications, more details on under display camera
- Samsung Galaxy A8s with screen hole design to launch today
- Nokia 8.1 to launch in India today: Expected price, specifications
- Honor 8C to go on first sale today: Price, offers, features
- Apple Watch will send notification if it detects irregular heart rhythm
San Francisco: No matter how often you invoke a certain internet search engine’s name when doing online research, Alphabet Inc. still owns the brand.
That’s the upshot of a federal appeals court’s decision on Tuesday rejecting the argument that Google has become so popular as a verb that it should lose its status as a protected trademark.
Genericide, as it’s known, is the curse of companies whose brands gain such strong currency in the marketplace that they morph into product categories. Think of aspirin, escalator or yo-yo, but not coke.
The fight over whether one of the world’s most valuable brands should be declared generic started when a man named Chris Gillespie in 2012 acquired 763 internet domain names that included the word “google”.
After Google filed an objection with the board that referees domain-name disputes and accused Gillespie of “cybersquatting”, he and another man asked an Arizona federal court to cancel Google’s trademark on the grounds that it’s a “generic term universally used to describe the act of internet searching”, according to court filings.
The Arizona judge didn’t buy the argument, and on Tuesday, neither did the US court of appeals in San Francisco.
The men didn’t present sufficient evidence that the public thinks of the word ”google” primarily as a generic name for internet search engines rather than as the brand of the Google search engine in particular, the three-judge panel said.
“The mere fact that the public sometimes uses a trademark as the name for a unique product does not immediately render the mark generic,” US circuit judge Richard Tallman wrote for the panel.
Rebecca Ginsberg Rutkoff, a Google spokeswoman, didn’t immediately respond to a phone call seeking comment on the ruling.
Tallman noted that other household names, including Coca-Cola Co., have beaten back efforts to have their brands declared generic and unprotected over the years. Coca-Cola won a 1982 trademark-infringement case against a local restaurant that surreptitiously replaced customer orders for “a coke” with a non-Coca-Cola beverage. The restaurant unsuccessfully argued that “coke” covered a generic category of soft drinks.
Jason Kravitz, a Boston-based trademark lawyer, said the appeals court’s decision reinforces how difficult it is for challengers to have brand names declared generic.
“These kinds of challenges are par for the course when a company has been successful enough to establish market dominance,” he said. Bloomberg
Editor's Picks »
- Won’t be surprised by big M&A deals in India in 2019: BofAML’s Raj Balakrishnan
- Licious raises $25 million in funding round led by Japan’s Nichirei Corp
- Urjit Patel: The independent-minded RBI governor who found his voice
- Banks, ArcelorMittal oppose Essar Steel proposal
- Google+ shutdown speeds up, new privacy bug affected 52.5 million users
- The government has a troubling message for minority shareholders
- Opec-allies’ output cut may not amount to big shift in oil prices
- RBI’s new loan rate math for banks cannot ignore deposits
- Maruti loses speed as PV growth slows amid rising challenges
- Risks emerge for Ramakrishna Forgings, Bharat Forge, Motherson Sumi as heavy-duty trucks face headwinds