Could a dictionary be violating the law by facilitating the genericization of a trademark?
For instance, I noticed that Mirriam Webster was very careful to phrase the verb google as:
rather than
The OED does the same, with
In my actual experience, google, as a verb, is used more generically to describe searching.
Is there a precedent where a company has fought to have their trademark removed from a dictionary, or have the definition changed to refer specifically to the usage of their product?
No outsider is liable for correct usage of a trademark. Only the company itself can lose trademark protection by not sufficiently protecting it.
You or I or anybody can use a trademark in any fashion, as long as we aren’t making money on it. Writers can put trademarks in their works without fear, even if a lawyer may send out an obligatory letter. Describing the current use of a trademark as a generic is fair for anyone, including a dictionary. Whether the trademark will legally become a generic is a matter for the courts and does not involve users.
To emphasize what Exapno said: It is not illegal in any way to use a trademarked term as a generic. The trademark owners don’t like it and they might send you a nasty letter, but it doesn’t matter. Users of language, including dictionaries, are allowed to use terms however they wish.
The only people who may be restricted by trademark infringement are those who are using a term in commerce in a manner that is likely to cause confusion as to the source of goods or services. "In commerce’ is a term art that means using a term as an an identifier of the source of goods and services. Unless you’re selling something, you don’t have to worry about it.
Not true. For the purposes of the dictionary example it’s fine, but there are instances where using someone else’s trademark can still get you in trouble even if you aren’t making money on it. Not making money can be considered as an argument to support your side in a trademark infringement lawsuit, but it’s not a blanket defense.
I was hoping that it was understood that my comment was limited to print, as in the OP’s question. If you want to expand on that to include products - t-shirts for one example, or reproductions of trademarked properties - then you are correct.