Aren’t you tired of these mickey mouse suggestions?
There are dozens of other good search engines out there. Is google all that great that so many people are using it? I’ve never used google.
The top three I use are:
Webferret
Copernic
Northern Lights
What does google have that other search engines don’t?
I’m with Beadalin here. The quoted lawyer’s letter seemed very friendly to me. Not landsharkish at all. I see their point.
Google indexes result pages by the number of similar pages that link to them, a method which yields surprisingly relevant results.
Also, Google has no annoying banner or popup ads, just very tasteful textual ones.
I’m all for using “goose” as an alternative verb.
I agree, and I think the statement above is key.
Consider, for example, the recent lawsuit by Mattel against that Europop band that made fun of the Barbie stereotype (more info). Realistically, Mattel never really had a chance in the lawsuit; the band was always going to emerge victorious. They couldn’t actually say so, for fear of being slammed for frivolous use of the courts, but if you took a Mattel attorney and asked totally anonymously and off the record, I’m sure they’d acknowledge the company didn’t have a legal leg to stand on, and fully expected to lose.
But they had to pursue it. They had to make every show of defending their trademark and their intellectual property. They could not allow even a chink to appear in that armor beyond the existing fair-use/parody loophole that already existed (and under which I’m sure they expected to lose). They could not display even a hint of disregard for their trademark, or they risked slipping an inch toward the “cellophane” precedent.
Yes, in a hundred years, or five hundred, there’s a better-than-even chance that “barbie” will be a generic term for a fashion-oriented doll of certain proportions. (Whether the parallel down-under outdoor-grill definition will survive is another question.) For now, though, Mattel cannot be even remotely perceived to give the merest iota of slack on the issue. It’s just the way trademark law works.
Google’s in the same boat, I think. They must be heavy-handed. They have no alternative if they are to protect their trademark in the here and now.
I’ve adopted the word as the wordspy defines it about a year ago and use it about 50/50 in the place of ‘search for’. I will continue to use it that way.
Perhaps Google should try and invent a new term for that and feature it prominently on their homepage. It’s still early and they probably can still rescue their term.
Name recognition because of the usage of google as a verb, that’s what. They should be glad that their “product” has caught on so well that everybody recognizes the name. I never heard of Webferret, Copernic or Northern Lights before I read your post. But I learned about Google from the people who “google” everything they want to find out about on the web.
I’m a little surprised that companies like Xerox and Kimberly-Clark still grouse about people using their brand names as generics. Every time someone says “I need a xerox of this” or “Would you hand me a kleenex?” those names are bounced once again off the old grey matter. It’s free advertising for cryin’ out loud! A lot of their competitors spend millions on advertising and still are not the first thing that comes to mind.
If you go to buy a moveable fastener for a pair of pants, what are you going to ask for? Zipper, that’s what. You may settle for whatever the store has, but you’re going to ask for a zipper. The Talon Company should be happy about that.
It’s a blessing and a curse. The curse is the part a lot of people just do not understand about trademarks.
If “google” falls into public domain, then every website will have the right to call itself google. Every search engine will be a google search engine. Some of them may be crap engines and some of them will only search a specific segment of webpages and some of them will have pop ups and pop unders and pop goes the weasels. How are you to tell the difference then between Google and its generic equivilents?
If Xerox falls under public domain, then every photocopier can be called a Xerox copier. If you specifically wanted a Xerox brand copier because you had heard they’re better than Cannon or HP or whomever makes other copiers, it will be difficult to distinguish.
Google wants name recognition, but NOT at the expense of its name.
Just to clarify one point that many people are coming close to (and Cervaise all but says outright), trademark holders are obliged to defend their trademark, or risk losing it. One of the tests under most trademark laws for whether or not a holder continues to get protection of their mark is if they have made every reasonable effort to defend it.
So I have a question about terms falling into common use. Kleenex and Band-Aid are often cited as trademarked terms that fell into common use (so just kleenex and band-aid). But if they’ve fallen into common use, why does Kimberley-Clarke still make the only brand of facial tissues called Kleenex? Why does Johnson and Johnson make the only brand of adhesive bandages called Band-Aid? This precendent seems to indicate that even if “google” were to fall into common use, Google (the company) is the only party that could create a search engine named Google. So what, exactly, is the problem?
Aspirin
Cube Steak
Linoleum
Raisin Bran
Shredded Wheat
All of these were, at one time, trademarked products produced by a specific company. No longer. Now anyone that sells a generic approximation of the original can use those names.
The purpose of a trademark isn’t name popularity, it’s name recognition. It’s purpose is to identify an item for consumers. Look, that Tennis Shoe has a Swoosh on it. It must have come from Nike. I’m going to buy it.
Now imagine every shoe had a Swoosh on it. Which ones came from Nike? A better question might be, if given the legal right to do so, what shoe manufacturer wouldn’t start putting a Swoosh on its shoes?
What company wouldn’t start using the Google name if it had the right to do so and thought consumers could be lured to its site?
Oh, man, all this law talk makes me want to throw my computer into a Dumpster.
If you’re talking about trademark abandonment issues, the issue becomes when a trademark must be “protected” or “defended”. For example, AFAIK, parody uses do not apply to trademark defense. Google would not have a case “challenging” Mad Magazine if they did a Google parody bit.
IANAL, but several commentators were suggesting that social or academic uses fell into similar territory…and so Google would be wielding a big heavy corporate “friendly” warning for no reason.
Others have said that the wordspy “definition” would have to be defended against.
At this point, I’ll recognize that I haven’t seen a definitive answer to this question…and that Google may indeed be “required” to defend against this type of use…unless someone versed in this field (or able to provide a cite that applies) steps up.
When I tell someone to do an internet search, I always refer them to Google, but I don’t ever remember using the phrase “Google it.” But if I did, I’d mean exactly that: go to Google and look it up.
Heard about Gewgle? They want the guy to transfer gewgle.com and frewgle.com to Google. Google claims:
- Trademark infringement
- Trademark dilution
- Unfair competition
- Tarnishing the goodwill and reputation of Google’s services and trademarks
- Bad faith pursuant to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)
- Appropriating the goodwill associated with the famous GOOGLE mark in violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA)
Note that he’s not competing. His “Gewgle” just sends searches to Google. And it has no advetising…
Don’t forget Heroin!
Aha, I just checked it out. IMHO, webferret is the best. Google is too “busy”. What’s cool is that webferret automatically “fired up” and provided me with the same info as google when I “googled”.
Webferret provides just a list of one line for each site. If you want more info on a specific find, you just slide the cursor over the link name, and a blurb will pop up. But enough advertising, I don’t work for them, honest!! 
Of course that could just be my old eyes. But I prefer the “one line, url included, no muss no fuss” type of search engine.
It’s called genericide, and there’s a good discussion here. Besides sending cease-and-desist letters even when on shaky legal ground, one of the basic defenses is to use the trademark consistently as an adjective rather than a noun. Ergo, “Jello brand gelatine.” IIRC this was one of the reasons Nabisco lost its Shredded Wheat trademark - it was using Nabisco as the adjective instead, which led a court to conclude that the Shredded What was properly generic.
One thing these decisions don’t really explain is that aspirin is really a separate case - although the history is a bit murky, it appears that the Aspirin trademark became war booty.