Man Suing Google to Undo Google Trademark

[Guest]

David Elliot stands to gain a lot of money and domains if he somehow manages to persuade the courts to nullify the Google trademark.

Man Suing Google to Undo Google Trademark : Read more

 

[Nick_C]

Similarly iPod and iPhone....

 

[tomrippity02]

[citation][nom]Nick_C[/nom]Similarly iPod and iPhone....[/citation]

How so? I don't agree with this lawsuit, but I don't see how those two terms are part of the English vernacular when you aren't really referring to those specific pieces of technology.

The phrase "google it" has essentially replaces the word "search" in our language. Even though thats the case, there is no way you can throw out a trademark like this. If so, they should also throw out superbowl, kleenex, clorox, and a host of other brands.

 

[inerax]

Google has earned this brand.... hope the court sees it the same way.

 

[Parsian]

I hope he and Apple shove their heads into each other's six.

 

[phate]

[citation][nom]tomrippity02[/nom]How so? I don't agree with this lawsuit, but I don't see how those two terms are part of the English vernacular when you aren't really referring to those specific pieces of technology. The phrase "google it" has essentially replaces the word "search" in our language. Even though thats the case, there is no way you can throw out a trademark like this. If so, they should also throw out superbowl, kleenex, clorox, and a host of other brands.[/citation]

I think iPhone is safe, but my anecdotal evidence suggests mp3 players are almost always referred to as iPods regardless of brand or manufacturer.

 

[cookoy]

At the end of the day, he might just be laughed out of the courts.

Cut your losses greedy fool.

 

[Anomalyx]

[citation][nom]tomrippity02[/nom]How so? I don't agree with this lawsuit, but I don't see how those two terms are part of the English vernacular when you aren't really referring to those specific pieces of technology. The phrase "google it" has essentially replaces the word "search" in our language. Even though thats the case, there is no way you can throw out a trademark like this. If so, they should also throw out superbowl, kleenex, clorox, and a host of other brands.[/citation]

iPod has essentially replaced the phrase "mp3 player". I use my Android for music, and other people still refer to it as my "iPod". Same with iPhone, albeit not quite as widespread.

If this suit passes, it will have grave consequences for non-tech brands as well. Kleenex, Swiffer, Vaseline, ChapStick... just a few brands from off the top of my head that people very commonly use in a non-branding way.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Nick_C[/nom]Similarly iPod and iPhone....[/citation]

Like tomrippity02 said, iPod and iPhone haven't replaced any words in the English language or simply made a part of the English language like Google has. I also agree that Tom Elliot's case should be ruled in favor of Google. Just because their trademark has been shown to be exceptionally successful does not mean that that we should steal their trademark (and that's exactly what is being attempted here).

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]Anomalyx[/nom]iPod has essentially replaced the phrase "mp3 player". I use my Android for music, and other people still refer to it as my "iPod". Same with iPhone, albeit not quite as widespread.If this suit passes, it will have grave consequences for non-tech brands as well. Kleenex, Swiffer, Vaseline, ChapStick... just a few brands from off the top of my head that people very commonly use in a non-branding way.[/citation]

I don't know anyone whom refers to MP3 players as iPods nor people whom refer to Androids as iPods or iPhones. That's ridiculous.

 

[eddieroolz]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]I don't know anyone whom refers to MP3 players as iPods nor people whom refer to Androids as iPods or iPhones. That's ridiculous.[/citation]

The first thing people ask when they see a touchscreen Android phone is, is that an iPhone. Anecdotal evidence from a variety of people in both Asia and North America.

The first thing people asked when I showed them a Cowon S9 back in the day: is that an iPod touch? Anecdotal evidence from 2009.

This much is true and established in society.

 

[becherovka]

Hoover, Vice grips, Walkman...

 

[becherovka]

Best of all Champagne

 

[Camikazi]

[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]I don't know anyone whom refers to MP3 players as iPods nor people whom refer to Androids as iPods or iPhones. That's ridiculous.[/citation]
I do, more then one of them, it annoys the hell out of me since I don't own an iPod or an iPhone yet I get asked how much my iPod cost or how much a month do I pay for my iPhone.

 

[supall]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]The first thing people ask when they see a touchscreen Android phone is, is that an iPhone. Anecdotal evidence from a variety of people in both Asia and North America.The first thing people asked when I showed them a Cowon S9 back in the day: is that an iPod touch? Anecdotal evidence from 2009.This much is true and established in society.[/citation]

Those are really good examples. If someone asks if that 's a [insert device name], they are passing a query that you will either deny or acknowledge. On the other hand, if you, holding that Cowon S9 introduced it as your iPod or continue to refer to it as an iPod, then you have used the term "ipod" in a more generic sense that doesn't necessarily refer to "the iPod".

I have encountered plenty of people who referred to MP3 players as iPods way back when, but that is slowly on its way out since we don't have widespread dedicated MP3 players like we did 8-10 years ago.

 

[Niva]

While the usage of the word "google" in speech and text should be unrestricted, allowing some company to use google in the domain-name of their site is definitely questionable. It implies these sits are affiliated with the company, such a thing could lead to scams and even legal fallouts which involve the real google.

This guy is definitely a troll, even if the troll has a somewhat vaild point. Whatever happened to creating fame for yourself via your own products and services that you have to resort to using "google" in your domain name to get traffic to your site?

 

[fulle]

I say "google it" because it's easier to say "google it" than "search the web for it in the google search engine". I don't say "web search it" or "bing it" or "ask.com that" or anything of the sort, because Google has the most effective search engine, and I explicitly mean to search for it in Google.

People don't say "I'm going to google that" and proceed to open Bing.com afterward. There is no confusion about this. Everyone knows that "Google it" means.

 

[stevo777]

Just another fool making a fool of himself.

 

[Nakal]

He will just need to get a "Kleenex" to wipe his tears after the "Xeroxing" the documents laughing him out of court.

 

[blazorthon]

[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]The first thing people ask when they see a touchscreen Android phone is, is that an iPhone. Anecdotal evidence from a variety of people in both Asia and North America.The first thing people asked when I showed them a Cowon S9 back in the day: is that an iPod touch? Anecdotal evidence from 2009.This much is true and established in society.[/citation]

This:

[citation][nom]fulle[/nom]I say "google it" because it's easier to say "google it" than "search the web for it in the google search engine". I don't say "web search it" or "bing it" or "ask.com that" or anything of the sort, because Google has the most effective search engine, and I explicitly mean to search for it in Google.People don't say "I'm going to google that" and proceed to open Bing.com afterward. There is no confusion about this. Everyone knows that "Google it" means.[/citation]

With Google it, you're not using some other search engine because if you do, you're not Googling it. Calling an Android an iPhone or iPod is like Googling something by using Bing; it's completely wrong. Furthermore, Google can't lay claim to the trademarked names iPod and iPhone just because someone calls them that, so referring to them in such a way to justify this case is also wrong.