A Possible Risk with google? Important

justinc.1089

justinc.1089

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
2,402
If the phrase "Google Ron Paul" is put on the blimp, isn't that running a risk of getting into some type of legal issues with Google?

That question absolutely needs to be answered because if that is put on the blimp, and the answer is yes, and Google gets upset, it could end this entire project.
 
alot of people at google support ron paul firstly, and one guy even quit working there to head up project live free or die.

but no, it is not an issue. google is a word in the dictionary i believe, and used as a verb.

plus it would not be worth their time or look good for them to come after us, nor would they want to
 
Eh that might be true that their employees like Paul, and wouldn't want to go after him or us, but thats not very reassuring about the possible legal issues here.

I mean if I was in charge of a corporation like Google, it wouldn't matter if I liked something like this or not, if something illegal happened then I would try to make sure it was corrected first if I liked it, and second stop it if it couldn't be corrected. The reason I would do so is because lets say I'm google and I like Paul, and we do this google Ron Paul without doing whatever to make it ok if its not ok. I (google) let it slide because I like Paul, but then someone else or some other company or something puts Google whatever on something, and I don't like it, and go after them. Well now they can say "Well you didn't bother doing anything about this when Paul and his people did it."

I'm doubtful anything will happen, but I think its a very big risk to take if this could stop the entire thing.

But I also realize we may have no choice at this point because it may cause the blimp to be delayed too long to change artwork now.

Edit: Thats true about the free advertising. Actually some serious free advertising lol. Yeah I guess they would let it slide if we're doing something wrong as a thank you for free advertisement. I hope lol....
 
Google might not like if their brand was tarnished by association, or diluted. Since the message is encouraging the use of Google to learn about a public figure I don't see why it would be a problem. Google is all about searching, after all.

Oh well, they have a legal team. Hopefully a release of some kind was available from Google.
 
from merriam-webster dictionary:
http://m-w.com/dictionary/google



Main Entry:
goo·gle Listen to the pronunciation of google
Pronunciation:
\ˈgü-gəl\
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
goo·gled; goo·gling Listen to the pronunciation of googling \-g(ə-)liŋ\
Usage:
often capitalized
Etymology:
Google, trademark for a search engine
Date:
2001

: to use the Google search engine to obtain information about (as a person) on the World Wide Web




its in the dictionary. we're free to use it.
 
This is sort of like the use of the word "Xerox" to make copies, or "Kleenex" for tissues, or "Kitty Litter" for ... you know.

Sometimes the companies fight to keep their brand names from slipping into public domain usage, and sometimes it's not worth fighting over.

It makes more sense to me that Google would encourage the use of their brand *to use their website* but would oppose the term "googling" to become so generic that any time you are online and searching is considered "Googling".

So for example, an ad campaign like "Use MSN to google your news" would be a much more legitimate complaint.
 
steph3n said:
Then it would need to be google's official colors :D
Click to expand...
Yes, and they can pay for the graphics too. If I were a Google company executive, I would certainly want my company associated with the first political blimp in history. After all, both companies are unique.
 
MozoVote said:
This is sort of like the use of the word "Xerox" to make copies, or "Kleenex" for tissues, or "Kitty Litter" for ... you know.

Sometimes the companies fight to keep their brand names from slipping into public domain usage, and sometimes it's not worth fighting over.

It makes more sense to me that Google would encourage the use of their brand *to use their website* but would oppose the term "googling" to become so generic that any time you are online and searching is considered "Googling".

So for example, an ad campaign like "Use MSN to google your news" would be a much more legitimate complaint.
Click to expand...

Ahg, push on. If that happens, its worth some press, and something, if its all a scam, its worth some press and something. Just keep moving.
 
steph3n said:
Then it would need to be google's official colors :D
Click to expand...

grp.jpg


Dutch :D
 
If the RP Blimp Company (it is not Ron Paul's entity) used 'Google', Google would not have recourse on our campaign for using their name without permission. I suspect that is part of the reason that they chose to incorporate as they did. They have a good opportunity to make a few extra bucks to pay for their liability insurance over and above that of the Blimp company. What if the blimp crashes into a Rudy supporter's grandmother's house? You talk about lawsuits! I live near Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles. Rarely does a day go by that I don't imagine shooting one of those blimps down. They can be very annoying once you get used to them. But most people in other parts of the country don't have the same problems that I do and enjoy and actually chase them around. Their is a dark side to everything.

I would not introduce 3rd party entities UNLESS THEY PAID FOR IT. Google wants its name to be a household word. I doub't they care if someone said "Google' child porn". They want everyone to Google anything<period> I doubt that the RP Blimp Company would put Google on the blimp unless they did.
 
Last edited:
deehrler said:
If the RP Blimp Company (it is not Ron Paul's entity) used 'Google', Google would not have recourse on our campaign for using their name without permission. I suspect that is part of the reason that they chose to incorporate as they did. They have a good opportunity to make a few extra bucks to pay for their liability insurance over and above that of the Blimp company. What if the blimp crashes into a Rudy supporter's grandmother's house? You talk about lawsuits! I live near Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles. Rarely does a day go by that I don't imagine shooting one of those blimps down. They can be very annoying once you get used to them. But most people in other parts of the country don't have the same problems that I do and enjoy and actually chase them around. Their is a dark side to everything.

I would not introduce 3rd party entities UNLESS THEY PAID FOR IT. Google wants its name to be a household word. They could not care less if someone said 'Google' child porn. They want everyone to Google anything<period> I doubt that the RP Blimp Company would put Google on the blimp unless they did.
Click to expand...



"hey could not care less if someone said 'Google' child porn. "

I dare you to make up some t-shirts and sell them online.
 
Companies that have issues are when the brand is tarnished or diluted:

For example, pass me a "kleenex" becomes any tissue, eg. Puffs or w/e

Even then it usually gets really hard to do anything about it from a legal perspective
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Matt Collins
Gaetz and Mike Lee go after Google
Replies
2
Views
412
unknown
unknown
Occam's Banana
Feds sought data on everyone who watched certain YouTube videos
Replies
10
Views
1K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
pmbug
Walking around and painting the town
Replies
3
Views
2K
pmbug
pmbug
Occam's Banana
RFK Jr. sues "state actors" Google and YouTube over censorship
Replies
0
Views
279
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
jmdrake
NY Mayor Eric Adams pledges to work with Trump on public safety, infrastructure
Replies
0
Views
315
jmdrake
jmdrake
Back
Top