A Possible Risk with google? Important

[torchbearer]

The message is:
(You) google Ron Paul.

Used in that context, they are using the verb form not the noun form.

 

[alexpasch]

I think they have a double problem... the dictionary now lists "google" as a verb, xerox and kleenex were not words until the company created them... google was a word in the dictionary before it was used by them.

Google was not in the dictionary before Google came about. It was added as a verb because everybody started using it as such.

Google is a pun for googol (some ridiculously huge number 1 * 10^100)

 

[torchbearer]

The message is:
(You) google Ron Paul.

Used in that context, they are using the verb form not the noun form.

repeat for context.

 

[MozoVote]

Remember that HQ did release a video with a "Google Ron Paul" song already. Google has had months to defend their trademark against "verb encroachment" and nothing has happened.

That doesn't mean they may not object at any time. But I have read in these kinds of situations, an intellectual property rights judge takes into consideration how "vigorously" a brand is defended.

My gut feeling is that as long as it is lower case, and not using Google font or colors, it's OK.

 

[shane2]

It's all good, I hope they do complain...

If google got a cease & desist against their name useage, an hour later it can be complied with via spray paint, while we all enjoy the benefits of a fresh brand new news cycle of national coverage and stories talking all about it and the blimp. Very little downside risk here and a bunch of upside exposure. I would just hope that they'd wait till the blimp mania had already naturally cooled down some.

I actually tried to get a cease & desist issued against my business back in 2001 for this exact reason, that it would then generate national media coverage of it, with a huge billboard up in Austin, but the intended offended never did bite.

- Shane

 

[rancher89]

Sheesh, I just posted in another thread yesterday or the day before, asking if we should contact GOOGLE to see if they wanted to pitch in. I swear I'll keep my mouth shut on the open forum and just post to individuals that can deal with an off the cuff, late night brainstorming way to get the blimp off the ground. Lack of sleep, trying to keep the home business going and keeping up with all of the great ideas people seem to come up with on a VERY regular basis, is frankly, getting a little hard to keep up with. I really like this forum, but the negativity is going to send me away, don't have time for it and I can't seem to get past it if I read it.

See you in SC in Rock Hill, Anderson and Greenville, Sat 8th
See you at the blimp launch in Weeksville, Sun & Mon 9th & 10th
See you at the Tea Party on the 15th and 16th

Oh yeah, then there's the 23rd that I'm supposed to be planning for Charlotte, NC and OMG Christmas with relatives coming in and rum balls to make, and all that other food and cleaning the house, I need sleep.

 

[ppc1040]

It is true that trademarks get diluted over time. But one thing companies can do to prevent dilution is to actively enforce (i.e., litigate) the trademark to maintain its legal relevance. You can read more about the topic here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Dilution

 

[shane2]

I really like this forum, but the negativity is going to send me away, don't have time for it and I can't seem to get past it if I read it.

Most of the strongest negativity in this thread, if you check the posting dates, is over 5 days old and precedes the now proven success of the donation drive and now established fact that the blimp is really going to take off and can generate so much positive media coverage, etc.

- Shane

 

[Danny]

I think we should be hoping that Google sends a cease and desist. If Google chose this situation as their first attempt to combat this usage of their name, it is only going to generate more media coverage for the blimp. What would it cost to recreate the graphics for one side of the blimp? A few thousand $$? We would get a hundred times that in free media. I guess the only downside would be if they had to fly the blimp back down to NC to have the new graphics applied.

 

[axiomata]

I think we should be hoping that Google sends a cease and desist. If Google chose this situation as their first attempt to combat this usage of their name, it is only going to generate more media coverage for the blimp. What would it cost to recreate the graphics for one side of the blimp? A few thousand $$? We would get a hundred times that in free media. I guess the only downside would be if they had to fly the blimp back down to NC to have the new graphics applied.

Do you consider trademarks property? Should we respect Google's property rights if they wish to enforce them?

I still think someone should have gotten in touch with Google, just to be on the safe side. The article I linked to was over a year old, and Google may have given up their fight to keep google from being a verb since it is already lost to common usage.

If cease and desists were simply "media battles" then I'd love to get into it with them. However, they are not. I don't the company can afford either the time or the legal fees to get into a battle.

 

[yaz]

If anything happens we'll change the word Google to "Search for". Plus the lawsuit would result in more media attention. lol.

 

[peruvianRP]

google is a word in a dictionary now. go and google it.

 

[MozoVote]

Another reason I think this end up being a non-issue ... If Google wants their name off, OK. The advertiser can probably ask MSN Search or Yahoo for permission. I don't see much benefit to Google stepping in, only to end up promoting a competitor as a result.

 

[JustBcuz]

A Google lawsuit may be just bad PR, while the blimp could generate traffic.

I'm guessing Google doesn't shut it down, but issues a statement that they don' support any particular candidate.

 

[James R]

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.

I would argue that the term "google" in "Google Ron Paul" is being used as a verb rather than a company name. You would cite "Webster's New Millenium Dictionary as English". But regardless of that, Google getting all that free advertising is bound to be a mostly good thing for them. A very good thing.

 

[Leslie Webb]

Google is a pun for googol (some ridiculously huge number 1 * 10^100)[/QUOTE]

So if we have to cease and desist from using Google, we just use Googol.

 

[The Lantern]

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.

If you are a writer and use the word Kleenex for tissues or Xerox to make copies, they make you add the copyright symbol after their name.

 

[mathamagician]

Kleenex is a brand name also but they aren't asking for royalty anytime someone uses it in print.

 

[DirtMcGirt]

the blimp organizers hired an attorney and said it is a verb and can be used, only thing that concerns me is that bill and hillary are at Google's founders wedding and they like getting involved in everything... if they disallow it we own the internet right now and we can always slap another sticker on it!!!!

 

[ignoranceisntbliss]

Last year I read that they wanted the 'verb' removed from dictionaries. In the same article I seen Apple complaining about ipod becoming the official meme for mp3 players.