Court Rules that Google Is Not a Victim of “Genericide”
Get Legal Help Today
Secured with SHA-256 Encryption
UPDATED: Aug 26, 2017
It’s all about you. We want to help you make the right legal decisions.
We strive to help you make confident insurance and legal decisions. Finding trusted and reliable insurance quotes and legal advice should be easy. This doesn’t influence our content. Our opinions are our own.
Editorial Guidelines: We are a free online resource for anyone interested in learning more about legal topics and insurance. Our goal is to be an objective, third-party resource for everything legal and insurance related. We update our site regularly, and all content is reviewed by experts.
“Genericide” is a term used when a former trademark has become so ubiquitous for a type of goods that it no longer identifies a particular manufacturer as the source of the goods.
Forbes has estimated that the GOOGLE mark is one of the most valuable trademarks in the world — worth an estimated $44 billion.
In fact, the GOOGLE trademark may be the Google company’s most single valuable asset.
As Forbes notes,
Trademarks protect a word or logo’s ability to identify the associated product’s source. When a product’s name or logo becomes associated with its class of goods, instead of one specific product in the class of goods, we say that the word or logo has become “generic” and has permanently lost all trademark protection. Over the years, many great trademarks have become generic, such as escalator, aspirin and yo-yo. (Xerox and Kleenex are two trademarks that are probably still protected but have been teetering on the cusp of genericism for years).
The plaintiffs in the case had registered 763 domain names combining the term “Google” with some other word — such as “googledisney.com,” “googlebarackobama. net,” and “googlenewtvs.com.”
Google successfully challenged those registrations via the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) for violations of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.
Google argued that the plaintiffs had committed domain name infringement, which is often known as “cybersquatting.”
The NAF agreed and transferred the domain names to Google in 2012.
The plaintiffs then filed a lawsuit seeking to cancel two GOOGLE registered trademarks.
They argued that the GOOGLE mark had become generic, because people use the verb “to google” to mean to look something up on the Internet — without regard to whether they use the Google search engine, Bing, or something else.
The Lanham Act, which governs trademarks, allows cancellation of a registered trademark if it is primarily understood as a “generic name for the goods or services, or a portion thereof, for which it is registered.”
The GOOGLE Brand
During the trial, Google introduced evidence that 94% of consumers identified GOOGLE as a brand name, and only 5% saw it as a common word referring to an internet search.
The trial court refused to cancel the marks and granted summary judgement to Google.
The plaintiffs appealed.
The Ninth Circuit noted that:
Over time, the holder of a valid trademark may become a “victim of ‘genericide.’” … Genericide occurs when the public appropriates a trademark and uses it as a generic name for particular types of goods or services irrespective of its source. For example, ASPIRIN, CELLOPHANE, and THERMOS were once protectable as arbitrary or fanciful marks because they were primarily understood as identifying the source of certain goods. But the public appropriated those marks and now primarily understands aspirin, cellophane, and thermos as generic names for those same goods.
The court applied the “who-are-you/what-are-you” test:
If the relevant public primarily understands a mark as describing “who” a particular good or service is, or where it comes from, then the mark is still valid. But if the relevant public primarily understands a mark as describing “what” the particular good or service is, then the mark has become generic. In sum, we ask whether “the primary significance of the term in the minds of the consuming public is [now] the product [and not] the producer.”
The court then addressed a number of arguments and concluded that GOOGLE had not (yet) become generic.