Is Google's Trademark in Danger of Becoming Generic

In writing for my blog I got to thinking about the trouble Google's trademark could be in. While having your brand become a household name is something almost every company dreams of - it has its downside as well. Take for instance the case of several brands that have become so generic that their former status as proprietary trademarks are often unknown to the public at large, and have become "fully generic".

So according to the U.S. Trademark Act (Title 15 USC § 1127 ) the trademark is considered abandoned, "When any course of conduct of the owner, including acts of omission as well as commission, causes the mark to become the generic name for the goods or services on or in connection with which it is used or otherwise to lose its significance as a mark." In other words if Google promotes use of the term "googling", or doesn't sufficiently fight it then it can be considered abandoned.

Even in the cases where the original registrations for the trademarks remain in force, it is unlikely that the registered owners would be able to successfully enforce their exclusive rights against third parties. Here are just a few examples of brands that have lost their trademarks and become fully generic terms:

Asprin - trademarked in many countries as Bayer but not in the U.S.

crock pot - the official term Crock-Pot is held Rival Industries but terms such as "crock pot" or "crock-pot" are commonly used to describe any slow cooker.

heroin - believe it or not this was actually trademarked by Bayer as a pain reliever but the trademark was lost around 1914 when heroin could no longer legally be sold to consumers.

pilates - the official exercise system's trademark was revoked in 2000 because it was deemed unenforcable.

Don't believe me? Here's what The United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit had to say on the matter:

"When a trademark becomes generic, such as "Aspirin" or "Thermos," and so loses trademark protection, because the public, perhaps egged on by the omnipresent media, decides to use the trademark to designate not the particular manufacturer's brand but the entire product comprising all the competing brands, the trademark is dead no matter how vigorously the holder has tried to prevent this usage. W.T. Rogers Co. v. Keene, 778 F.2d 334, 347 (7th Cir. 1985); King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Alladin Industries, Inc., 321 F.2d 577, 579 (2d Cir. 1963); DuPont Cellophane Co. v. Waxed Products Co., 85 F.2d 75, 81-82 (2d Cir. 1936); Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co., 272 Fed. 505, 509 (S.D. N.Y. 1921) (L. Hand, J.); 2 McCarthy, supra, sec. 12.08. An antidilution statute won't resurrect it, since if a mark becomes generic it is no longer distinctive, as the statutes require. 15 U.S.C. sec. 1125(c)(1); McGraw-Edison Co. v. Walt Disney Productions, 787 F.2d 1163, 1174 (7th Cir. 1986); Hyatt Corp. v. Hyatt Legal Services, 736 F.2d 1153, 1157 (7th Cir. 1984)." - Illinois High School Ass'n. v. GTE Vantage, Inc., 99 F.3d 244 (7th Cir. 1996)

So brand manager's dreams aside, being a household name isn't always all it's cracked up to be - just ask Kleenex.



Jennifer Kothe is the talented marketing coordinator at Internet Traffic Solutions (http://www.itsontarget.com) which is a full service marketing agency that offers clients a profitable way to get the attention of their target audience online. She alsp writes on internet marketing and technology in her blog: A Guide to Internet Marketing and Technology.




Article Source:
http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Jen_Kothe