Companies should be happy if their products are widely used by consumers and rejoice their success, but paradoxically, when their product trademark starts being used widely in a generic sense, the companies' trademark lawyers would furiously start trampling them out. The trademark loses its power when it is generified and defines an action or function that does not specifically refer to the using of the product.
Although they have admitted the word to become a verb, Google has pressured the lexicographers in defining the word. The company specifically wants 'to google' to mean
'to use the Google search engine to obtain information about (as a person) on the World Wide Web'
and Webster has done so in defining the word (Merriam Webster). So by definition, it does not include search with YAHOO or Bing or any other search engine (but unfortunately it does not faithfully reflect the reality).
In 2006, the year when the word 'google' entered dictionaries, Google clearly stated in their official blog (which seems to me an unavailing try) the guidelines for proper using of the word 'google' (Do you google.). The company also has successfully pressured and made Sweden remove the word 'ogooglebar' meaning 'ungooglable' in English from their language vocabulary (Ungoogleable removed from list of Swedish words). The Language Council of Sweden was pressured from Google on the definition of the word, and the council was fed up with the language controlling from Google that they decided to drop the word, and shows their displeasure towards the giant.
Google trademark lawyer is constantly fighting with the uncontrollable evolution of the word (Google calls in the 'language police').
Whether the company tops want it or not, when words start evolving among people, it is unstoppable, language is a natural object.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿