Google Trademark Protected in Elliot v. Google Inc.
Many people use the phrase “Google it” to refer to the broader act of searching the Internet. Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held in Elliot v. Google Inc. that the Google trademark should not be canceled on the ground that it has become generic for searching the web.
Under the Lanham Act, generic terms may not be registered as trademarks because they do not identify a single source of a product or service. The term “genericide” refers to 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, thermos, escalator, dry ice, heroin and videotape were once trademarks before they became generic.
Under existing court precedent, a trademark becomes generic when the “primary significance of the registered mark to the relevant public” is the name for a particular type of good or service irrespective of its source. As explained by the Ninth Circuit in Elliot v. Google Inc., “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.”
Lawsuit Seeking to Cancel Google Trademark
Between February 29, 2012, and March 10, 2012, Chris Gillespie acquired 763 domain names that included the word “google,” such as “googledisney.com,” “googlebarackobama.net,” and “googlenewtvs.com.” Google, Inc. (Google) objected to these registrations and promptly filed a complaint with the National Arbitration Forum (NAF). Google argued that the registrations constituted domain name infringement, more commonly referred to as “cybersquatting,” because they are confusingly similar to the Google trademark. The arbitration panel agreed and transferred the domain names to Google on May 10, 2012.
Shortly thereafter, Chris Gillespie and David Elliott filed a federal lawsuit petitioning the district court to cancel the Google trademark under the Lanham Act, which 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 suit maintained that the word “google” is primarily understood as “a generic term universally used to describe the act[] of internet searching.”
On summary judgment, Google maintained that verb use (as in the phrase “I googled it) does not automatically constitute generic use and that the plaintiffs failed to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the Google trademark is generic for search engines. The trial court agreed, ruling in Google’s favor.
Applying this above legal framework, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish that the primary significance of the word “google” to the relevant public was a generic name for internet search engines, rather than as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular.
Do you have any questions regarding the Google trademark? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, David Einhorn, at 201-806-3364.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Google Trademark Survives Genericide Claim
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Google Trademark Protected in Elliot v. Google Inc.
Many people use the phrase “Google it” to refer to the broader act of searching the Internet. Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held in Elliot v. Google Inc. that the Google trademark should not be canceled on the ground that it has become generic for searching the web.
Under the Lanham Act, generic terms may not be registered as trademarks because they do not identify a single source of a product or service. The term “genericide” refers to 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, thermos, escalator, dry ice, heroin and videotape were once trademarks before they became generic.
Under existing court precedent, a trademark becomes generic when the “primary significance of the registered mark to the relevant public” is the name for a particular type of good or service irrespective of its source. As explained by the Ninth Circuit in Elliot v. Google Inc., “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.”
Lawsuit Seeking to Cancel Google Trademark
Between February 29, 2012, and March 10, 2012, Chris Gillespie acquired 763 domain names that included the word “google,” such as “googledisney.com,” “googlebarackobama.net,” and “googlenewtvs.com.” Google, Inc. (Google) objected to these registrations and promptly filed a complaint with the National Arbitration Forum (NAF). Google argued that the registrations constituted domain name infringement, more commonly referred to as “cybersquatting,” because they are confusingly similar to the Google trademark. The arbitration panel agreed and transferred the domain names to Google on May 10, 2012.
Shortly thereafter, Chris Gillespie and David Elliott filed a federal lawsuit petitioning the district court to cancel the Google trademark under the Lanham Act, which 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 suit maintained that the word “google” is primarily understood as “a generic term universally used to describe the act[] of internet searching.”
On summary judgment, Google maintained that verb use (as in the phrase “I googled it) does not automatically constitute generic use and that the plaintiffs failed to create a triable issue of fact as to whether the Google trademark is generic for search engines. The trial court agreed, ruling in Google’s favor.
Applying this above legal framework, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish that the primary significance of the word “google” to the relevant public was a generic name for internet search engines, rather than as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular.
Do you have any questions regarding the Google trademark? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, David Einhorn, at 201-806-3364.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
