To print: Click here or Select File and then Print from your browser's menu

This story was printed from silicon.com, located at http://www.silicon.com/

Story URL: http://networks.silicon.com/webwatch/0,39024667,39161395,00.htm

Google spells out its verb case scenario
Wants everybody to stop 'googling'...

By Will Sturgeon

Published: Monday 14 August 2006

Internet search giant Google has said it intends to crack down on the use of its brand name as a generic verb, saying phrases such as 'to google' somebody or something are potentially damaging to its brand.

But it's unlikely the search giant will prove successful in its attempts and is only setting itself up for a fall, according to experts.

A spokeswoman for Google said: "We think it's important to make the distinction between using the word Google to describe using Google to search the internet and using the word Google to generally describe searching the internet. It has some serious trademark issues."

Why Google needs to relax
Should Google be policing the use of 'to google'? Read silicon.com's take in our leader.

Dr Julie Coleman, an authority on linguistics from the University of Leicester, said she can certainly understand Google's concerns.

"The prestige associated with a trademark is lost if people use it generically, so I do see Google's point. They also do lots more than just search, so maybe they're reluctant for their brand name to be restricted in this way."

But Coleman added that once new words enter into common usage it is impossible to stop their use.

"Google can't possibly stop the spread of the verb," said Coleman. "Normal people are using it in normal conversation and in writing and they aren't likely to face legal proceedings."

What Google could do, said Coleman, "is force dictionaries to mention its origin in a trade-marked brand name which is what the Oxford English Dictionary already does".

And even if Google's attempts to stop this misuse of its trademark weren't in vain, many argue it shouldn't even be trying.

Members of the blogging community have suggested it is a further sign of the cracks appearing in Google's once cool façade and of the search giant taking itself too seriously.

One blogger also suggested Google has missed the obvious compliment in all this, which is the use is evidence the company now owns the search industry.

"This should be the ultimate complement and I cannot believe Google sees it differently," wrote blogger and computing graduate Frank Gruber.

Steve Rubel, another blogger, branded it "one of the worst PR moves in history".

Morgan McLintic, a PR exec based in the heart of Silicon Valley, said Google should certainly learn when to love its addition to the English language.

"Googling is already common parlance for searching on the internet," said McLintic. "And there is only one place you go to 'google', so this is a good thing for Google with a capital 'G'. The media's use of the verb is simply a reflection of everyday use."

Google's move reflects the concerns of other big brands such as Portakabin and Xerox who have previously complained that their brands have become generic descriptions of temporary buildings and photocopying respectively.

AOL is another technology company which has fought the tendency of brands to become generic, contacting the media in the past over the use of 'instant messenger' to describe any IM application, claiming that to be its brand.