Introduction
Genericide can be defined as an historical process in which a trademark or brand name is transformed into a common verb through popular usage. This means people are using the trademark to even describe their goods and services. When this happens, trademark is no longer entitled to protection under trademark law because they describe a whole group of goods or services (Millstein 280). This paper will exclusively explore genericide. The paper will explain and discuss the legal concept of ‘genericide’ in its relation to trademark law. The study will use the example of Google (and the newly coined, popular verb ‘to Google’) to explain the process of ‘genericization,’ and discuss its implications. Lastly, the paper will look at how a company such as Google may prevent the term ‘to Google’ from becoming generic and what would the effects be, should the term become generic.
Over the years, the word Google has become so popular that it’s losing its meaning. Instead of people saying “research something” today they say “go Google”. This has made it impossible to distinguish the company called Google and the verb “Google”. However, in as much as this is very dangerous to the Google Company, people do not do it intentionally. Usually, genericide only occurs where a trademark such as Google has become so famous to the public. People even go to extend of describing their goods and services using trademark names. Some people, such as the marketers, tend to believe this I not wrong. They argue that it should be taken as an ultimate compliment. Conversely, intellectual property attorneys contend that using a trademark this way is very risk as it makes it lose its legal powers (Hart 36).
Effects of genericide
There are so many effects of genericide. First, it kills profits for the trademark company. Genericide can be described as the cruelest irony. This is because many firms in the recent past have come up with brilliant marketing strategy to successfully push their products to the forefront of its sector. This is why they use the word “googling”. With time, people overuse the word googling to refer to this product to extend that its trademark becomes so colloquial and starts to mean the entire product category. This has been killing the profits of Google Company as other businesses have been slowly wading in. When the people say “to Google” they normally mean visiting google.com and typing in a question. However, this could similarly mean searching the internet by other means. In sometimes back, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Google's founders, embraced the idea of their brand into a verb. But today the word googling is becoming so popular and thus killing profits for the Google Company (Dinwoodie and Mark 87).
The second effect of genericide is that it may lead to the company losing trademark protection. Usually, trademarks are administrated by both federal and state laws. Initially, state common law used to provide protection for trademarks. However, today the federal law offers the main and the most extensive source of trademark protection, even though state common law is still used. In order for any company to have a product that serves as a trademark, their mark must be distinctive. In other words, the company must be able to identify with the source of their particular good. The company is therefore supposed to protect their trademark in order to protect have this protection from the federal law. In case where the company has lost its trademark, federal laws can no longer protect them. This is what is exactly happening to the Google Company. If the word googling and becomes a verb, the company will lose its trademark protection. This means that Google cannot use the federal trademark anymore (Bouchoux 53).
The third effect of genericide is that it lessens the power of a particular product. If the verb googling continues it will be terrible news for Google Company. This is because in future people will not be able to differentiate Google business, products and services from the competition. This will in turn make the Google Company indistinguishable and synonymous from its competition. The most likely effect of this will be confusion among the consumers which will in turn dramatically lessens the powers of Google. This is such a big irony considering that Google has spent billions of dollars to ensure ongoing search engine legacy, yet, in doing genericide devalues it in the long run. This will mean that Google spends even more money in defending their brand trademark. This is because the company is likely to lose its brand trademark for two reasons: 1.) The company might lose lawsuits after suing other companies for using its name, forcing the court to deem the brand generic or 2.) The patent expires (Millstein 288).
How to prevent genericide
The first way of preventing genericide is through the use of generic descriptor. This involves combining trademarked names with an expressive slogan. This mainly helps prevent the name from becoming a generic noun. This is what Google needs to do to save their name from being genericide. They should take a good example of a Kraft Foods product called Jell-O that was been genericide by other companies to mean the same product. Kraft Foods decided to use a generic descriptor so that the name changed to "Jell-O® brand gelatin,” In this case "brand gelatin" undoubtedly differentiated the generic term and the name. This is achieved by using this entire slogan constantly. As a result, Kraft Foods was able in the legal sense to prevent "Jell-O" from becoming genericide (Hart 39).
The second way of preventing genericization is through the creation of usage standards. Here, Google will have to establish guidelines for how their search engine name will be used. This should also include where and how often their trademark label (® or TM) appears. When this is done, it should be able to elevate the status of the company’s name in the minds of both external and internal audiences as well as establishing a legal precedent of ownership. In addition, Google should never, ever use their trademarked name as a generic verb or a noun. Making trademark possessive or plural presents a risk (Dinwoodie and Mark 89).
The third way of preventing genericide is through an extension of meaning. To many companies this might seem counterintuitive. However, companies such as Google need to understand that the more different types of products their brand name signifies, the less likely it is to genericide. A good example that Google might consider is Band-Aid. This company did this through expanding its product family to include antiseptic washes and foot care products. Today, the brand name Band-Aid signifies not only adhesive bandages, but also a brand standard within a group (Bouchoux 54).
Logorama film
Logorama (2009) is a short animated film that reconnoiters the extent to which logos are entrenched in our daily survival. According to H5 members, Logorama presents an over-marketed world that has been built only from logos while the actual trademarks have been destroyed. This film gives a good exploration of the way many companies have lost their trademarks and only remained with their logos. According to this film, logotypes can be used to describe an alarming world with all the graphic signs. The film describes this over-organized world as violently transformed by the catastrophe thus becoming incongruous and bizarre.
Conclusion
Losing trademark is one of the most serious things in any business. This is because building a trademark requires a lot of effort and finances. Therefore, every company needs to put all the possible measures to make sure that its trademark is well protected. This study has extensively explored genericide. The paper has given an example of Google to explain the process of ‘genericization. The paper has as well described the implication of genericide and the way it can be prevented. Lastly, the paper has review a short movie called Logorama that explores the way companies have lost their trademarks and only remained with their logos.
Work cited
Bouchoux, Deborah E. Protecting your company's intellectual property: a practical guide to trademarks, copyrights, patents & trade secrets. New York: AMACOM, 2001. Print.
Dinwoodie, Graeme B., and Mark D. Janis. Trademark law and theory a handbook of contemporary research. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2008. Print.
Hart, H. L. A. The concept of law. Third ed. New York: National Academies Press, 2010. Print.
Millstein, Julian S. Doing business on the internet: forms & analysis.. S.l.: American Lawyer Media, 2008. Print.
Bibliography
Bouchoux, Deborah E. Protecting your company's intellectual property: a practical guide to trademarks, copyrights, patents & trade secrets. New York: AMACOM, 2001. Print.
Dinwoodie, Graeme B., and Mark D. Janis. Trademark law and theory a handbook of contemporary research. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2008. Print.
Hart, H. L. A. The concept of law. Third ed. New York: National Academies Press, 2010. Print.
Millstein, Julian S. Doing business on the internet: forms & analysis.. S.l.: American Lawyer Media, 2008. Print.
Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences. "Nominees for the 82nd Academy Awards". Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences. Retrieved Aug 2, 2013.
Design Boom. "H5: Logorama". Design Boom. Retrieved Aug 2, 2013.
