Is “Googling” Bad for the Google Trademark? (#Genericide)
Is “Googling” Bad for the Google Trademark? #Genericide
Yes — using “googling” as a generic verb creates a theoretical legal risk called genericide. But U.S. courts have ruled that the public still recognizes Google as a specific brand identifier, so the trademark remains safe for now.
Why Google Dislikes the Verb
Trademark owners worry when the public starts treating their brand name as ordinary language. Genericide occurs when a trademark becomes the primary way people describe an entire category of goods or services, rather than a specific brand source. Once that shift happens, the owner can lose exclusive rights to the mark.
History offers clear examples. Words like aspirin, thermos, cellophane, and escalator all began as protected trademarks. Over time, the public adopted them as generic terms, and the original owners lost the ability to stop others from using them.
Google has (obviously) taken this risk seriously. The company actively discourages people from using “googling” to mean searching on any engine, including competitors such as Bing or Yahoo (side note: I find this fascinating as seemingly counterintuitive). Google prefers more precise language — “search with Google” or “a Google search” — that keeps the mark clearly tied to its own service.
The Legal Reality
In the landmark case Elliott v. Google, Inc. (9th Cir. 2017), challengers argued that widespread use of “google” and “googling” as synonyms for internet searching had rendered the mark generic and subject to cancellation.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed. The court held that casual verb use does not automatically destroy a trademark. The decisive question is the mark’s primary significance to the public. Even if many people say “I googled it,” they still understand “Google” as identifying a particular search engine rather than as a generic word for all search engines. Consumers do not refer to competing services as “a Google.”
That ruling remains good law. Google’s trademark continues to function as a source identifier and stays enforceable.
Other Trademark Genericide Cases
Genericide is not unique to Google. When a trademark stops identifying a single source and becomes the common name for an entire category of products, the owner loses exclusive rights. Here are some of the most notable examples.
Classic Cases That Lost Trademark Protection
Aspirin
Bayer originally trademarked “Aspirin” for acetylsalicylic acid. In Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co. (S.D.N.Y. 1921), a federal court held that the public used “aspirin” to mean any version of the drug, not specifically Bayer’s product. The trademark was lost in the United States (Bayer still holds rights in some other countries). (Note, the ruling came from the famous Judge Learned Hand, who I still remember my torts professor referring to!)
Escalator
Otis Elevator Company coined and trademarked “Escalator” for its moving staircases. By 1950, the U.S. Patent Office and courts determined the term had become the generic name for any moving staircase. Otis’s own advertising, which sometimes used the word generically, hurt its position.
Thermos
In King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Aladdin Industries (2d Cir. 1963), the court ruled that “thermos” had become the generic term for vacuum-insulated bottles. The original trademark owner lost exclusive rights, though it retained limited ability to prevent confusing uses. (Random aside: Do people still use the word "thermos"? Or is this now antiquated?)
Cellophane
DuPont’s trademark for its cellulose-based transparent film was held generic in DuPont Cellophane Co. v. Waxed Products Co. (2d Cir. 1936). The public and trade used “cellophane” to describe the material itself rather than DuPont’s brand.
Yo-Yo
Who didn't have a Yo-Yo growing up? Duncan’s “Yo-Yo” trademark was declared generic in 1965 (Donald F. Duncan, Inc. v. Royal Tops Mfg. Co.). Courts found the term had become the common name for the return-top toy.
Other well-known examples that lost protection include zipper, trampoline, dry ice, and laundromat. This list is not exhaustive!
Brands That Fought Back Successfully
Not every famous mark falls. Several companies have kept their trademarks through aggressive education and policing:
Xerox — This may be dated, but it was long used as a verb for photocopying. Xerox ran sustained advertising campaigns urging people to say “photocopy” instead of “xerox.” The mark remains protected.
Kleenex — Frequently used for any facial tissue. Kimberly-Clark actively corrects misuse and emphasizes “Kleenex brand tissues.”
Band-Aid — Johnson & Johnson consistently markets it as “Band-Aid brand adhesive bandages” and adjusted its famous jingle to reinforce the brand distinction.
Velcro — Launched a memorable “Don’t Say Velcro” campaign (complete with a humorous video featuring actors playing lawyers) asking the public to say “hook-and-loop fasteners” instead. The trademark remains in force.
These companies treat genericide risk as an ongoing brand-management issue rather than a one-time legal problem.
Key Patterns from the Cases
Successful genericide usually involves:
Extremely high public recognition of the product category
Widespread use of the mark as a noun or verb for the category itself
Weak or inconsistent efforts by the owner to educate the public or police improper use
Sometimes the owner’s own generic use of the mark in advertising
Courts focus on the “primary significance” of the term to the relevant public. Survey evidence, dictionary definitions, media usage, and the owner’s own practices all matter.
Practical Takeaway for Brand Owners
Widespread verbing or nouning of a famous mark is common and creates risk, but it is rarely fatal by itself. What matters is whether the public still primarily associates the term with a single source.
Smart brand owners:
Use their marks as adjectives followed by a generic term (“GOOGLE search engine”)
Avoid treating the mark as the product category in their own materials
Educate the public and media where practical
Monitor for clear misuse that could weaken the mark over time
Google’s experience — and the mixed outcomes of earlier brands — shows that even extreme cultural ubiquity does not automatically erase trademark rights when the evidence still supports source identification.
People will keep saying “just Google it.” For now, the trademark remains intact.
Protecting your brand starts long before a dispute arises. If you have questions about trademark strategy, brand protection, or how to keep your marks strong as your business grows, let’s talk.
Craig Morgan Law, PLLC
Franchise & Business Attorney | Charlotte, NC
Practical legal solutions for business owners
📞 (704) 325-9075
