Genericide Concept and How It Applies to Google and Branding

The word ‘google’ has entered our modern-day terminology as a verb used to describe searching for something on the Internet. This sounds harmless, however, from the perspective of trademark laws and branding, this has become a problem for Google because of the concept of ‘genericide’.

In these cases, companies had trademarked their names only for them to become common words overtime such as Xerox and Kleenex. When this happens, the original goal of separating and protecting the product from others is lost and this has a major impact on marketing and promotion. This paper examines the concept of genericide how it applied to Google and what it says about the future of branding in the digital age. At issue is how important it is for companies to choose a brand name wisely in order to prevent it from becoming a common noun or verb that is no longer able to secure legal protection.

Branding and trademarks are essential features of business and this is especially true in modern times with arrival of the Internet and globalized commerce. Brand recognition helps distinguish a product from its competitors and bring validity when it comes to getting protection from the courts over trademark violations. According to Brown, they also help consumers know the primary source of the service or product they are paying, and this is essential to marketing and promotions (2011). In an increasingly competitive marketplace, building a brand takes time and this often begins with choosing the proper name of a business for a wide variety of reasons.

One of them is the potential for genericide, something that happens when this original brand name is unable to survive, from a law and trademark perspective, the popularization of its name. This is the value of choosing the right name and established trademark because they give the brand strength in the marketplace that is legally enforceable. Genericide is about these brands becoming so famous that they become common terms and loose this position; something that comes with numerous ramifications (Ferdinand & Ferdinand, 2017).

This brings us to Google, which recently won a court battle to maintain its trademark over the word despite the legal challenge. Kamisky’s article (2012) states that “Escalator. Aspirin. Zipper. All of these words started out as trademark names to define a particular brand … The loss of a trademark or an identifying brand name itself can cost a company more than just revenue” (para. 3). This is what we now refer to as genericide and it can a detrimental to a company that has worked to build the uniqueness of their brand only to find it become common usage. In the case of Google, this is a word that we often use to describe the act of looking up something on the Internet and yet the U.S Supreme decided that the term was a trademark.

Despite the petition filed by Chris Gillespie claiming that Google was too generic, Google won but was still very close to becoming a victim of their own success (Locker, 2017). The court decided to set aside this legal challenge by refusing to hear the petition and this prevented Google from experiencing the same fate as other brands (Kravits, 2017). Companies often take for granted their brand name, as there is always potential for it to be transformed into a popular verb or noun and loose the originality that was initially intended.

We have all heard it before from friends and family as the phrase ‘just Google it’ is now synonymous with looking something up on the Internet. Yet, the corporation Google, as the leading searching engine, would prefer people to stop using this phrase because it is genuinely concerned about genericide (Choney, 2013). Once the public embraces these types of nouns or verbs, it is hard to stop them from becoming part of our everyday language. This is a problem for big brands like Google because of what has happened in the past to other big companies. As of now, Google won the legal battle and avoided genericide,

However, there is no guarantee it could hold onto the trademark forever. They see their brand name as extremely important and viewed the legal challenges as a form of cybersquatting and an infringement on their trademark rights (Gershman, 2017). This is a lesson for other companies to protect their brand names, and that the trademark protection is essential for any business; large and small business that is trying to establish a focal point for the promotion of their goods or services. Genericide is a real concern and it has become even more imperative in the digital age that these brands are protected from entering the linguistic commons (Brown, 2018).

There are steps that can be taken to avoid this problem of loosing control over your brand name, especially in the digital age. Brands are symbols that overtime become apart of people identities and terms that overtime can become engrained in our sub-consciousness (Renton & Simmonds, 2017). Therefore, it is crucial to choose a proper name in the beginning and this includes one that is not a verb nor a noun and not plural. This is what happened to Xerox for this is now the verb used to describe making photocopies and by making something plural like cookies, the word can easily become the name of a common object (Ingram, 2004). Brands need to remember that they can become apart of people’s identity and therefore act as symbols with important sources of meaning.

This implies that from the very beginning, they need to be marketed properly while also receiving some linguistic advice from professionals. The actions of competitors need to be monitored as well because although the Internet represents the new frontier of marketing, there is a need to introduce new laws when it comes to trademarks and brand rights in the digital age (Brown, 2011). Overall, each company should have a few basic goals in mind when they come up with a brand name and this includes identifying the product, connecting to a source, indicating quality and playing a major role in all marketing campaigns (Ingram, 2004). As a result, a company can prevent their brand name being genericide. With this technique, the name is selected and protected in the case of name becoming a part of the public terminology.

In conclusion, Google was lucky that the petition against its brand name was denied by the Court of Appeals in San Francisco, however, it should still be concerned about future challenges. Other companies who have fallen victim to genericide could not have predicted that the names of their businesses would become common words, and this is always a possibility for others. At this point, choosing the right brand name in the age of the Internet is even more imperative because there is even more potential for genericide.

Legal protection is now essential and Google has learned a valuable lesson that other business should learn from. Branding is the key to marketing and promotion; therefore, to lose a brand name to genercide could mean loss of market share and loss of originality and loss of revenue. The marketplace has changed drastically as a result of the Internet and social media for a word can enter the public commons at any time. These factors indicate why choosing the right brand name is essential in the modern business environment.