Supreme Court Declines to Revoke Google's Trademark Registration
In a significant decision that could potentially reshape the landscape of trademark law, the United States Supreme Court has declined to review a legal challenge regarding the trademark of the term "google." This decision comes amidst growing concerns about the genericization of trademarked words, a process known as "genericide."
The case in question involved Chris Gillespie, who registered 763 domain names that included the word "google." Google Inc. filed a cybersquatting complaint and claimed trademark infringement. Despite Gillespie's appeals, he lost on all court levels and was ordered to forfeit the domains.
Meanwhile, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has allowed the registration of the trademark FUCT for a clothing brand. The term, pronounced the same as the past tense of the vulgar verb "fuck," has sparked controversy due to its explicit nature. However, the court agreed that the mark does not comprise immoral or scandalous matter.
This decision could have far-reaching implications, potentially opening the door for more controversial trademark registrations. Companies that hold trademark rights to potentially generic terms, such as Velcro Companies who are worried about losing their Velcro trademark due to genericide, might find encouragement in this decision.
The ruling could also impact the protection of other controversial or offensive trademarks. For instance, words like "aspirin," "thermos," "zipper," "escalator," and "linoleum" have all become generic and lost their trademark status over time. Similarly, terms like "hoover" (in the UK), "sellotape" (in the UK), "frisbee," and "jacuzzi" have also become synonymous with their respective products.
However, this decision may lead to debates about the boundaries of what is considered acceptable for trademark registration. The protection of sexually explicit trademarks, for example, could stir controversy and raise questions about the role of morality in trademark law.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision to decline review of the "google" trademark case and the approval of the FUCT trademark registration could set a precedent for the protection of controversial or offensive brand names. As companies navigate the complexities of trademark law, they may find themselves grappling with the question of when a trademarked term becomes too generic, and whether the protection of offensive or vulgar terms should be allowed.
Technology plays a significant role in dispute resolution, as evidenced by the use of domain name disputes and cybersquatting complaints as a means of resolving trademark infringement cases. In light of the Supreme Court's decision to decline review of the "google" trademark case and the approval of the FUCT trademark registration, the rise of technology-driven solutions in trademark law may further enable the protection of controversial or offensive brand names.
