Comments on: Google Sued For Trademark Infringement Over The Use Of The Term “Gadget” & Why That’s Good News

By: Allen

Allen — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:03:44 +0000

Steve, Google owns generic name trademarks that they must protect and control on internet.

So they can’t go around cancelling generic sounding marks, it will backfire and be more damage to Google and all of thier affiliates if they begain to challenge the intellectual property rights that they used to protect thier own business models.

Google better check thier own generic trademark list before they start attacking others.

By: Use gadget

Use gadget — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 03:27:24 +0000

I will make a review for this gadget. looks like this good gadget

By: suso

suso — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:07:18 +0000

“Website Gadget” is a very weak trade-mark as is made from common nouns frequently used in the industry. Those terms should not have been allowed to be trade-marks in the first place. One must remember what happened to strong trademarks such as kerosene, nylon, escalator, and linoleum to see why Firefly Digital claims are without merit. Ironically, “google” is becoming a verb, and that trade-mark is at risk too…

By: Valerie Beeby

Valerie Beeby — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:52:05 +0000

I find it outrageous that anyone should even be given the exclusive ‘right’ to a word we all use in the English language! It’s like being told you are not allowed to say something is ‘nice’ because somebody has patented the word ‘nice’!!

By: Tweets that mention Google Sued For Trademark Infringement Over The Use Of The Term “Gadget” & Why That’s Good News | The Domains -- Topsy.com

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:10:22 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Latest Domainer News, Michael Berkens, DomainNews, Jennifer Powell, WorldTrademarkReview and others. WorldTrademarkReview said: Google sued over arguably descriptive GADGET #trademark http://is.gd/7X5JR [...]

By: BidNo

BidNo — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:09:15 +0000

And here’s another, http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-lottosites_02tex.ART.State.Edition1.4ba53bc.html

Is the abusive Trademark lobby headed towards their Waterloo in challenging free speech? Or will the UDRP providers once again overstep their bounds and rule on the case.

And how far will it go before ICANN pulls the chain on runaway UDRP providers and reminds them of their narrow charter and the prescribed basis for their decisions?

By: Cartoonz

Cartoonz — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 05:13:54 +0000

Firefly alleges that it has used both terms, “Gadget” and “Web site Gadget,” continuously since January 2002, and as a result, each has “become well and favorably known to the consuming public and the trade as identifying and distinguishing Firefly’s goods and services from others.”

That is what will sink them, too. Purely descriptive using a generic name.
“A gadget is a small technological object (such as a device or an appliance) that has a particular function, but is often thought of as a novelty. Gadgets are invariably considered to be more unusually or cleverly designed than normal technological objects at the time of their invention. …”

“The “gadget” was the code-name given to the first nuclear explosive developed under the Manhattan Project during World War II, which was tested at the Trinity test site on July 16, 1945. …”

and let’s not ignore this one:
“In computer science and computational complexity theory, gadgets are often used to construct reductions from one problem to another. Each element of the first problem is converted to a gadget built from elements of the second problem. …”

What’s next? “WebPage”, “servers”, “widgets”, even “tools”? Ridiculous.

Basically, they are trying to call attention to themselves through this whole endeavor and don’t stand a chance in Hell at succeeding. They admit to wanting Google to “settle out” on this, so it is extremely transparent.

By: Cartoonz

Cartoonz — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 04:59:51 +0000

it is laughable that they succeeded in obtaining a standard character mark for that in the first place.

By: Tim Davids

Tim Davids — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:07:31 +0000

“Common decency and fairness are universal laws that eventually will prevail.”

not a chance…the bigger checking account usually wins. Not nice but true.

By: jeff schneider

jeff schneider — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 19:05:42 +0000

I like your thought train here MHB. The trademark laws are trying to overide the freedom of speech laws which are universally accepted worlwide. It is ludicrous for example for a company like Bed Bath and beyond. To simply think that these three universally accepted words cannot be used by any other entity.

The trouble with any law is the fact that any good attorney such as yourself can figure out how to manipulate them for their clients selfish interests. Distortion of law has been a much to common practice for far too long. Hopefully as you say, maybe this madness will eventually end. Common decency and fairness are universal laws that eventually will prevail. Thank you for your astute observation.

Namaste,

Jeff