Google Would Like To Trademark The Word ‘Glass’ Because They Don’t Control Enough Of The World Yet
A few months back, King Ltd., maker of the creepily addictive Candy Crush, trademarked the word “candy” and we mocked them mercilessly. (They’ve since abandoned that attempt to trademark.) Apparently Google wasn’t paying attention to the power of Internet mockery and has decided to take a go at trademarking the word “glass.” It isn’t going well.
Google, which has successfully trademarked the term “Google Glass,” submitted an application last year for a trademark on just the single word “Glass,” displayed with the same futuristic font used in its marketing campaign. But the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is holding up the company’s bid.
Man, even the “futuristic font” is douchey.
Also douchey: Google’s response to the Trademark Office, which is basically a pile of articles about Google Glass.
The trademark office’s letter argues that Google Glass is made of glass, and so therefore it can’t be trademarked.
Not so, Google responded in a 1,928-page letter. Google Glass in fact has no glass in it, and is instead made of plastic and titanium, Google’s lawyers wrote, presumably high-fiving and yelling “LAWYERED” while typing the response.
Yeaaahhhhh, except for that whole part where we already call everything we stick on our faceholes to help us see “glasses” regardless of whether what we see through is that fancy high-index plastic that costs one million dollars once your eyes go bad or plain old glass. Does it get more dickish? Yep.
About 1,900 pages of the letter are just clips of articles about Google Glass.
Man, we sure hope the pile of articles included stuff on that super Glasshole lady, Sarah Slocum, because that lady is really a strong selling point for this product.
Slocum has both stoked the story and absorbed the recoil. After the Feb. 22 dispute at Molotov’s bar in the Lower Haight, she was quick to parlay the skirmish into appearances on CNN and “Inside Edition” – fielding questions while wearing Glass, of course.
She won Facebook and Twitter followings with comments glorifying the product and suggesting critics of the technology are Luddites who eventually would accept it. Slocum even asked Google to fly her to the popular South by Southwest music festival in Austin, Texas, to educate people about the gadget.
Her advocacy, though, hasn’t worked out as planned.
Slocum’s account of the bar dispute was picked apart. Her assertion that she was the victim of a hate crime was ridiculed. And her past came to light, including a series of restraining orders filed against her — one for video-recording people through an open window of their home.
She seems lovely. Where were we? Oh, yeah, Mocking Google for trying to trademark “glass.”
Here’s your trademark primer, you high-priced lawyer fucks at Google. You can trademark made up things just fine. “Kodak” is a great example. You can trademark common words like “Apple” when they refer to something not at all related to that word. Apple sells computers, not apples. You can’t trademark common words, basically, because then you get the weird thing where only one company can say “candy” or “glass” or “pony” or “penis extender” or whatever and sue the pants off anyone else that tries to use it. That is not free marketing and ‘Merica will stop you! So basically that’s the problem with this trademark attempt.
The examiner also suggested that “Glass” — even with its distinctive formatting — is “merely descriptive.” Words that simply describe a product don’t have trademark protection under federal law — “absent a showing of acquired distinctiveness.” For example, a company that makes salsa couldn’t trademark the term “spicy sauce.”
Yep, what they said. Knock it off, Google.