Elliot v. Google Inc.
United States District Court for the District of Arizona
45 F. Supp. 3d 1156 (2014)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
David Elliot (plaintiff) used a domain-name registrar to acquire numerous domain names that combined the word google with brands (e.g., googledisney.com), people (e.g., googlebarackobama.com), places (e.g., googlemexicocity.com), and various generic terms (e.g., googlenewtvs.com). Google Incorporated (defendant), which owned two registered trademarks for its eponymous search engine, filed a complaint requesting transfer of the domain names pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, which was incorporated by reference into the domain-name registrar’s terms of use. Elliot then sued Google, seeking cancellation of the two trademarks on the grounds that they had become generic terms referring indiscriminately to Internet searching without regard to the search engine used. Dictionary definitions consistently mentioned the trademark significance of the term google but also established that the word carried meaning as an indiscriminate verb. Google’s usage of the term likewise reflected occasional use in the indiscriminate sense. There was no evidence of competitors’ usages of the term as the common, descriptive term for Internet search engines. Elliot and Google filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McNamee, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.