It’s a testament to Google’s dominance that most people simply say “google it” when they really mean “search it.” Because of this market domination, it’s completely understandable that a word like “ogooglebar” would emerge in the Swedish language. “Ogooglebar” translates to “ungoogleable,” as in “that was so obscure that it was ungoogleable, man.”

The word, which was added to the list of new Swedish words back in December, has officially been removed.

Google exerted pressure, asking the council to amend the definition to mean searches unable to be unearthed by Google only, not just any search engine. But instead of amending the definition, which the council said would go against their values, they decided to ax it altogether.

But just from the official list. It’s not like Swedes will stop using the word “ogooglebar.”

“If we want to have ogooglebar in the language, then we’ll use the word and it’s our use that gives it meaning – not a multinational company exerting pressure. Speech must be free!” said Swedish Language Council head Ann Cederberg.

Of course, the problem for Google is that the term “Google” is constantly toeing the dangerous line of falling into generic territory. Sure, it’s nice to be such a dominant force in your area of expertise that your company’s name becomes synonymous with the product itself.

Think Kleenex, Band-Aid, or Xerox? Those are actually trademarked names that people have gradually turned into the common name for the products they represent – tissue, bandages, and copy machines, respectively.

But it’s not so nice when your trademarks are in jeopardy of being declared generic – which is what can technically happen in situations like this. And it’s not like Google hasn’t had to deal with this before.

“It would go against our principles, and the principles of language. Google has forgotten one thing: language development doesn’t care about brand protection,” said Cederberg.

[The Local via The Verge]

“While we will not prevent the use of trademarks as keywords in the affected regions, trademark owners will still be able to complain about the use of their trademark in ad text,” Google says, adding, “Google’s goal is to provide our users with the most relevant information, whether from search results or advertisements, and we believe users benefit from having more choice. Our policy aims to balance the interests of users, advertisers and trademark owners, so we will continue to investigate trademark complaints concerning use of trademarks in ad text. In addition, this change means that the AdWords policy on trademarks as keywords is now harmonised throughout the world. A consistent policy and user experience worldwide benefits users, advertisers and trademark owners alike.”

Google won’t prevent advertisers from selecting a third party’s trademark as a keyword in ads targeting the specified regions. The policy change does not impact the usage of trademarks in ad text. Google will continue to restrict use of trademarks in ad text for those in the affected regions that have already filed existing complaints about keywords and ad text.

Keywords that were restricted as a result of a trademark investigation may start triggering ads in the affected regions. If you don’t want this to happen, you can remove the keywords from the campaigns or add them as negative keywords.

You can read the FAQ here.

The changes bring Google’s policy in the affected regions in line with its policy in the rest of the world.

Hat tip to Ginny Marvin

That company is IGB Eletrônica SA (Gradiente), and it applied for the “IPHONE” trademark all the back in 2000. Apple released its first iPhone in 2007. The Wall Street Journal reports that the agency who oversees patents in Brazil said that it denied Apple’s trademark application because of IGB’s rights to the name. Matthew Cowley and Loretta Chao report:

Marcelo Chimento, spokesman for Brazil’s National Institute of Industrial Property, or INPI, said Apple is contesting the decision, charging that Gradiente failed to make use of the trademark within a five-year window, as required by Brazilian trademark law. An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment.

Apple Defends Proxy in Response to Greenlight Suit Unlike in the U.S., Brazilian trademark regulations stipulate that registrations be rewarded on a first-come, first-served basis, regardless of which party used the trademark first, or which party brings more value and recognition to the brand.

The company, according to the Journal, only utilized its “iphone” power a few weeks before the deadline for when it was required to actually use it to keep the trademark. They used it to put out a device running Android, called the “iphone neo one”. Here’s a look:

Apple released its iPhone 5 in Brazil in December.

Facebook’s Annual Report filing with the SEC revealed that the case, Timelines, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., will go to trial on April 22nd of this year. In 2011, Timelines Inc., owners of Timelines.com, sued Facebook over the “Timeline” name. At that point, Facebook was just coming off of the f8 conference and beginning to roll out the new profile to more and more users.

A couple of months after Timelines, Inc filed suit, Facebook countersued. Facebook’s argument all along is that the term “timeline” is generic. In their filing, Facebook listed dozens of instances of “timeline” being used in a generic capacity in the past, and made the point that a Google search of “timeline” yields over 196 million results.

Timelines.com allows users to record and share historical events.

“Given the generic or at least merely descriptive nature of the term ‘timeline’ when used to identify chronologies of events and related information (or tools for their creation), as well as the prior and widespread use of the term by third parties, Counterdefendant does not own exclusive rights in the term ‘timelines’ as used in connection with timeline creation and collection services,” claims Facebook.

In their Annual Report, Facebook tells investors that they don’t see defeat as very probable in this case:

In the Timelines case, the plaintiffs allege that Facebook infringes a trademark held by the plaintiffs…We believe the claims made by the Timelines plaintiffs are without merit, and we intend to continue to defend ourselves vigorously. Although the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, we do not believe the possibility of loss…is probable. We are unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final decision, and we have not accrued a liability for either matter.

“If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in the…Timelines case, it is possible that the impact could be material to our results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable,” says the company.

[via Chicago Tribune]

The Register reports that Apple has filed a trademark request in the Europe for a leaf. Not just any leaf, however, as the company is attempting to protect the leaf in its logo. Check out the trademark application, courtesy of The Register, in all its ridiculousness below:

In the application, the leaf trademark covers 10 product classes. It’s expected that computers, educational material and film streaming services would show up, but it’s a little strange that Apple is also covering its bases in jewelry and footwear. Perhaps Apple will start to sell jewelry that features only the leaf of the Apple logo as some kind of minimalist design statement.

Apple’s zealous overprotection of its trademarks and patents should be expected at this point. Earlier this year, the company sued a European grocery store because its logo was an apple. The two logos looked nothing alike, but Apple still sued anyway.

It should be noted that this is only an application at this point. The trademark may not be granted to the company, but there’s always a chance that it will. At that point, we can look forward to Apple pursuing even more litigation against companies that dare feature any kind of similarly shaped leaf in its logo.

According to a report from Gamasutra, Apple is sending out notices to some app developers that let them know that their games or apps with the word “memory” in the title have to be changed or they have to go.

Apparently, Apple is sending these requests at the behest of a German game maker called Ravensburger, who claims that they hold the trademark on the word “memory” in many European countries (and some in other parts of the world).

Those countries include: Armenia, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Equador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine and Venezuela.

Of course, their trademark (granted it’s legit) doesn’t pull any weight in the United States. But any app in the App Store that is available to an international audience would be affected by it.

And there are plenty of apps that fit the bill. If you search the App Store for apps containing the word “memory,” you’ll find that it’s a fairly popular term within the ecosystem. I was able to spot over 50 without really diving too deep into it.

Ravensburger offers a card game simply called “Memory,” which is similar to the paired match game that we’re all familiar with. They also offer branded versions of the game included Toy Story Memory, Winnie the Pooh Memory, and Hello Kitty Memory.

Reuters is reporting that Apple is suing an online Polish grocery retailer named A.pl. The Web site’s name is an obvious pun on the word “apple.” Apples are a fruit and, as such, belong in a grocery store. Surely Apple wouldn’t be angry over a grocery store using a pun. They aren’t even in the same market.

Apple says that the lawsuit isn’t about the name, but rather the logo. The company’s main logo isn’t infringing in the least, but their offshoot company, fresh24, may be the cause of the suit.

The logo does bear a resemblance to Apple’s iconic logo, but is it really worth a lawsuit? Apple says that A.pl is using its logo to attract customers. In essence, Apple says that a grocery store has copied its logo, which is associated with electronics, to sell fruits and vegetables.

I don’t even know what to say about this so I’ll just let A.pl’s CEO Radoslaw Celinski take over:

“The accusation is ludicrous”.

It’s so simple, yet gets the point across so well. Apple’s lawyers must have gone insane. Anything that even remotely resembles an apple (or a rectangle) is apparently fair game for the lawsuit happy lawyers over at Apple.

Once again, it’s perfectly fine for a company to defend its trademark. Nobody would care if Apple was going after an electronics supplier that was using an Apple-like branding to sell their products, but this is a grocery store. I guess they could just change their logo to that of an orange or a pear, but the apple is most commonly recognized as the king of all fruits.

Anyway, A.pl is currently reviewing the case being brought against them. It will probably reach the trial phase and A.pl will probably win. Apple’s legal escapades have not been met with the same kind of success that they have seen here in the U.S. If Apple does win, however, we can say goodbye to any kind of common sense that was left in the world.

The Verge got a hold of an internal memo that said the Metro name would be replaced this week. It seems kind of abrupt since Windows 8 has gone gold so it remains to be seen if any references to Metro will be removed from the final product shipping out on October 26.

So why the sudden change? As it turns out, the Microsoft ran into a little trademark problem with the name. In the memo, Microsoft says the change came about after “discussions with an important European partner.” All signs for now are pointing to that partner being Metro AG, a German company.

Microsoft is sticking to the line that Metro was always just a code name. In the same vein of Project Natal being later named Kinect, Microsoft has relied heavily on code names for their products. What makes this change so strange is that it doesn’t seem premeditated. Microsoft was using Metro in advertising and encouraging developers to use the name in apps. Why change it for any reason other than a trademark dispute?

As for now, it seems that Microsoft is scrambling to come up with a new name for the interface. Employees have been told to use the name “Windows 8 style UI” until they can come up with something better. A new name should be revealed this weekend, but I think I have a few ideas. How about “unnecessary” or “keep it off of desktops?” They might not be as catchy as Metro, but I think they clearly express the nature of the UI.

But take off fast it did. Anonymous just announced Operation AnonTrademark via the group’s French branch. The original video detailing the operation was in French, but it has now been translated into English by the U.S. branch to start a global campaign against Early Flicker.

Here’s the transcript of their message to Early Flicker:

“Anonymous logo and slogan has been defiled and registered through the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI). An online t-shirt company online called “Early Flicker” or “E-flicker” has registered the anonymous slogan and logo and passed it on as their own. Now under French law the company owns the rights to the anonymous logo and slogan.

In a response the National Institute of Industrial Property said that “the conditions seem fulfilled since the mark is registered and it does not seem to have made ​​use.”

Their arrogance and ignorance of what they have done will not go unpunished. Anonymous will take down any business they have going on the internet and the ninety-nine percent will not stop until the registration has been revoked and a public apology has been made.

The name of Anonymous will not be the whore of the world.”

I haven’t seen Anonymous this angry at a single entity in a while. They have already started posting the personal details, including phone number, address, personal email address, and Google+/Facebook accounts of the man behind Early Flicker, Apollinaire Auffret. There also seems to be plans to launch a massive DDoS campaigns against Early Flicker’s Web sites.

I spoke to some members of Anonymous on the matter and they said that they would have no problem if Early Flicker was just selling Anonymous t-shirts. Their problem is that Anonymous has already registered the logo and slogan under a Creative Commons license. For Early Flicker to trademark it as his own creation is illegal. That being said, they still love the people that make Anonymous merchandise using the CC license.

It looks like this operation isn’t going to be over anytime soon. It will be interesting to see how Early Flicker responds. If its found that they have trademarked a Creative Commons licensed image, that could spell trouble for him.

Twitter user @asher_wolf spotted a trademark filing from earlier this year that seeks to claim the Anonymous logo for their own. You know the one – the suited man with a question mark for a head standing in the front of the globe. It’s more synonymous with the Anonymous movement than the Guy Fawkes mask. Variations of the question mark man have been appearing since Anonymous was just some guys trolling the church of Scientology from 4chan’s /b/ board.

The lengthy history of the logo is what makes this news odd. Why trademark it now? The person behind the trademark is a Frenchman named Apollinaire Auffret. He works for the retailer Early Flicker and they have begun selling Anonymous merchandise via their eBay store.

What’s interesting is that Auffret did not only trademark the logo, but he also filed for the slogan – “Anonymous. We are legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.”

The man responsible for the trademark is obviously a peddler of suspect quality graphic T-shirts. You can see from his store that all of the t-shirts have graphics taken from various popular Web sources. He probably thinks that Anonymous is popular enough to warrant t-shirts.

Unfortunately, he may be only inviting attacks on his store and Web site. Anonymous has been traditionally against the use of copyright and trademark for any reason. Some within the group may feel that the trademark is an offense to their beliefs. Of course, it could also be somebody within Anonymous hoping to make a few extra bucks off the brand. The openness of the group makes it hard to pin down members or their motivations.

If you feel like you must have an Anonymous t-shirt, you can grab one from the store for €19.90. You might want to grab one now before Anonymous starts to attack the poor guy.

[h/t: Wired]