Google and France are at odds over the right to be forgotten, unsurprisingly. In previous posts, we discussed the right to be forgotten and its inherent tension between privacy rights and American freedom of the press and speech. We also covered the initial implementation of the right to be forgotten within Europe, focusing on implementation issues stemming from Google’s “local” removals that only apply to the EU, e.g., <<Google.fr>>, as opposed to removals from all of Google’s over 200 domains. Continue reading
In a previous blog post, we covered the drama surrounding the right to be forgotten (aka the right of individuals to have personal information removed from the internet that they find embarrassing, harmful, or potentially stigmatizing), its express adoption in the EU, and Google’s alleged obligation to investigate.
Since last spring, Europeans have been able to submit a demand to Google to have search results about their names removed, Continue reading
The “right to be forgotten” is a (newly recognized) right of individuals to have personal information removed from the internet that they find embarrassing, harmful, or potentially stigmatizing. Whether it is, or should be, an actual right is a hotly contested subject throughout the world.
GENERICIDE: Death of a Mark
Trademarks exist as a source indicator, representing the goodwill and the quality of a product or service to consumers. When a trademark becomes generic, a process called “genericide,” the mark stops representing a source, and instead becomes synonymous with the product or service itself.
When a mark becomes so ubiquitous that it is used in everyday language regardless of the actual source of the product or service (think KLEENEX vs. tissue,) then it risks genericide and must be carefully policed by its owner. Many people use “google” as shorthand for running an Internet search, the question is: does that mean “google” is now generic for Internet search services? Continue reading