Will Google Sue Sue Googe?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
How many of you think Google will sue this woman? I can see where the font used is identical to the font Google uses but I just don't see Google making a big deal out of this. Then again, it would be ironic if she was sued by Google considering her name is Sue Googe.
 
If Google owns the copyright on the font, then yes I can see a lawsuit if she didn't pay to use it.
 
They pretty much have to don't they? (if they own the font)

I don't think that you are selectively allowed to defend your copyrights.
 
For a second, I thought it was a group of people requesting that congress sue Google.
 
Google's logo, despite how simple it appears, is a fully hand made design and not just the company name typed out in a particular font. They've since made a full font, Product Sans, which is very similar but not exactly the same - and it is not open source. If Googe's team had tried to parody the logo or even just imperfectly reproduce it on their own I think Google could leave them alone, but it looks to me like they literally just 'shopped the "L" out of it.
 
This is tough. If she were using the same colour scheme I'd say it's a slam dunk in Google's favor...but it's white on a purple background, nowhere near what Google uses. The font is the same, but is that all it takes to violate Google's trademark? I don't know.
 
Google's font is a slight variation on Futura. If she can prove her campaign logo is a bold Futura or something like it, and thus NOT Google's custom copyright protected font, then she'll be ok. I don't see that happening, given the lower "e" in "googe" uses the same slanted nature as the "e" in Google. She has to see a lawsuit coming. I mean, she may have grown up in Mainland China where copyright violations run rampant - especially in the 90s - but she's been in the States for 18 years. If she's smart, she'll have good proof this isn't a copyright violation.
 
I can see Google just saying you need to remove it or we will sue you, but not suing until they need too.
 
Indeed, can't tell how much it takes to warrant a lawsuit. Especially with it being a name.
 
3 things I will address here:

(in this post, "font" and "typeface" will be used interchangeably)

Wow! Guys do not be so quick to surrender your freedoms to corporations. Not everything can be owned by a big company in this world (go ahead click that link, you will be surprised). You cannot own the design of a letter. If you could own the rights to a font, do you think that books and computers would even exist in the capacity that they do? Think about what a letter is. In order to depict a letter visually through a mechanical process, you have to use a typeface of some kind right? Outside of writing it by hand, you are going to use a depiction that already exists. Have you EVER been told that there are certain fonts that are available for public domain?

If I want to write my name in Star Wars font and sell it on shirts, Lucas/Disney can do nothing to me.

If I want to write a book about why the Blue Eyed Brown Hair race is superior and all others should be exterminated, Microsoft can not sue me for using Calibri font.

More importantly, a font is simply a design style of a symbol that already exists. Google may have a font that simply cocks the e, but they did not invent the letters g, o, l, or e. Likewise I cannot take a Toyota Camry and put new wheels on it and a wing and now pronounce it to be my car and that anyone who creates one similar owes me royalties.....because I did not invent the baseline design of the Camry.

Prince however was able to copyright his symbol (Love Symbol #2) because even though it was a "font", it was a unique symbol that had not been used before. But of course because it was unique, he ran into many practical problems and thus is was translated into a different set of common symbols known as "Artists Formerly Known As Prince", which he could lay no copyright claim to.

The only aspect that is copyrightable is the distribution of the font as a complete set as well as the protection of the name. I cannot not sell discs with Calibri on it without Microsofts permission, nor can I create a new typeface and distribute it using the Calibri name.

Intellectual property protection of typefaces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 2nd argument of my post is the design itself.

The only design element that is similar is the e turned 45*. It is NOT the same word. It is NOT the same color design.

Look at this here:
Google

Do you see how Google is in fact infringing more as a percentage on what ever this typeface the forum uses, then this girl is by tilting the e?


3rd Argument

Just going by this article alone, at no point do I see that Google ever said anything related to this. So we have a few reasons why this is even news. Probably the most likely is that the "journalist" is just trying to get page views and doesn't actually understand anything he is claiming. 2nd possibility is that this is a very well craft native ad to simply get this women some exposure under the guise of controversy. And the 3rd possiblity, since speculation is apparently all that is driving this article to begin with, is that this politician is running in North Carolina and therefore we can assume that she an Asian privileged sis-gender homophobe and thus we need to publically shame her as much as possible.
 
Last edited:
Even if Google sends a CAD letter, it still is a good move on her part as it is getting her additional media coverage.
 
westrock2000 said:
3 things I will address here:

(in this post, "font" and "typeface" will be used interchangeably)

Wow! Guys do not be so quick to surrender your freedoms to corporations. Not everything can be owned by a big company in this world (go ahead click that link, you will be surprised). You cannot own the design of a letter. If you could own the rights to a font, do you think that books and computers would even exist in the capacity that they do? Think about what a letter is. In order to depict a letter visually through a mechanical process, you have to use a typeface of some kind right? Outside of writing it by hand, you are going to use a depiction that already exists. Have you EVER been told that there are certain fonts that are available for public domain?

If I want to write my name in Star Wars font and sell it on shirts, Lucas/Disney can do nothing to me.

If I want to write a book about why the Blue Eyed Brown Hair race is superior and all others should be exterminated, Microsoft can not sue me for using Calibri font.

More importantly, a font is simply a design style of a symbol that already exists. Google may have a font that simply cocks the e, but they did not invent the letters g, o, l, or e. Likewise I cannot take a Toyota Camry and put new wheels on it and a wing and now pronounce it to be my car and that anyone who creates one similar owes me royalties.....because I did not invent the baseline design of the Camry.

Prince however was able to copyright his symbol (Love Symbol #2) because even though it was a "font", it was a unique symbol that had not been used before. But of course because it was unique, he ran into many practical problems and thus is was translated into a different set of common symbols known as "Artists Formerly Known As Prince", which he could lay no copyright claim to.

The only aspect that is copyrightable is the distribution of the font as a complete set as well as the protection of the name. I cannot not sell discs with Calibri on it without Microsofts permission, nor can I create a new typeface and distribute it using the Calibri name.

Intellectual property protection of typefaces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 2nd argument of my post is the design itself.

The only design element that is similar is the e turned 45*. It is NOT the same word. It is NOT the same color design.

Look at this here:
Google

Do you see how Google is in fact infringing more as a percentage on what ever this typeface the forum uses, then this girl is by tilting the e?


3rd Argument

Just going by this article alone, at no point do I see that Google ever said anything related to this. So we have a few reasons why this is even news. Probably the most likely is that the "journalist" is just trying to get page views and doesn't actually understand anything he is claiming. 2nd possibility is that this is a very well craft native ad to simply get this women some exposure under the guise of controversy. And the 3rd possiblity, since speculation is apparently all that is driving this article to begin with, is that this politician is running in North Carolina and therefore we can assume that she an Asian privileged sis-gender homophobe and thus we need to publically shame her as much as possible.
Click to expand...

We're not talking typefaces with this. Was Google granted a trademark on their logo? Doesn't matter how plain Jane it is, if you modify that logo for your own product it'd be up to the courts to decide if the modification was enough to not violate the original trademark.

In this case, it looks like they photoshopped the logo. I think Google will be required to send a CAD letter just because they can risk losing their registration if they don't.

They own many trademarks on this logo, here's one of them. Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)

"Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the word GOOGLE in a stylized font."

Dropping just the L is likely a violation.
 
Last edited:
Well, she managed to make even -me- know that she exists. And considering that I do not know a single other non-incumbent candidate, how much would that have cost her? And how much can Google sue her for?
I think there is very little chance that it's not a win for her either way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top