The word of the year is Woot, but is it generic?
posted by Deven Desai
When I graduated from eighth grade my diploma came in a dictionary. As I recall it was a Miriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. As such I have a certain fondness for dictionaries and especially this iteration of them. So I like to see what Merriam-Webster’s word of the year is. Its 2007 word of the year was woot. Yes woot. That caught my eye because the choice may have legal implications. Before addressing that let’s set out the term and some context for the word of the year. The definition is “an interjection ‘expressing joy (it could be after a triumph, or for no reason at all); similar in use to the word ‘yay’.” Truthiness was Merriam-Webster’s word of the year in 2006. Given these two words, one might think that rather silly or recently coined terms are the only ones eligible. Quixotic, hypocrite, and conundrum, however, were finalists for this year’s word too. Then again facebook and blamestorm (“a meeting in which mistakes are aired, fingers are pointed and much discomfort is had by all”) were also on the short list. http://www.m-w.com/info/07words.htm By the way as The Lexicopgrahper’s Rules Web site notes word of the year is not just a Merriam-Webster event. Several groups nominate their own and the American Dialectical Society waits until January to vote. That group’s nominee list is rather fun with Googlegänger, a person with your name who shows up when you google yourself, being a favorite of mine as it is quite creative and probably will drive Google around the bend for reasons discussed below. Subprime was their word of the year. But back to woot and the law.
Now some readers may know about the site woot.com. It is fun although one has to get on to the deals early or they sell out. Currently woot.com is an irreverent operation with one good deal a day. They have, however, joined with Yahoo! to offer woot service on Yahoo!’s shopping service. So how long before woot! loses its sense of humor (the company sold an electronic Merriam-Webster recently and acknowledged the nod by the dictionary) and decides that no one but woot! may use the term? I hope that the company maintains an even keel but companies often take irrational approaches to trademark enforcement. In addition, as Sandra Rierson and I argue in our paper Confronting the Genericism Conundrum (28 Card. L. Rev. 1789 (2007)) appearance in a dictionary can generate angst for some as fears of genericide rise and scare companies into foolish acts. In short the doctrine causes irrational behavior including attempts to alter dictionary definitions and control how people use language. Words often have multiple meanings and context will determine how the person hearing, reading, or seeing the words understand them. As such we argue that two questions—“(1) Does the mark function as a source identifier, i.e., what is its primary significance in the relevant marketplace?; and (2) Would protecting the term as a trademark impose a “significant non-reputation-related disadvantage” on competitors?—… would strike a better balance between the significant interests that both trademark holders and the public have in this fundamental struggle over the meaning and right to use language.”
Again Woot! has not been upset by the term’s inclusion in the dictionary with no mention of the company…yet. We’ll see if that situation persists.
February 9, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Posted in: Intellectual Property
Print This Post
Leave a Reply