Well, Google was a word before it was a company, and it's a sign of how thorough the brainwashing has been that it took me a good three minutes to remember that.

I can't seem to find any reference to Google being a word. I know Googol was - and that's where they claim the name came from (a 1 with 100 zeros.)
I even checked for baby-talk and didn't find it there (though Goo-goo was quite popular.)
Help me understand?

Ah, apparently the original spelling was googol. The company was named as a result of a misspelling (according to this interview with Larry: http://daily.stanford.org/article/2003/2/12/fromGoogolToGoogle). Does it count as a new word if they stuck with an incorrect spelling but intended the original meaning? This is, after all, supposed to be a living language.

There are also, of course, tons of examples of word-appropriation-and-redefinition from other languages. I'm not talking about foriegn translations, like AltaVista, but rather words that we probably wouldn't even know if someone hadn't slapped them on a product. Off the top of my head: Winnebago, Pontiac, Cherokee, Touareg (what's with those car companies?). Given the history of imperial Europe, I have to guess that there are lots more in that family.

Yep - no fair changing spellings.
As for the car companies - I'm not certain any of these have been verbed in the way that google has - or have had the root word impacted as much as acme has...
But I'm enjoying just thinkin' about this today... Thanks for keeping my brain spinning.

Now wait: if misspellings don't count, then certainly Acme -- which got its changed meaning from a set of cartoons -- can't count?!

Depends.

Type "need my depends" into Google

Which isn't to say I do, by the way. Plumbing is fine.

This is very close to corporate names starting out as nouns and assuming the meaning of verbs, e.g. FEDEXing, Faxing, etc.

Do Web 2.0 names count? I think only "dig" and "stumble" (from Digg and StumbleUpon websites) have caught on, at least from those that are normal words.
Interestingly enough, I thought of Acme supermarkets when you mentioned the word "acme", rather than the term for generic, sub-standard products (from cartoons?). I'm sure the supermarket company doesn't want to be associated with that!

To your list, of course, you'd need to add "Kleenex"

Wow...
Quite a response!
To Eileen: Yep - I'd suggest that fictional companies DO count, whereas misspellings (for whatever reason) don't. I don't make up the rules, I just... well... no. I do make up the rules, but as the rule maker upper I also have to follow them. (Yeah, this is a tightrope I'm walking here. In the US, though, I'd argue that ACME's weak reputation isn't just because of the cartoon, it is because of the vast number of companies that use the name. So I guess I'm invalidating my own rule since I suggested that it was "A" company and not "a group of" companies.
Michael - The "need my depends" is interesting. It is closer to what I'm looking for in that the three words together take on a meaning that wasn't there before. Sort of like "Viagra" a few years back where we verbed it so that it meant anything that was going up. I'm not sure why "Depends" isn't ringing my bell as much as I'd like, but something doesn't quite fit. Still... if it isn't perfect it is awfully close. As I think more perhaps this is closer than I thought. Depends used to mean either trusting or indecisive and now we've added something akin to "poop-worthy."
And Michael 2 - I trust you take care of your plumbing needs as best appropriate for your situation.
Charles - Agreed. I think verbing happens more than we know.
John - Web 2.0 counts for sure. Digg doesn't quite fit for spelling issues (similarly to StumbleUpon with no space.) The use of "I dugg that" really relies on the slang usage of the word "dug" to mean "I was into that in a cool way." Both of your examples are intriguing to me because they are a very special case of names chosen because of their use in common conversation. They're not trying to redefine - they're trying to adopt the common term to benefit their own purpose.
Claude - I would never forget Kleenex. Definitely a case of an invented word being moved into the common lexicon. Doesn't quite fit what I am looking for, however, because it didn't exist beforehand and thus can't have its meaning changed by the adoption by the corporation.

How about "wiki"? Apparently it's a real word (spelled the same way) in Hawaiian, meaning "quick," and was appropriated in the mid-90's to mean a website which allows users to edit content.

BG -
Yeah... Wiki is an existing word... but it ain't English.
Did I not state that as one of the rules? No? Okay, I make it one retroactively then.
Sadly, in naming you rarely get the benefit of a positive association with another (less popular) language. It's only the negative stuff that really seems to have impact. In order for this to fit what I'm looking for it'd have to be a word that we'd already appropriated (like, say, "forte") rather than one that is being brought into the English lexicon for the first time.
"Depends" still seems to be the strongest example we've found.
I'm beginning to think that I've lost connection with what I was looking for in the first place...

Sorry I'm late. How about Photoshop? It's almost a real word, and now refers to any sort of computer enhancement

done to a photograph.