Talk:Genericized trademark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Business and Economics Portal This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.
A	rated as a-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as high-importance on the assessment scale

Much of the discussion on this page was regarding the list of generic and genericized trademarks. That list now has its own page, and the related discussion has been moved to its talk page.

Contents 1 Definition of Genericized Trademark 2 Taco Bell in Demolition Man 3 Split 4 BAND-AID jingle 5 mimeograph? 6 Xerox 7 Google 8 Household Name Merge Request 9 Heroin 10 Palm Pilot 11 Trademark : Trade Mark

[edit] Definition of Genericized Trademark

To be considered a 'genericized trademark,' a word or phrase should meet two specific criteria: First, its origin should be as a trademark or product name, not a word in general use which was co-opted by a company and used as a trademark. Second, the word should have gone through a phase of genericization, in which it started out as a trademark or product name, but then came to mean 'any type of the same' object. For example, 'Kleenex', though still trademarked, qualifies as a genericized trademark because people generally refer to any brand of tissue as a 'Kleenex'. By contrast, 'Zenith' does not qualify as a genericized trademark, because it is merely a real word that also happens to be a trademark. (Contributed by Paul Klenk)

I think there are multiple categories of trademarks and generics:

1) a coined word that is trademarked and then loses trademark protection (e.g. escalator) - this is the main premise of the current article

2a) a currently active trademark that is commonly used as a generic. Criteria for determining what falls in this category can be problematic. I suggest the following criteria:

i) listing in a major dictionary (i.e. the trademark is commonly known)

ii) demonstrated general use as a generic by:

a) use by someone famous as a generic (i.e. as a noun, possessive, etc) (e.g. Jacque Cousteau calls his rafts "Zodiacs")

b) the trademark owner is sufficiently concerned about it being generic that they have taken action to keep it from generic. e.g. Rollerblade website http://www.rollerblade.com/about_us/trademark.html or the famous Xerox commercials to tell people to photocopy.

2b) The criteria for category 2a are quite onerous and we probably need a relaxed version of this category where if we can find any sample of generic usage in a major publication (or within Wikipedia) then it qualifies for 2b.

You're right, the criteria is onerous, for two reasons: First, the lack of a dictionary listing need not be a barrier to including a trademark in this section. If what we're really after is documentation that it is indeed registered, that is very easy to confirm from the company's Web site or other sites selling the product. Second, some trademarks are so obviously genericized, that we just 'know them when we see them.' (See my remarks below about words "jumping off of the page".) I realize that this is subjective, but I offer as an example the latest batch of words I have added: Q-tips, Baggies, Cheetos, Tupperware, etc. Does anyone seriously need documentation to know instantly that these belong here? (Paul Klenk Oct. 17, 2003)

3) Generic words that have been taken as a trademark. e.g. "Windows". This is quite common and we should only list trademarks that are well known. Same as 2a-i. This is probably worth an article in its own right at some point as this practice is quite controversial and the trademark owner may not be able to register it.

I agree with your idea of creating a new article for category three words. They are generic words which are now trademarks, but they are not trademarks which have become genericized. We should get input from a trademark lawyer to tell us what these words are known as in legal parlance. Their presence would dilute the curiously unique nature of genericized trademarks. How can a word like Windows possibly be appreciated on the same level as Kleenex or yo-yo?! (Paul Klenk Oct. 17, 2003)

Such words fall into the class of descriptive marks that cannot be protected as trademarks until they have accrued "secondary meaning" or "acquired distinctiveness," meaning they have come to be recognized as trademarks for their respective products or services. For example "Pure Oil" came to be a valid trademark because the word Pure came to refer to the producer, not merely a description of its quality. There are thousands of these brands. Lupinelawyer 06:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

4) Generic words that people think are trademarked or were once trademarked but never were. "Webster's" as in "Webster's Dictionary" is one. Nylon is another.

If everyone agrees on this categorization, I'd be happy to reorganize the article. Samw 16:35, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Moxie gives rise to another potential category...

5) Words that began as a trademark, and may still be a trademark, but which since have acquired a generic meaning completely distinct from the type of thing originally trademarked. "Moxie" is the trademark for a soft drink, but in general usage, "moxie" is used as a word for entirely intangible qualities. "SPAM" is the trademark for a canned meat product, while "spam" is a slang term for unsolicited commercial e-mail. —LarryGilbert 03:32, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)

[edit] Taco Bell in Demolition Man

I have removed this:

The concept of genericized trademarks is parodied in the 1993 film Demolition Man where Taco Bell is used as the generic word for "restaurant"; even fine dining establishments. (In releases of the film outside of North America, Pizza Hut was dubbed in[1].)

Because:

a. It does not belong in the Legal Protection section.

b. The point of the synonymity of "restaurant" and "Taco Bell" was that Taco Bell had acquired all the eateries in the nation.

"Lenina Huxley: Taco Bell was the only restaurant to survive the Franchise Wars. Now all restaurants are Taco Bell."

See also (for example) http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/reviews/demolitionman.htm http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=119000

a. Agreed. I wrote this paragraph before the "Legal Protection" section was created

b. That is precisely the point. When a brand, through marketing or acquisition, becomes so successful, it becomes synonymous with a category, even when there is no one else in the category. It is a "genericized trademark". May I put this back in with this explanation? Samw 22:23, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course you may. I'm still not sure I agree, because although in the event that a pure monopoly did exist, a new entrant might find the sobriquet applied legally (or illegally) to it, until this happens it is not clear that the mark has actually been genericized. I think the first part of your analysis is good " When a brand, through marketing or acquisition, " although I would add "priority or accident" to the list of causes, or even remove the list. One wonders (in this case) what the underground people called their eateries. Anyway, make the edit as you see fit. Rgds Rich Farmbrough 21:42, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it fits either. In the movie, they don't refer to all restaurants as "Taco Bell"s, but rather all Taco Bells as "Taco Bell"s. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:04, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

• i agree that it does not fit: monopoly does not equal genericized. Jethero 07:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

This raises another ish maybe should be covered (somewhere): use in fiction. Heinlein "generecized" Hilton. Hasn't it been done elsewhere? Trekphiler 19:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Split

I didn't tag this page for a split, so I guess I'm the second aye if this is under vote, and if not just go ahead! I sometimes come back to keep an eye on the language about how common these words really are, but I'm not so interested in the list itself. Davilla 19:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the split and agree that there should be much tighter criteria as to what makes it onto the list. Perhaps a cited reference of a major publication using the word generically. Samw 00:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I think that all of the lists ought to be moved to a separate article. The inclusion of the lists here do little to enhance the reader's understanding of the concept, and mostly serve to encumber the article needlessly. -- MSchmahl 18:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BAND-AID jingle

In the Avoiding genericide section it says that Johnson & Johnson changed their jingle, but it doesn't say to what. It says "from '...'" and then just ends the sentence. What is it changed to? Akrabbim 22:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's in the article; read carefully! If you can suggest a rewording or format change to make it more clear, go ahead! Samw 01:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mimeograph?

i've never heard of a mimeogaph before. Is it an american thing? I thin Sellotape or Kleenex would be a better example

The mimeograph became obsolete in the 1980s. Before then, it was a cheaper alternative to photocopying. If you were born before 1973 you would certainly know what a mimeograph is, whether you were British or North American. --Mathew5000 14:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xerox

The legal department at Xerox went so far as to get several dictionary publishers to add "Xerox is a registered trademark of Xerox Corporation" to their definitions.

Sometime during the 1970s, they placed signs next to all of the inhouse copiers reminding employees that "Xerox is not a verb," i.e., "You cannot Xerox anything." (Note that some dictionaries still define Xerox as a transitive verb.)

The signs included a list of things that you could not do, such as, "You cannot go to the Xerox" ... on one of them, someone wrote, "Please, I've got to go to the Xerox real bad!"

Within a month, all of the signs had disappeared. :-) —Dennette 18:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google

I added info about Google's measures to prevent the 'genericide' of the terms 'google' and 'googling' as synonymous to performing a web-search, as mentioned by New Scientist's Feedback section[2].

I took the reference to Google being defined in dictionaries from the main Google page. - 124.168.169.22 06:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Household Name Merge Request

I think this should be merged with the article "household name"

They do seem to be rather similar, and the "household name" article is fairly small. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.20.226.113 (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

One problem is that not all "household names" are trademarks, and it's possible not all are generic. I'd argue "iPod" is a household name but it's definitely not a genericized trademark. —Random8322007-01-26 12:34 UTC (01/26 07:34 EST)

Indeed, I would think that 'household names' and 'genericised trandemarks' are quite different. A 'household name' is merely something that is very well known - it does not connote directly with genericisation of its name, though people might consider a 'household name' to be a "Plato's cave" style ideal example of whatever group it happens to belong to. - 124.168.169.22 06:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heroin

This article needs to have HEROIN in it! "Heroin" was the brand-name given to Heroin by Bayer back when they made and manufactured it. The REAL name for "Heroin" is Diacetylmorphine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lumarine (talk • contribs) 22:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

It's listed at List of generic and genericized trademarks. Samw 01:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palm Pilot

I would never include "Palm Pilot". Is there any evidence?
138.243.129.4 11:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

agree. --Van helsing 14:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trademark : Trade Mark

It seems to me that "trademark" is a single word at this point. No doubt it started as two, and as commonly happens (at least in U.S. English) it has merged. The dictionary I have in front of me is only 10 years old, but it shows it as a single word. Is there a British perspective? --Johnsm2 20:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

See the footnote in the trademark article. Samw 01:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)