Talk:Genericized trademark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the 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

[edit] Aspirin

This comes as a surprise to me:

"The classic example is Bayer's trademark for the drug Aspirin. A customer at a pharmacy is obviously more likely to ask for "Aspirin" than for "acetylsalicylic acid tablets", which is the name all manufacturers of generic versions of the drug are forced to use in order not to infringe the trademark. "

In the UK, as in the USA, 'aspirin' is a freely used generic term - I have here a small pot of 'ASPIRIN' produced by 'Parachem Ltd', not Beyer. I have never, in 46 years, see it sold as "acetylsalicylic acid tablets" in the UK.

I propose to get rid of this example - unless someone can demonstrate I'm wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.6.17 (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that the whole point of the article? Bayer no longer hold rights to the word - anyone can market their product under the name ! I don't think anyone else is marketing 'hoovers', but the original company must be fighting hard ... --195.137.93.171 (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that a better example would be Tylenol®. I propose that Asprin is replaced with Tylenol® as Tylenol® is a brand name of acetaminophen. However, when I want acetaminophen I will ask for Tylenol® not "Pain Reliever that can be compared to the active ingredient in Tylenol®". Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tucraceman (talk • contribs) 04:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing genericized in the popular sense with genericized in the legal sense. Aspirin used to be a legally protected trademark in the US and UK, but it is now no longer protected in those countries. In Canada and much of Europe, it is still a protected trademark. Tylenol has not lost its trademark status in any country as far as I know. Dforest (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Aspirin is an ideal example to illustrate the meaning of genericized trademark. The fact that people don't know that "aspirin" is a trademark that became a generic term (and lost its trademark status) in many countries is an excellent illustration of the meaning of "genericized trademark." Tylenol is not an example of a genericized trademark because its brand-name status is still intact. --Orlady (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

According to List of generic and genericized trademarks, it is still a protected trademark in about 80 countries including Canada and many countries in Europe. Thus in Canada generic versions of Aspirin are labeled as 'A.S.A. tablets'. Dforest (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

the problem here is that it says it is general for "pain killer". It should instead say that it is general for "ASA tablets" or "ASA tablets, a type of painkiller". People will not go to the pharmacy and ask for aspirin when they want acetaminophen (Tylenol) or Ibuprofen (Advil). I will make this change myself, I see no reason for anyone to revert it. 216.209.113.183 (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[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)


−UK I have never heard 'xerox' used in place of 'photocopy' in the UK. I can positively say that the majority of my work collegues (typical office in central London) would have no idea what the term meant and the others would deem it inappropriate and ask me why I was using that term.

Indeed, a decidedly North American term. Removed Panthro (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm from Montreal and have only heard the term once in a Hollywood movie. Bonusbox (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

−Brazil The term 'xerox' is widely used, and as a Brazilian myself, I must say that it's rare, extremely rare, for anyone in Brazil to use the words 'photocopy' or even a 'copy' of the document. I've only heard 'xerox' in my entire life. 99.233.85.193 (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2008 (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)
I don't think it's general enough. A very large proportion of the population that use the term "Google" instead of "web search" know Google is a company. Also read the criterion for generacized trademarked above. It is true it in dictionaries as a verb (the CEO's dream, the competitor's nightmare) but it is spelled with a capital "G".

Techdawg667 (talk) 02:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A big problem with this list is that the claim that a trademark is generic can only be substantiated by the Trademark Office. Google is not legally a generic term; it is still a valid trademark. This determination is a technical one to be determined by the entity which gives "trademark" it's meaning (the courts.) Google ought to be removed from the initial list of "well known" generic terms. Nicholas SL Smithchatter 03:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Both references 4 & 5 are dead links, anyone got a source for google being added to the dictionary? BigTurnip (talk) 00:49, 16 May 2008 (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)
I don't know about that. I've often heard "iPod" used as a generic term for "MP3 player". But your general statement stands. -- trlkly 17:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

NOTE: the links for 'household name' are being replaced with the Wiktionary link household name. Tvoz |talk 08:14, 15 April 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] Zipper

Unmentioned here, only a brief mention in list of generic and genericized trademarks as originally belonging to a tyre manufacturer. Why is there no mention of the original product to which it applied - which supposedly was not the fastener itself but a rubber boot that was one of the early products to employ that fastener? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2008 (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)

[edit] Escalator?

From the wikipedia article on Escalators:

A moving walkway, moving sidewalk, walkalator, travelator (colloquial name, not to be confused with Trav-O-Lator®, a registered trademark of United Technologies), or moveator is a slow conveyor belt that transports people horizontally or on an incline in a similar manner to an escalator. In both cases, riders can walk or stand. The walkways are often supplied in pairs, one for each direction.

I couldn't find a brand named Escalator, can someone provide for the article or do they mean Travelator? Arthurian Legend 15:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

See: http://www.bartleby.com/61/73/E0207300.html Samw 03:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neologism

Does anyone have any sources for definitions of the term "genericized trademark"? I can find plenty of examples of use, but no single definition (at least not a reputable one that isn't a blog or a wiki). This query stems from a dispute on the [Talk:Ouija] page about it's status as an often generically used term, and whether the term "genericized" denotes a legal-status or not. Davémon 18:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see the "terminology" section of this article. I am not aware of a single well-accepted term for this concept. Samw 09:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not a word in the OED. I'm not sure if that clears it up. Temporaluser (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Computer and PC

I beleive when IBM first came out with the PC, it was their marketing which deliberately introduced the term to differentiate the product from other "microcomputers." I think it is now used generically- If someone could research IBM's marketing of the PC I think it would be a great example in this article. Cuvtixo 19:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

See Personal computer for a history of the term. Samw 00:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genericide

Shouldn't this mean killing a family ? I know some people don't care about semantics and etymology, but that's terribly misleading ! 'Genericisation' ? I guess 'genericised' would bring us back in any case. Too late ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What about "generalised"? Techdawg667 (talk) 02:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sellotape

Surely Sellotape should be here? In the UK, adhesive tape is almost always called Sellotape. 217.43.8.131 (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)