Talk:Generic trademark/Archives/2012

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.  &mdash;LarryGilbert 03:32, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)

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)

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. —Random832 2007-01-26 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)

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)

Misc Good Examples to Be considered
-Scotch Tape, referring to prety much any clear adhesive tape -Q-Tips, thats a good one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.152.115 (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Biro, Demerol, Durex
The article probably should mention where these terms are used; I've never heard of them. Jepflast (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

List radically trimmed
I've radically trimmed the list here to a few instructive examples - all other examples should be added to List of generic and genericized trademarks, not here unless you have a very specific rationale for listing here.

Most of the items here had no references, so I have not added them to the "full" list. If you wish to discuss the addition of any of these items, please do so on the list's talk page. - IMSoP (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

List of non-examples
The list of examples includes "trademarks which have either lost their legal protection, or are commonly used generically by consumers". In other words, things that are either genericized trademarks or not genericized trademarks. I propose that anything that has not lost it's legal trademark status in at least one jurisdiction is removed from the list. Otherwise we are misleading our readers. (And it must also have a reference). DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

NO MORE EXAMPLES???
Can someone tell me why it says no more examples??? Kleenex, Google, and {{Zip-Loc]] are all really good and modern examples... WikiFanD 23:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan798 (talk • contribs)


 * We say NO MORE EXAMPLES because this page is not supposed to be an exhaustive list. It's already too long. There is a page for a more complete list at List of genericized trademarks.
 * More importantly those are NOT examples of genericized trademarks. Google is still a valid trademark. Please read the article to discover the difference between a genericized trademark and one which is in generic usage. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

But trying to create a "real" word?
Here's a related concept, almost the opposite, but I don't know where else to describe or talk about this.

What's it called when a company is seemingly trying to create a new real word to describe its (non-copyrighted) product? For example, a high-end cookery company makes Dutch ovens with a variation, then markets it as a (created, contrived word) "doufeu," seemingly to make that concept easy to use or interesting in conversation? (One advantage is, a real-looking word gives the appearance of being old and respectable, not a "mere" commercial gimmick-object, and also as being a separate product, not a mere variation.) Is there a word for 1)that practice or 2)the attempted new word?

(In this hyper-texted, easy to google world, I'm guessing this practice will become more popular.) --71.142.8.175 (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Category
Doesn't it seem a bit weird that there's no Category:Genericized trademarks? — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)