Talk:List of generic and genericized trademarks/Archive 2

"Misused"
The use of "misused" in this case seems like a very POV way of putting it, if not simply wrong. Calling a "flying disk" a "frisbee" is only wrong from the very limited perspective of one company. There is nothing about it that is wrong from a usage or grammar point of view. While these are still trademarked and have not legally been declared genericised trademarks, they are trademarks used generically. I recommend either changing the title or getting rid of that list entirely. PotatoKnight (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yellow Cab
I'm having trouble finding any Supreme Court decision regarding the Yellow Cab trademark. What _did_ happen, in Yellow Cab of Sacramento vs Yellow Cab of Elk Grove, is that a lower federal court issued a summary judgment saying "yellow cab" was generic; the 9th Circuit reversed and remanded, saying that whether or not the phrase was generic is a triable issue; and then the lower court's jury in 2007 found that indeed the phrase was generic. Not being a lawyer, I don't know at what level this decision is binding -- is it only in 9th Circuit-land? Is it national? Or just in Sacto? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Lilo, Jet Ski
I've seen generic uses of the UK trademark "LILO" to denote inflatable air mattress not made by the company of the same name (though the genericized use tends to be in lower or mixed case rather than in the all-uppercase of the trademark). Additionally, I've observed far more use of the term "Jet Ski," a trademark of Kawasaki, to refer to personal watercraft (the most frequently accepted non-trademark term) than I have Yamaha's trademark term "Waverunner." When the Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Department on Diego Garcia got a shipment of six Yamaha Waverunners, people constantly referred to them as Jet Skis, despite the manifest differences in form factor. If I can find ironclad citable references, I plan to add these to the list. User:Boomshadow 12:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions on removed items
Band-Aid, Kleenex, Jello, to name a few of the removed items, are extremely common in popular usage. Wikipedia itself has a disambiguation note on Kleenex acknowledging that someone might search for the trademark instead of the proper generic term. I thought that that usual course of action for uncontroversial but unsourced statements was to add a fact tag, not outright removal. The legal question of their trademark status is one thing, but I can't believe that their frequency in popular usage as "generic" terms is open to any doubt. I did find some possible sources by searching for "kleenex generic" on Google Books, here's one http://books.google.com/books?id=VWkfaTRQa5YC&pg=PA118&dq=kleenex+generic&sig=ACfU3U1IozbCHr5IJG7XW08OaEDI-cAlEw. I don't know proper citation format to add it myself (being more of a lurker than an editor). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.76.80 (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"Misused" (2)
The list of frequently misused trademarks is separate from the genericized ones.

The "frequently misused trademarks" are still legally protected and should not be used generically (for both legal and stylistic reasons).

In earlier versions this list asserted that it was suitable/proper to use its terms in a generic sense, and that original list was practically blank. (Because each assertion needed a clear, positive source supporting the "genericized" use of those marks.)

The list in its current form clearly asserts that the "misused" trademarks are protected property and should be treated as such. If the list stops making that distinction, it will be empty once again. ComputerGeezer (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What about the lengthy list at Genericized trademark? From the edit history, it looks like editors, primarily IPs, are dumping trademarks there without consideration of their protection status. Flatscan (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it looks like they just edited the main page without looking at the list. I'll go take a stab at trimming it down. ComputerGeezer (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that. If no one reverts and the list stays reduced, we should look at cleaning up Category:Genericized trademarks. Flatscan (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussing "misuse" of trademarks and advising readers is not really appropriate for Wikipedia. I have adjusted to section to not pass judgment on what readers should or should not do. They should get legal advice from a lawyer and style advice from a style guide, both of which are things which Wikipedia is not. Nohat (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be reorganized
The current division between "List of generic trademarks" and "List of trademarks frequently used generically" seems arbitrary and unclear, at least without further explanation.

The first category of marks this list should contain are former trademarks that have become generic&mdash;marks that can be documented as having lost all legal force as a trademark within one or more jurisdictions, such that competing companies and consumers use the mark to identify their products. Because trademark protection, and therefore genericization, is specific to a market and/or jurisdiction (for example, "aspirin" is generic in the U.S., but still a protected trademark in Canada), this needs to be cited and contextualized to explain exactly where and how the mark became generic.

The second category of marks on this list should be "Protected trademarks frequently used as generic terms." This should be limited to those such as Xerox, Band-AID, or Kleenex, which are commonly used as the generic term only by consumers, but never by competing companies, because those brands are in fact still governmentally registered, legally protectable trademarks. Most of the marks on this list seem to fall into this category, though they are currently spread between both of the current groupings. Postdlf (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggest removal of "Pilates" from "List of generic trademarks"
The cited article http://www.pilates.com/BBAPP/V/about/pilates-trademark-lawsuit.html seems to say that the term was basically just from the originator's name and it was in largely unrestricted use before anyone attempted to assert trademark status on it. The court seemed to cancel the trademark because the trademark application was itself fraudulent, not because it became generic through common use.

So "Pilates" doesn't seem to belong in "marks which were originally created and used as trademarks, but which have subsequently become synonymous with the common name of the relevant product or service" category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.22.162 (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Lava lamp
What's the status? It doesn't seem clear from the lava lamp article whether it's trademarked or not. Wkdewey (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

List of entries needing sources

 * The following were removed in a single edit (rather than just adding template:fact) by a single editor. Rather than continue to merely revert, let's discuss, per WP:BRD. - jc37 22:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

To start with, band aid should be fairly easy to source, considering the not-so-recent decision to include the word "brand" in their commercial jingle. - jc37 22:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gone through and removed from the above list those entries which are currently listed in the article. That is, I haven't judged the presence or quality of references, but feel this list is necessary only to document items that could be re-added if items are found.
 * Items already on the list can be tagged with fact, or removed and discussed here, as appropriate. - IMSoP (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Entries removed from Genericized trademark article
I've just radically trimmed the summary list on the main Genericized trademark article, as it should not duplicate this list.

Most of these were either already on this "full" list, or had no references anyway, so will require more attention in order to add here. You may want to check the items I removed for possible additions to this list. - IMSoP (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Dumpster?
Dumpster was a trademark, right? (Asking here, rather than SOFIXingIT, because I'm not sure.) r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 04:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was, and I was surprised to see the Wiki article (Dumpster (brand)) has the details. -Salmanazar (talk) 12:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I added it. I almost added Ace bandage, too, but I'm not really sure if that name is (or ever was) trademarked, or where it came from.  Below is the entry I at least started to make. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 13:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I-pods
I think we should add I-pods for mp3 players to the list. People, ecspesially adults refer to all mp3 players as I-pods. Pelkeronii (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a reliable source that supports that assertion? Postdlf (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion
I would like to suggest merging List of non-English generic and genericized trademarks with this list as none of the former have a reliable third party source except for the one I added in myself, personally I would love to PROD or nominate that list for AfD but I guess the decision after discussion will become merge, henceforth I suggest merging that to here unless a reliable third party source for them exists. I will give this a week from when I sign this, after that, I will carry out the merge. Donnie Park (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering not a single reply, this means nobody is objecting to the merger...Donnie Park (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Amaray
Perhaps Amaray should be added as a generic term for a keep case? -93.97.122.93 (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Source, please. Postdlf (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

TiVo
Could TiVo possibly count as a genericized trademark? I mean yeah, the term "DVR" is becoming more and more widely used these days, but I still hear people refer to DVRs collectively as "TiVos." Any thoughts on the matter? –Nahald (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I tend to hear them referred to as "Hard Drive Recorders", probably in reference to the idea of naming the product after the media onto which it records as is seen in VCRs ("Video Cassette Recorders"), Tape Recorders, etc. Hanii (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Hard Drive Recorders?" I've honestly never heard that one. Although I suppose you could be from Europe or something and that's what t hey prefer calling it over there. –Nahald (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think tivo should be added to the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.213.110 (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I heard 'SkyPlus' now - it's a satellite service with built-in hard disk. tivo was never big in the UK and therefore not generic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.217.24 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ouija
Where would Ouija or Ouija board fit in this list? -- OlEnglish (Talk) 20:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And X-Acto knife?? -- OlEnglish (Talk) 18:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That depends, what do your sources say about the status and usage of those brand names? Postdlf (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Good luck finding a source. Cause a Ouija board isn't now what it was when it was created, the trademark means little to most people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.217.24 (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Add a "Country" column?
There are several trademarks here that, as a Scot, I don't recognise because it was never genericised here (such as Styrofoam, Jumbotron, and Esky. Conversely, there are several names that would be obvious to me as a Scot, but not to people from other countries. (such as Tippex, Pot Noodle, and Sellotape) How about adding a country column to the table to specify which country(ies) the genericisation is present in? I'd do it myself, but I'm not very good at using tables on the wikipedia and I'm not sure about the nationality of most of these genericisations. Hanii (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Added one myself. I can only make safe assumptions about Canada, England, Scotland, and the US, so it's by no sense of the word complete. Hanii (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the country column because it isn't at all clear what it's supposed to mean&mdash;the home country of the brand? Where it is used generically? Even if the latter, it wrongly suggests that the list is complete, when given that some of the entries explain that the term is used generically "widely", and obviously we can't list every country. It just adds confusion. postdlf (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Where it's used generically, I would have thought that would have been obvious. The terms that are used widely aren't used widely across the globe, they're used widely in certain countries. Tippex is used widely in Scotland, for instance, but not widely in the US. Even when used widely in a number of nations, nothing to stop you from adding the union/etc. that it's widely used in. (ie the european union, the arab league, etc.) I added it to show which country it's used in, whereas without it, you have to look through the comments and hope that the country is mentioned either in the comment or in it's reference. Hanii (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's clear only after reading the notes; the column itself is not self-explanatory. Nor is it really sortable, because many of the entries contain multiple countries.  If you want to add it back and continue to work on it, go ahead, but as it is I don't think it's an improvement to the table.  It might be better to make subheaders and separate the list by continent.  postdlf (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't think grouping via continent would work, considering there are a fair amount of genericised trademarks that cross the oceans to span across english-speaking countries across the globe ... how about listing by language instead, and listing the dialect instead of the language (ie American English) if it's specific to one or two dialects? Hanii (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A table for each country seems the best solution. The purpose of this surely is obvious. Continents are too great to write generic lists; Frisbee® and Tippex® might be in tables for both Germany and The UK, Tannoy might not be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.217.24 (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with re-adding a country column. What we have currently are lists of words that have become genericised or aren't quite there yet... in some unspecified part of the world. I can't see how this is remotely useful to anyone. And it's very unencyclopedic. As many have pointed out, many of these words are the most common word for the object in one country while either totally unknown or an obscure brand in other countries. Knowing which county or countries we're talking about in each case is crucial. I think this would also prevent some of the deletions / reversions in this list. One person living in country X adds a brand that is totally obviously genericised there to the list. Then someone living in country Y deletes it because they haven't heard of it and there is no source. You don't absolutely need a source to say Durex means condom in the UK or Band-Aid means elastoplast, sorry sticking plaster :-) in the US... though sources are always good! 212.183.140.19 (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If "durex" means condom in the UK, then you shouldn't have a problem finding a source that says that, such as a dictionary. Without a source, its OR, and it will be removed.  The source should establish where the term is used generically.
 * But I am suspecting that this list is unencyclopedic and should just be removed, in favor of a very few well-sourced examples given in a summary paragraph about the concept. postdlf (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Kevlar
The examples of the genericized trademark refer to the DuPont produced product. Removed --24.177.187.131 (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

nomex
Again, the sited source refers to the actual trademarked product, not a similar product in the class of the trademarked product. Source materiel treated the term as a proper noun, and only failed to include the trademark logo. The fire retardant suits used in F1 are made from the trademarked materiel nomex, and not a competitor. removed --24.177.187.131 (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

genericization as a good thing?
http://www.tipjar.com/PressReleases/tipjar20060915.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.251.194.21 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Realtor
Realtor is a very common trademark term that could be genericized. I hear this term referred to much more than the general term "real estate agent". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjhuish (talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Memory Stick
Trademarked by Sony but is often used to refer to USB flash drives. VEO15 (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Dumpsters
The article on dumpsters says it is one of these, but it's not listed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.176.149 (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Fatality/Fatalities
Trademark name for the death moves seen in Midway's Mortal Kombat series, but often used in generically-referring to the death moves in similar fighting games, which some of them already have their own trademark name for their death moves (e.g. "Overkills" in Eternal Champions, "Claytalities" in ClayFighter 63⅓), while the official name for the death moves in some others are currently unknown. Parrothead1983 (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

FedEx
Trademark of Federal Express. Used generically to indicate "to ship over night" As in "I will fedex it to you" even thought it might be shipped with UPS or the USPS. Robert.Harker (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

UPS
Trademark of United Parcel Service. Used generically to indicate "to ship" As in "I will U P S it to you" even thought it might be shipped with FedEx or the USPS. Not as common As "to fedex something" Robert.Harker (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Google
I'm not sure I agree with including google here... "googling" has certainly entered language to mean "web searching", but (original research / anecdote) I have only ever heard "googling" used to mean "searching using google"... that is, I've never seen someone say "I'll just google it" and then open a search engine other than google. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is not genericized if the term is only ever used in conjunction with the trademark holder.  I have yet to see someone use the term "google" and go to bing, And you will be hard pressed to find anyone who does.  removed.--24.177.187.131 (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree. "I will google" for something is a term that generally recognized as searching for something on the web. Whereas "I will bing", "I will yahoo" or "I will altavista" for something would generally require the reader to think about what it means.  The Oxford English Dictionary definition does mention Google in the definition for google explicitly but I think that is only because of its dominant market share of Internet searches.  This is like the use of the term "to xerox" something in the 1970's.  In 1970 when you "xeroxed" something it was most likely to be on a Xerox brand copier because they had the majority of the copier market share.  If the office copier was made by Kodak, I would not have said "I will kodak a copy for you".  And now when you "xerox" something, it is most likely to not be done on a Xerox brand copier.  Robert.Harker (talk) 06:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Tupperware
I eventually found myself here after editing another page that mentioned "tupperware containers" as a reference to generic waterproof storage containers (Geocaching, in the intro paragraph). I found no reference to the genericization of the brand on the Tupperware wiki page. However, I've heard all brands of plastic storage containers referred to as "tupperware" all my life, and I was able to find several references elsewhere on the web (example, there are many more out there). The word is still registered; see the copyright statement on the main Tupperware Brands web site.

I don't like to jump in and start adding stuff to an established Wiki article, but I feel this item needs to be added to the second list. What needs to happen for that to occur? Jason Kilgore 17:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwkilgore (talk • contribs)

Airshow
The trademark "Airshow" (currently owned by Rockwell Collins) is often generically used to refer to any video moving-map system on airlines, regardless of brand. For example, Panasonic Avionics Corporation offers their own moving map system known as iXplor, although I have heard many people still refer to it as Airshow. ANDROS1337  04:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Source requirements for List of frequently misused trademarks
Hi,

I tagged the abovementioned section with OR some days ago, and someone requested clarification, so here we go.

I don't specifically want to object to any single marks in that listing, however it seems to me that pretty much each of them would need a reference (i.e. not merely a citation where it's used in some random blog or something) that claims it actually is frequently misused. Now it seems there's really no consistent criteria for inclusion in that list, basically it's just a bunch of unproved claims, many of which would also find vehement opposition from the owners of the marks in question (I don't suggest that opposition would be a reason to omit them, but opposition and lack of reference in my opinion certainly would be).

So in my mind it's basically the compilation of the list, combined with a lack of clear criteria for inclusion, that is OR, at least without references. This occurred to me when some of the marks I otherwise know well (like iPod) I have never heard being used in the generic sense.

Some of the marks seem to be discussed in this Talk page, but I think even in those cases there should be a reference in the article proper.

Does this explain my position, and do you agree with me? --SLi (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that some of the marks listed are ones I have not seen used generically. But I can't recommend deleting them for that reason--that would be OR :-)
 * I suggest that we delete marks which do not mention their generic (mis)use in their brand articles. This would help avoid an ever-growing list without duplicating references which belong in the brand articles rather than here. (If you want to add an item to this list: just add a reference to the brand article, then list it here.)

ComputerGeezer (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Could we simply change the title of the section, such that it accurately fits what's in the list and doesn't require OR/not OR? For example, how about, "List of trademarks which are still legally registered" or somthing like that?  The second list is basically non-generic trademarks, in opposition to the list of generic trademarks above it. Steve (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As I am looking through the list, I notice that there are many brands that do not have an article written about how they are used generically as their source. Many, including Jello, Kool-aid, Lilo, Photoshop, Styrofoam and Vasoline, site examples of misuse or just a page showing proof of trademark. I am using these types of accepted examples to help make my case for the brand "Rolfing." Please see the section below for more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbwinter2 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Rolfing
I have tried a few times to add Rolfing to the list of protected terms. Here is the info:

Trademarked: Rolfing Generic: Structural integration Owner: The Rolf Institute of Structural Integration Notes: Often used to refer to any structural integration practitioner or bodyworker who manipulates fascia. Only graduates of The Rolf Institute are Certified Rolfers who can perform Rolfing Structural Integration. Reference: http://rolf.org/copyright

This term is consistently used for massage therapists, chiropractors, structural integration practitioners and other bodyworkers when it can only be used with Rolfers. There have been articles over the past thirty years that have used the term more generically when it only pertains to a specifically certified population worldwide. It has also been generically used as reference to the manner of work, such as when a NY Times article referred to Julia Child rolfing a chicken. Rolfed is also used quite frequently, and this, along with any form of a verb, is not appropriate for brand names (just as for googled, tivoed, skyped).

I would like this term added so that anyone who checks, can be assured that Rolfing is a protected trademark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbwinter2 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds promising. Here is a link to the NY times article. Double clicking on the word "rolfing" brings up a pop-up, and clicking of which gives us the American Heritage Dictionary definition: "A service mark used for a technique of deep muscular manipulation and massage for the relief of bodily and emotional tension." I think these sources merit inclusion. --hydrox (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not enough. If this list is to be at all meaningful, then we need sources expressly stating that it is commonly used as a generic term, not merely a source that constitutes a single generic usage.  In other words, a source about the generic usage, not a source that is the generic usage.  postdlf (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you do a search for "Rolfing," you will find many examples of misuse, even beyond articles in newspapers. Like I mentioned, this has been going on for over thirty years. BTW - the dictionary definition is actually wrong - which is another reason the brand is misused as a generic term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbwinter2 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But again, it isn't just a matter of finding examples of misuse in sources; we should have a source that comments about the misuse. Do you have any?  postdlf (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated above: As I am looking through the list, I notice that there are many brands that do not have an article written about how they are used generically as their source. Many, including Jello, Kool-aid, Lilo, Photoshop, Styrofoam and Vasoline, site examples of misuse or just a page showing proof of trademark. I am using these types of accepted examples to help make my case for the brand "Rolfing." Like Photoshop, "rolfed" is continuously used as in "got rolfed." Like Lilo, there is an incorrect Wiktionary definition of the term "rolf," stating that "rolf (third-person singular simple present rolfs, present participle rolfing, simple past and past participle rolfed) 1. (transitive) To apply the Rolfing massage technique to." (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rolf). I think one difficulty here in finding an article about its generic use is that the person who developed "Rolfing" also developed structural integration, and that is one reason the terms are used incorrectly interchangeably. This does not negate that most the brand is not misused to mean all forms of structural integration repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbwinter2 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are some examples of misuse of trademark that weakens the mark and threatens its classification as being protected.

One type of misuse is the use of the term without indication of it being a brand or using the term as a noun (as brands cannot themselves be nouns). A second type is when "Rolfing" is described as a form of massage, which it is not. These examples reflect both of these errors: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Rolfing http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/ART00472/Rolfing-Dr-Weils-Wellness-Therapies.html On Ehow - "how_2277627_get-rolfing-massage.html" - link is blacklisted (this one is completely wrong in just about everything it presents) http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/medical/2010-11-16-rolfing-massage_N.htm

Another type of genericization is when Rolfing Structural Integration is used in reference to any form of structural integration. It is a brand, so not every structural integration practitioner is a Rolfer.: http://awakenthecore.com/ (notice the "aka" on the right, and this person is not Rolfer, so he cannot even use the word Rolfing SI) http://www.salidawellness.com/Massage_Therapy.html (not a Rolfer) http://www.minneapoliswellnesscenter.com/rolfing.taf (not a Rolfer and uses "Rolfing" as the same as his form of structural integration)

Another type is when "Rolfing" is listed among other generically named types of bodywork. In these lists, in addition to being listed as if "Rolfing" was a name of the modality, as apposed to a brand name, Rolfing SI is also described incorrectly. http://www.wellnessdestinationscentral.com/about/therapy-glossary/ http://www.inneraccess101.com/glossary.htm

There are many more instances of these examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbwinter2 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It just happened again. http://www.northfieldnews.com/content/march-10-16 - "Structural Integration, or Rolfing, is the process of re-aligning and balancing the body" - this person is not actually a Rolfer. The brand name is used interchangeably with structural integration as if all SI is Rolfing brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbwinter2 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Another example that just was published. http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/article.php?id=32391 Site lists "Rolfing" as another generic modality. Doesn't even capitalize the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbwinter2 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Celluloid
This one's obvious and almost as old as Aspirin. The Celluloid article has reliable sources as to its origin as an actual trademark, though it doesn't go into loss of trademark status. That would probably be a relevant addition there, if anyone is good at this sort of legal research. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WHERE ARE ALL THE TRADEMARKS???
Post-its, Sharpie, Chap-stick, Walkman, Sawzall... a thousand others... also, this list is too anglicized. In America, no one uses "sellotape", but rather "Scotch tape", which is 3M's trademark. and "Biro"???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.225.183 (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, SOFIXIT? The reason the list is quite short at the moment is that a lot were removed for having no references or insufficient details (see other discussions on this page). Being from the UK, I've no idea what Sharpie or Sawzall might mean, but if you can provide an explanation and reference for any of those thousand, feel free to add them!
 * As for "too anglicized", I don't agree at all - we have "Band-Aid" and "Kleenex", which are never used over here in the UK; we have 2 meanings for Durex (don't get those mixed up!); and WTF's a Zamboni? (rhetorical question)
 * An interesting side-note that just occurred to me is that generic use of trademarks in this way is very closely tied to cultures, not just in place but also in time - for instance, I would instinctively refer to correction fluid as Tipp-Ex, whereas my dad might say Snopake, and someone from the US might say Wite-Out.
 * Similarly, it could be argued that iPod has taken over from Walkman as the generic description for portable music players: for a while it was not uncommon to refer to a "CD Walkman", but if a new form was to appear now (say, all content streamed over Wi-Fi), it would most likely be a "Wi-Fi iPod", not a "Wi-Fi Walkman". But this is drifting into Original Research, so I'll stop wittering now. - IMSoP (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought my dad was the only person in the entire world to call white correction fluid snopake. I don't understand most of the current list because they are only common (I assume) in USA culture. And some that I understand are as a result of my knowledge and not because of generic- I know what a band-aid is but I know that it is someone else's name for it. And how can Sharpie be understood but Biro not? Fifty seven "Biros" sell every second in the UK.This is minefield®. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.217.24 (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd expected to see Liquid Paper as the genericised trademark for "white-out" or correction fluid and also expected Krazy Glue as a genericised trademark for "super glue" or cyanoacrylate glue. These are the most common brand names for these items here. Other names based on less-known brands of the same products *are* in the table, but these two are not. Regional disparity?
 * This isn't a Clorox vs. Javex (where the Clorox Corporation owns both names, uses one in the US and the other in Canada) but a question of a company which had enough of a dominant market share to have genericised-trademark status in one place being a distant third or minor vendor elsewhere in the world for the same product, with the lion's share of the market in that region held by a competitor. --66.102.83.61 (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Plexiglass
Trademarked by Evonic Industries I think. Acrylic glass - Poly:Methyl Methacrylate

Seems to be used almost world-wide. Personally I know it is used by friends from USA, Canada, England, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Finland, Australia, Spain, Italy. --88.131.41.70 (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no trademark for plexiglass, but there is one for Plexiglas (one s). I think "plexiglass" is used absolutely universally. I speak Finnish, and I just checked the dictionary, and it lists "pleksilasi" ("plexiglass", not capitalized) as a common noun of the modern Finnish language without even making a reference to the trademark. It's also a lasting favorite in many comic spoken language expressions, like "taklata plekseihin" (lit. "to check to plex(iglass)", referring to the act of checking another player against the rink wall in ice hockey), and "ihan pleksissä" (lit. "all plex", meaning "absolutely drunk").
 * So yeah, I think it is a generic trademark "plexiglass", and not just in English.
 * There's already an entry for Plexiglas™ in the article, with remarks that partial protection might be provided by the fact that it is most often (mis?)spelled "plexiglass" in generic usage. --hydrox (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Tivoli law suit?
It says "This is currently the focal point of several legal disagreements,[137] with the first (Tivoli A/S vs Innocent Pictures ApS) expected to reach Denmark's Supreme Court in 2010 or 2011." There's no reference to the years and both years are now gone by, but what has happened? -Johan- (talk) 08:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the decision. Can you Danish? --hydrox (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's at least one. Thank you. -Johan- (talk) 13:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Spidola
I have added Spidola with reference. While it is not notable in English, it is quite notable in Russian. I feel this list suffers a little from an Anglophone bias.

Perhaps the referencing requirements have been applied a little too stringently for a simple list of largely familar names. Referencing is important, but not so important as to remove uncontroversial items. In cases like these, it is better to use things like the Unreferenced template, or even finding a reference yourself. Rather than deleting. --Andrewaskew (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Swiss Army Knife
I think two companies have the right to use the Swiss Army trademark. "Swiss army knife" can be used to refer to any pocket knife in the U.S., but I'm not sure if it's a genericized trademark, or if this use predates the brand name (perhaps explaining why two different companies both wanted to use the name so long ago?) M-1 (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
This section and that article are the same as each other, except the latter has no source, simple as that. Also ~regarding that (latter) article, Wikipedia is not an accurate source for articles. Donnie Park (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, any sourced entries in List of misused trademarks that aren't already listed here should be merged, and then the misued TM list should be redirected here. Postdlf (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All unsourced entries have been moved to the above entry List of entries needing sources. Donnie Park (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Permalink to former List of misused trademarks article – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Cell phone (Cellular One)?
Wasn't the term "Cell phone" derivative of the Cellular One brand? Or am I thinking backwards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.118.198.5 (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No. The word 'cell' in cellphone refers to the fact that they get their signals from cells (miniature satellite dishes) affixed to masts on base stations. That's what makes them mobile, and it's that fact which gives them their UK names, 'mobile phones'.
 * Sheogorath 178.107.26.224 (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Nirosta
Is or was Nirosta a registered trademark? It is often used as a general term for kitchen stainless steel which comes from any company. —Ynhockey (Talk) 07:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Dopp bag removed
Hi all, Per 2014021910016874. I have removed this entry from the list. The reference also did not verify the information. If anyone can come up with a better reference, showing that "Dopp bag" it is eligible for the page, please let me know before restoring it. Thanks, -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  22:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Any chance of posting the concern here for those of us without an OTRS account? Or is this really that confidential? --hydrox (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I am unable to do so. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  13:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Razor Scooter, Mini Ninja
Was wondering if "Razor Scooter" is considered a generic name for a product from different companies, as well as "Mini Ninja" for small (very noisy) motorcycles.Radical Mallard (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Photoshopping
Thought I'd add my 2c and mention that Adobe Photoshop is a good example of trying to fight genericide. The Photoshop EULA now forbids users from using the terms photoshoppage/photoshopping as verb.


 * And in what way is that EULA binding on people who haven't purchased the product? Geoff Riley 11:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, if the EULA really does prohibit this, it's just begging for a trial case, since it has the potential to create a chilling effect on language. Plus, in the U.S., it's a clear First Amendment violation-by-proxy, in my view.  Germane to the discussion, however, I think the term "Photoshop" does have the potential to become a genericized trademark. User:Boomshadow 12:00, 9 July 2008

I've seen instances of it being shortened to just 'shop' in forums/chats. Used as both a verb and a noun. Would such a derivative form be relevant to this page? I mean, it does come from Photoshop being used generically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.117.125 (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ski-Doo

 * For both these reasons (cited in definition discusion above), I do not believe 'Ski-Doo' qualifies as a genericized trademark. The word skidoo predates the trademark, and it has never fallen into use as a word which means 'any generic type of snowmobile.'  It is merely a brand name that also happens to be a word.  'Ski-Doo' ought to be removed.  (Contributed by Paul Klenk)
 * Some Canadians do call snowmobiles skidoos and even refer to skidoo suits instead of snowmobile suits. Rmhermen 17:00, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)
 * I must agree with Rmhermen's comment - in my extensive travels through the Yukon and Northern British Columbia, everyone who owned a machine used for travelling on snow called it a "Ski-Doo" - regardless if it was actually a Ski-Doo brand snowmachine or not. Kevyn 23:16, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Agree. I never heard skidoo to predate the company. Trekphiler TM 12.57PM
 * Disagree. Wikipedia itself has a relevant and well-sourced entry on 23 skidoo, which clearly predates both Bombardier Recreational Products and its Ski-Doo line of products. Boomshadow 21:11, 28 Aug 2008 (UTC)

Silly Bandz
I added "silly bandz" as a term that is genericized but used as a trademark currently. The NY times article referenced in the addition, actually shows with the specific language that it is the generic term used for the shaped silicone rubber bands, and is dated in April 16, 2010, with a print version in the NY times of the same article listed as April 17th 2010. The Silly Bandz trademark was issued to BCP Imports on the date of May 11, 2010, and it is interesting to note, that on the registration itself, they made an error of calling it silicon, instead of silicone, so it will be interesting to see how well this trademark stands up in the first place. It seems it was genercized even prior to it being issued, so it may have been issued erroneously. Kill idols 4:58, 4 July 2010 (EDT)

dungeons and Dragons / D&D?
Would these count as generic? They are often used by the public to refer to role-playing games in general, larp, and cosplay. http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o145/ddrfr33k/Demotivators/DungeonsandDragons.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.56.52 (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Commonplace brand names vs. genericed brands
The following is a list of brand names which I feel are not generic (or genericized), based upon my perspective. I have done my best to omit entries which are specific to certain countries (though most of the time this is not indicated).

Many of the terms are properly generic only in select regions (the Southern United States has a large number of these), but this is not indicated, and so I (of Mid-Atlantic US heritage) am not familiar with them. I realize that it is difficult to pinpoint the regional affiliations of a term--as it seems, to the person who added it, that "everyone" uses it, and those of us who don't use it have no idea the extent to which it is widely used.

Some of these may merely be defined improperly, that is the term--or some other phrase that contains it--is generic, but the definition does not match that use of that term.

Some of the generic terms may have fallen into disuse (Reynold's Wrap comes to mind), though this may also be regional.

This is not to say these brands are not very common, some even ubiquitous, just that they are not generic. For example, "PowerPoint" is most definately a brand, but there are no other brands in widespread use nowadays for practical purposes, so it's not generic--just ubiquitous.

In most cases, the brand name is only used to specifically refer to that brand (no one asks for "A-1" who is looking for generic steak sauce, for example--though that is indeed what he or she might get).


 * A-1 steak sauce
 * A and W root beer (regional?)
 * Alpo dog food
 * Altoid mints
 * Atkins diet
 * Bengay arthritis cream
 * Bic pens/lighters (obsolescent?)
 * Birdseye frozen foods
 * Bounce fabric softener
 * Bounty paper towel
 * Bubbilicious gum
 * Chicken McNuggets ("chicken nuggets" is used instead)
 * Chiclets gum (are there other brands?)
 * Clairol hair color
 * Clorox bleach (possibly regional?)
 * Cool Whip whipped cream
 * Crush soda (regional?)
 * Dockers pants
 * Duck Tape (most people write "duct tape", but say what sounds like "duck tape" because, in an American accent at least, the terminal "T" sound requires specific emphasis to say&mdash;it's not a use of the brand name, but rather a verbal omission)
 * Duncan yo-yos (regional?)
 * Duracell batteries
 * Durex condoms
 * Fruit of the Loom
 * Gillette razors
 * Google
 * Greyhound bus service
 * Guinness Book of World Records
 * Hallmark greeting cards
 * Harley (of Harley-Davidson) motorcycles (only used by people who don't own, or are not familiar with, motorcycles)
 * Heinz ketchup
 * Hershey's syrup (regional?)
 * Holiday Inn hotels
 * Home Depot stores (regional?)
 * Hush Puppies shoes
 * Jack Daniel's whiskey
 * Jeep sport-utility vehicles (obsolescent)
 * Jiffy Pop popcorn (regional?)
 * Johnson and Johnson toiletries and such
 * Jolly Rancher candies
 * Kingsford charcoal and grilling miscellania (regional?)
 * Kiwi shoe polish
 * (Eastman) Kodak film, cameras, etc.
 * Kotex feminine hygiene products
 * Kraft singly-wrapped cheese slices
 * Lea and Perrins worcestershire sauce
 * Lipton tea bags
 * Mack trucks
 * Mag-Lite flashlights
 * McDonald's fast food restaurants
 * Meow Mix cat food
 * Morton's salt
 * Motrin pain relievers (Advil is used generically, Motrin is not)
 * Munchkin donut holes (regional?)
 * Neutrogena soap
 * Norelco electric shavers
 * Ore-Ida frozen foods
 * Orville Redenbacher's popcorn
 * Pacer pencils (regional?)
 * Pennzoil motor oil
 * Perrier mineral water
 * Photoshop (noun)
 * Planters' nuts
 * Pond's cold cream and whatnot
 * Post-It Notes (usually called "sticky tab" notes)
 * PowerPoint presentations (as they are, in fact, always created with PowerPoint)
 * Quaker oatmeal
 * (American) Red Cross (or Red Cross International)
 * Red Bull energy drinks
 * Reynold's Wrap
 * Roquefort cheese (Roquefort is not a brand, but a restricted-use name for a type of cheese grown in a certain location; see Roquefort cheese)
 * Rubbermaid containers (Tupperware is generic)
 * Samsonite luggage
 * Shick razor blades
 * Scope mouthwash (Listerine is generic)
 * Scrabble (are there any other brands?)
 * Seven-up lemon-lime soda (Sprite is rather generic)
 * Skippy peanut butter (regional?)
 * Smucker's jams and jellies (regional?)
 * Spalding sports equipment
 * Speed Stick deodorant
 * Starkist tunafish
 * Stayfree feminine hygiene products
 * Suave shampoo
 * Sunkist citrus food/beverage products
 * Superhero (only used to refer to heroes of comic book origin, in the U.S. almost all comic books are published by DC or Marvell)
 * Taco Bell fast food restaurants
 * Tic Tacs
 * Tootsie Roll
 * Travelodge
 * Trident gum
 * Valvoline motor oil
 * Wishbone salad dressing
 * Xerox photocopiers (noun) ("Xerox machine" is used instead)
 * Zodiac boats (link to a Canadian website, should probably indicate that this is Canadian)


 * Of your list, I have encountered the following frequently in enough different regions and enough different situations to make be strongly suspect that they have achieved "generic" status: Alpo (used for any canned dog food); Bic (used for any non-refillable ballpoint pen); Bic lighter (used for any non-refillable butane cigarette lighter); Chicklets (used for any small, square candy-coated chewing gum bits); Clorox (used for any laundry bleach); Google (used for any web search); Kotex (used for any tampon; also "Tampax"); 7-Up (used for any lemon-lime soda); Xerox (used for any photocopy machine, and also as an adjective:  "to Xerox a document").  The rest of them only on occasion, and not widespread.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove or modify any of these, as I'd like to see more discussion, clarification, and confirmation before any changes are made. I'm just simply concerned that the definition of "generic" has been confused for "commonplace", or "household name". Omnipresent or monopolized doesn't make something generic.&mdash;Kbolino 22:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I support this in general. IMHO, each term should give a clear reference to a major publication which is using the trademark generically.  In the specific case of Zodiac boats, the reference happens to be Canadian, but I clearly recal Cousteau documentaries using "zodiac" generically.  If you don't find my reference sufficient, you're free to remove and I'll be forced to find a better reference.  Samw 00:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As I see it, certainly in the UK, the terms Bic and Durex are perfect examples of genericised trademarks. In the case of the bic, if speaking in the arena of smoking and fire, everyone would understand a bic to mean a disposable lighter; indeed the name bic is more lekely to be used than is "disposable lighter". The same is true of the pens, and come to think of it, the razors. The same can be said of Durex -in the UK it is the most used term for contraceptive sheath. Myredroom (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of anyone using "Durex" to mean "Condom" Hanii (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nor have I, but I did grow up thinking of condoms as "Trojans" -- I don't see "Trojan" on the above list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * One of the great things about references is that it really doesn't matter whether you've heard of it, as long as it can be sourced. And only sourced entries should be included in this article.  Postdlf (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Presentations referred to as "PowerPoints" are not always created with MS PowerPoint, presentations created with Apple Keynote, Open Office, or other office suites are often referred to Powerpoints alongside those created by he programs PowerPoint. Hanii (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The FIRST brand that I think of when it comes to genericized trademarks is Jeep. Why would this be considered an obsolescent term? People still use the term Jeep when they mean terrain vehicle. At least where I'm from (Scandinavia). Me

Standards for the list of genericized trademarks
The list contains a number of items that are incorrectly on this list. Furthermore, this list seems to be frequently drawn from across the Internet.

Some trademarks on the list are still active (hoover's was renewed in the UK in 2016), but mostly they lost their status for reasons other than their genericness. Common reasons include: abandonment (freeware, netbook), invalid when granted (pilates), etc.

In this instance, the burden of proof should be pretty high to add a former trademark to this list. To add a trademark to this list, the citation should include a link to a court's finding, or a fact-checked article describing the legal status of the term, not just how it is commonly used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davenaff (talk • contribs) 08:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The one-time existence of a trademark that is no longer active does not mean it was genericized. In order for a trademark to be genericized, it must be found by a court to be generic in nature and invalidated. The exact manner in which a trademark lost its trademark right is essential to the determination of whether it was genericized or not.--Davenaff (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree we need high standards for inclusion in the list but I the criteria is too narrow. Can we reword the title to be "former" trademarks so that if a trademark is simply abandoned (as with trampoline) then it can be listed.  Alternatively, we could simply start a separate section "former trademarks" and leave the main list to be trademarks genericized through an actual legal ruling?  Samw (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Either proposed change seems reasonable, though splitting off a separate table would be much less confusing. A typical reader of the article upon first reading may not  care about the technical details of whether a trademark has been abandoned, invalidated, or whatever.  However, it is useful to indicate whether the non-trademark status is the result of a formal court ruling, or from other reasons.  The best solution might be to clone the format of the original table, and systematically migrate the non-adjudiciated entries into the new table.  A brief explanation of criteria for inclusion in each table would be helpful, both for readers and for editors. Reify-tech (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, in accordance with the article header, I have moved this discussion to the end of the Talk page (and also fixed the spelling and level of the heading). Reify-tech (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we should definitely include abandoned trademarks. Maybe support for splitting it to two sections, one for those which have been ruled expired through genericization by a court, and one for those that have lost their protection through other means. --hydrox (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and split it into two sections and moved the abandoned marks over. A court decision around genricization is significant, but rare. I agree that the abandoned trademarks are also interesting and believe they should be highlighted as well.Davenaff (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the process for adding on this list anyway?
There are a few missing, but it says to not add any more? Note I'm talking from Australia, these are only as I think about them. Where I've linked is where there is mention of it in other Wikipedia articles, or a redirect is setup.


 * Breville - Sandwich press
 * Texta - Marker Pen, generally "colouring-in felt-tipped pens"
 * Nikko - Marker Pen, the thick black variety
 * Ugg boot
 * Paddle Pop
 * Popper - Juicebox
 * Kreepy Krauly - Automated pool cleaner - I never knew other brands until my cousins got a "Barracuda" brand one and still referred to it as the Kreepy Krauly.
 * Nurofen - Very common around here for ibuprofen: I've been offered a "Nurofen" tablet of a different brand.
 * Dagwood dog and Pluto Pup
 * Messagebank - was a trademark of Telstra but people refer to "Going to MessageBank" even on non-Telstra lines.

Some others listed on the talk page I would consider generic:


 * Kodak - "Constable Kodak" for a speed camera
 * Pacer - For a plastic pencil where you can advance the lead with a button
 * Post-It Notes - I have no other term for them
 * PowerPoint - I have gotten PowerPoints from users of Keynote and Open/Libre Office. Also "power point" is an electrical outlet in a different context
 * Panadol - Very common around here for paracetamol: I've been offered a "Panadol" tablet of a different brand many times, even by nurses. Or even other pain relievers!
 * Liquid Paper - though Tipp-Ex and White-Out also seems common and all interchangeable.

Lazybeam (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I notice that Cashpoint is a redirect to ATM... it definitely used to be a trade mark in the UK. --82.9.77.127 (talk) 10:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Bilco Doors
Bilco doors, the angled basement doors that lead from the outside of the house down into the basement, are always called Bilco doors, regardless of who makes them. (Bilco may be the only ones but I doubt it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.6.2 (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Raisin Bran
Raisin Bran is copyrighted by Kelloggs, but knockoff/store brands still use it. AmericanLeMans (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Concorde
In the US it is common for "concorde" to refer to any supersonic jet resembling the original Concorde. AmericanLeMans (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on List of generic and genericized trademarks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080328121610/http://www.bartleby.com:80/61/68/M0306800.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/68/M0306800.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060422150420/http://www.att.com:80/gov/contracts/maas/services/centrex_variable.html to http://www.att.com/gov/contracts/maas/services/centrex_variable.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101214205233/http://homeclickblog.com:80/brand-profiles-kohler/ to http://homeclickblog.com/brand-profiles-kohler/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on List of generic and genericized trademarks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908113755/http://www.bartleby.com/61/68/M0306800.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/68/M0306800.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081010201312/http://www.swimming-pool-store.com/hot-tubs-jacuzzis/jacuzzi-bath-decor-ideas.html to http://www.swimming-pool-store.com/hot-tubs-jacuzzis/jacuzzi-bath-decor-ideas.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100429102102/http://www.fosters.com.au:80/enjoy/wine/621EF7823D0B43A0860B1C0BD3BA1AFF.htm to http://fosters.com.au/enjoy/wine/621EF7823D0B43A0860B1C0BD3BA1AFF.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on List of generic and genericized trademarks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908113755/http://www.bartleby.com/61/68/M0306800.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/68/M0306800.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111008212055/http://www.stylecaster.com/rss/222685/doll-noodles to http://www.stylecaster.com/rss/222685/doll-noodles
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120226003152/http://www.dhub.org/object/373303,Australian+Design+Awards to http://www.dhub.org/object/373303,Australian+Design+Awards

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Armco / Crashbarrier
I've never heard anyone say Armco in the UK, only the generic "Crash Barrier". The cite page doesn't work for this one too.

If it's from the U.S. then maybe correct it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.110.76.154 (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I hear people use it a lot in motorsports, especially drivers and marshals. Donnie Park (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)