Jump to content

Talk:List of generic and genericized trademarks/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Needs Cleanup

this page needs work. are so many differnt lists needed? can we merge the generic and alphabetized lists by simply marking those entries that would be considered totally generic. i also think the totally generic list is ill defined. personally i belive Jell-O, Band-Aid, Frisbee and Ziploc are almost completely generic but could easily be defended in court and are likely known to the general public as a trademarked name.

it would be nice if there were some sort of regonal standard to help show where this term is common.

I believe some ove these are nice in spirit but don't truly fit. example are Comet and Erector set. Ive never seen another product close enough to either of these that could be genericized as such nor would i think of either as a generic term for a construction set or a powdered cleaner.

In the UK I've never heard of Comet being used to describe a powdered cleaner, over here it's an electrical reseller, so the reference to Ajax being similar to it is unhelpful. Ajax is a common scouring powder in the UK, so following to find out what Comet is described as does give the appropriate answer, but it's a long way around. Geoff Riley 11:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Split

This page had been split from Genericized trademark, so some of the talk should probably be teleported as well.

There is a current recommendation to split this page further, but I disagree because there is such a fine line between the two concepts that it serves people better to have them on the same page, whether searching, contributing, or what have you. Otherwise there could be confusion with a word ending up on both lists, and which list it applies to is also better discussed in one location. 59.112.47.44 06:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the talk from genericized trademark. — MSchmahl 03:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC) PS: I agree with your sentiment about not further splitting the page.

This List is Way too Long

Most of the product names in the A-Z listing are not genericized trademarks; the majority are too contemporary. It takes decades, if not, generations for product names to work their way into the genericized trademark vernacular. Only a fraction of the items on the list fall into this category.

What about this one

Floyd Rose added. its pretty much GT'd around here within musicians. Also can be refered as "floyd"

I've travelled over the US and Canada and have rarely, if not NEVER heard any of these used to refer to anything but the specific product. They may be common British or Austrailian English, and if so should be stated as such. They may also just be in very localized use, in which case they are NOT genericized trademarks. They are certainly not in widespread enough use to be considered GT in North America. Could some people from the UK or Austrailia chime in here?

  • Bounty
  • Bud
  • Chiquita
  • Clairol
  • Clearasil
  • Clorox - not common enough
  • Coppertone
  • Dairy Queen
  • Dove
  • Duracell
  • Elmer's Glue
  • Foamy
  • Floyd Rose?
  • Fruit of the Loom
  • Gallo
  • Gem blade
  • Gillette
  • Ginsu
  • Good Humor
  • Hallmark
  • Harley - any biker would be greatly insulted
  • Hellman's
  • Home Depot
  • iPod
I see his quite often, I guess it replaces the more cumbersome MP3-player. In the UK and NL. Webhat (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ivory
  • Jack Daniel's
  • Kiwi
In the midwestern US we call the fruit kiwi (or kiwi fruit) irrespective of who sells it. I don't actually know any other name for it, and was not aware that it was a trademark until I saw it on this list. --Jonadab
-I beleive this is in reference to the shoe polish.
--I agree, we use this all the time as a generic reference to shoe polish in the Military. "Go kiwi your boots, they like like they are afraid of shoe polish"--Swattz101 09:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • K-Mart
  • Kleenex
I don't know why Kleenex is a genericized trademark. Every single person I know calls it a "tissue" and not a Kleenex. I live on the East Coast, so maybe it's a West Coast/Midwest thing? Eridani 16:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'm guilty -- i interchange Kleenex with tissue. Im in Pennsylvania ;p Jkister 09:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
-I know why, as US TV uses this product in most product placements. Webhat (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Kodak
  • Kotex
  • Lea & Perrins
  • Lipton
  • Liva Snaps
  • Meow Mix
  • NASCAR - only by people who know nothing of racing
  • Nintendo - only by people who know nothing of video games
  • Norelco
  • Old Spice
  • Ore-Ida ( Tater Tots could be, but not the parent company)
Tater Tots is a trademark? If so, it's heavily genericized in the midwestern US. (Ore-Ida, however, is just the name of a specific company, and I don't think company names belong on this list unless they are generally used for a product (e.g., Zamboni (ice resurfacer), Caterpillar (tracks)).) --Jonadab
  • Orville Redenbacher's
  • Oscar Mayer
  • Pennzoil
  • Planters
Who would trademark a type of warts? Or was this referring to something else?
--Possibly in refrence to Planters peanuts, though I have never heard it used this way.--Swattz101 09:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • PlayStation
  • Pond's
  • Pampers
I have seen this one used generically on occasion, but I don't think such usage is common enough (around here anyway) to warrant inclusion on the list. Most folks just call them diapers, especially since the late eighties, when ordinary diapers practically disappeared, so that it is not now really necessary to distinguish between regular diapers and disposable ones -- the disposable ones *are* the regular kind of diaper these days, and if you meant the others you'd probably have to specify "cloth diaper" for anyone to know what you were talking about. --Jonadab
I hear it used very often, in the UK and NL. More in NL though. Webhat (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Purell
  • Reynolds Wrap
  • Roquefort - use of the name is protected, but it is not a TM
  • Schick
  • Skippy
  • Spalding
  • Tic Tacs
  • Valvoline
  • Vans
  • Wishbone
I think the list lacks rigour. IMHO every entry should have a citation of a published source that's incorrectly using the trademark generically. Samw 00:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree - here in the UK, I've never heard of any of the above used as a generic term. You can add to the list 'Scrabble', which is used only to refer to the game Scrabble (not to any other word or board game). Incidentally some of the above terms are unknown in the UK. Ben Finn 14:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed also. With the exception of iPod, I have never heard of any of the above brand names being used generically here in the UK. --Ade myers 17:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Hoover was missed in the main article, it's the classic example. Webhat (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of specific trademarks

PG

A question: Can we really consider terms like 'PG' genericized trademarks? I don't dispute that they are trademarked, but someone please tell me which general class of film ratings, or other brands of ratings, are now being referred to collectively as 'PG'? I am aware of none. Similarly, is Zip Code now being used to refer to whole general classes or various brands of postal codes? Which codes, and where? This is important, as Our Brand of terms, if you will, trademarked as Genericized Trademarks, is coming to mean any type of brand name people use without realizing it's a brand name. It's infringing on our mark! (Contributed by Paul Klenk, Oct. 14, 2003)

PG is used to refer to other things besides movies as in PG concert or "let's keep this conversation PG". That is it is being used outside of its original legal use. Zip code is used by Americans to refer to any countries postal codes, none of which are actually called zip codes. Rmhermen 16:55, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)
12 Aug 2004, DropDeadGorgias removed PG from the list with the following note:
removed "PG", as it refers to something else... it's a homophone, not an unauthorized genericized trademark
I have reverted that edit, as I do not agree with DropDeadGorgias' opinion that this is not an unauthorized genericized trademark. I don't understand what homophone for PG is being referred to, and in light of the usage listed by Rmhermen, which I myself have heard, I would like DropDeadGorgias to justify the removal here on the talk page. Kevyn 06:55, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You should be careful with this trademark, as people in the UK think when you say PG, they think of PG Tips (a tea brand)159753 08:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
PG should be removed from this page. It is not a case of G.T. in the examples given on the page. When the brand name of a single type of vacuum cleaner (eg Hoover) becomes the word for all and any vacuum cleaners, then that is G.T. PG is not even the name of a rating system, it is just the name of one of the ratings. Just because it usage has spread from its normal meaning, simple spread of usage is not G.T. Precinct13 07:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Mickey Mouse should also be removed for the above reason. 131.170.90.4 07:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC).

Google

I am not so sure Google should be on this list. Though the name is nowadays used as a verb, the person doing the googling, still uses www.google.com to do it. It would only be a G.T is the term google came to be the name for any and all search engines, but as far as I know, it is only used for google itself, so not G.T. Precinct13 07:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I know it's not a very *good* reference, but my sister and mother use the phases 'google' and 'yahoo' as verbs, interchangeably, for many online search engines. It doesn't come close to meaning 'search', but it means 'do an online search with a major indexing service, or perhaps several', although they do usually use www.google.ca. So I'd vote that it might mean 'some major search engines' but not 'any and all' search engines.
  • Everyone around me says "go google it" in the generic way. I agree to keep it on. I am very sensitive to people who misuse these words all the time.
  • What exactly is this list supposed to represent. I agree that google is often used as a verb, but google tries to combat this practice and the trademark is not legally generic as far as I'm aware. So if this list is meant to cover legally generic words, then I'm pretty sure it doesn't belong here.
  • googling only ever means using the google search engine, period. It only seems to have become generic because of the popularity of google. The only people who get this confused are extremely un tech-savvy people. There are a lot of cases in which telling someone to google it would not make sense if it were a generic term -- because google automatically does certain things that other sites do not, such as searching telephone numbers, addresses, and names, and functioning as a calculator, a unit converter, and a dictionary.

I agree by definition it is specificaly using google therefor is not generalizing anything. most people would never use google to refer to a non google search engine.

I think it has become generic; Google is quicker to say than Internet search engine. MeekMark 14:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"The only people who get this confused are extremely un tech-savvy people." Oh, sure. I guess me and everyone else at my polytechnic are extremely un-tech-savvy people. ;) Humourous being-offended aside: I'll admit this debate itself surprises me. I've consciously tried to avoid using "googling" to refer to searching the internet with other search engines - and I've been unable to, even though I almost never use google, because it's used to mean "searching the internet" left and right. It's completely subconscious by now.

But, maybe its also just a Germany thing. -pinkgothic 17:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

ZIP Code

Mentioned above. An anon removed this without explanation so I readded it. anthony (see warning) 13:38, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Expnding on what Rmhermen said above, in the PG section, about zip codes: here's a real world example of how Zip Code has become genericized to mean any postal code, even though Zip Codes are only used in the United States - and yes, I've really had this conversation:
Mail order representative: "And what's the Zip Code for Iskut, British Columbia?"
Me: "V0J 1K0. But it isn't called a Zip Code up here, it's called a postal code."
Mail order representative: "Yes, of course, but it's still a Zip Code, even if they call it something else."
You could chalk it up to American ignorance, but it still comes down to the genericized use of a trademark, Zip Code, to refer to any localized city postal code, even if it's outside the United States. Kevyn 07:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I would chalk it up to American ignorance, but you could have a similar situation in the UK:
Mail order representative: "What's your postcode?"
Me: "55416. But it isn't called a postcode here, it's called a ZIP code."
Mail order representative: "Yes, of course, but it's still a postcode."
This doesn't mean the phrase is genericised, just that the user doesn't understand the relevance of the distinction. --HappyDog 01:02, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cola

  • Fasciniating stuff, and I never knew about most of these. But I'm skeptical about one - i.e. cola. Partly because it redirects to Coke (which it shouldn't do), but all the Google references 'cola trademark' seem to return Coca-cola. Since Pepsi is Pepsi-cola, there is Macdonalds cola, Mecca-cola etc. I can't see that cola is a trademark. Any sources to say it was once? DJ Clayworth 13:58, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Further research has found sources that say cola is not a trademark. DJ Clayworth 13:17, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
"Finally, generic marks simply designate the variety of goods involved: for example, "cola" used on soft drinks and "perfume" on perfume are both generic terms. Generic marks never receive any trademark protection; they are free for everybody to use." Source:http://www.chillingeffects.org/domain/notice.cgi?NoticeID=687
The problem lies in the definition. "Cola" is not used to mean "soft drink", it is rather used to mean a specific type of soft drink, which seems to be used by several companies. I would suggest, however, that "Coke" as a contraction of Coca-Cola is used generically to describe colas by any company.
  • other relevant sources with dates Source: Online Etymology Dictionary
    • coca - 1616, from Sp. coca, from Quechua cuca.
    • coca - Coca-Cola invented in Atlanta, Ga., 1886, by druggist Dr. John S. Pemberton. So called because original ingredients were derived from cocoa leaves and cola nuts, it contained minute amounts of cocaine until 1909. Coca-colanization coined 1950. "Drink the brain tonic and intellectual soda fountain beverage Coca-Cola." [Atlanta Evening Journal, June 30, 1887].
    • cola - 1795, "genus of trees native to west Africa, introduced in New World tropics," Latinized form of W.Afr. name of the tree (cf. Temne kola, Mandingo kolo). Meaning "carbonated soft drink" is 1920, short for Coca-Cola, Pepsi-Cola.
    • kola - "the cola nut," 1830, variant of cola (q.v.).
    • Pepsi-Cola - U.S. patent filed Sept. 23, 1902, by Caleb D. Bradham (1867-1934), pharmacist and drugstore owner of New Bern, N.C., probably from pepsin (1844), name of a fermin in gastric juice, used medicinally for cases of indigestion (see peptic); early Pepsi ads tout it as a digestive aid.
    • coke - 1699, northern Eng. dial., perhaps a variant of M.E. colke "core, charcoal," itself possibly related to -colc, an O.E. word for "pit." The soft drink name is a shortening (first recorded 1909) of brand name Coca-Cola, trademark from 1887. As a shortened form of cocaine it dates from 1908, Amer.Eng.
my take is that both coca and cola were words before Coca-cola, and very few people use the full "Coca-Cola" to mean 'generic cola-nut-derived-like beverage', so the Etymology is something like:
  • coca=cocoa leaves(1616) + cola=kola nut(1795) => Coca-Cola®(1886) => coke=Coca-Cola(1908), cola=carbonated soft drink(1920)
  • pepsin(1844) + cola=kola nut(1795) => Pepsi-Cola®(1902) => cola=carbonated soft drink(1920), and pepsi=carbonated softdrink(??)
  • and today, with emergence of many other carbonated softdrinks, I propose "carbonated softdrink => carbonated cola-nut-derived-like soft drink" in the context of coke / pepsi / cola

So my conclusion would be that:

  • cola is not and was not a trademark, so it means carbonated cola-nut-derived-like soft drink, but it's not a G.T.
  • pepsi is a G.T. for cola, or "carbonated cola-nut-derived-like soft drink", see coke
  • coke is a G.T. for cola, or "carbonated cola-nut-derived-like soft drink", see pepsi
I will make these changes shortly.
Jethero 07:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
"Coke" is used generically for any kind of soda drink in some parts of the United States, primarily those close to the home of the Coca-Cola Company, just as others use "soda" or "pop".
I will support this last note. I was brought up in New Mexico, where "coke" means just about anything sweet and carbonated. Namely, 7up is a coke, and ginger ale is a coke, etc. Fanta, no matter what flavor it would be, would certainly be a coke. Although, I don't think that plain carbonated water would classify as a coke, because it's not sweetened. Either way, in/near Albuquerque NM, 7up is assuredly a coke, and when ordering a coke, you have to specify and affirm "Coke" in order to get Coca-cola. --Puellanivis 23:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

kerosene, trampoline

I believe kerosene and trampoline were also once tradmarks. I've found lots of references stating the bald fact of this, but no more details. Anyone? DJ Clayworth 13:44, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Neither Webster's nor Bartleby's list trampoline as deriving from a trademark. http://www.otterbein.edu/home/fac/brccbly/general/bitsnbytes/trademarks.htm [link now broken —LarryGilbert] states trampoline was once a trademark, but I didn't consider that an authouratative source. Does anyone have an OED to confirm? Samw 17:02, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster gives a very specific etymology for "kerosene" [1] showing that its origin is not a trademark. —LarryGilbert 10:22, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)
Agreed. I coincidentally looked up kerosene in a hardcopy (Shorter) Oxford English Dictionary and it does not state that it was a trademark either. Samw 13:22, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Under this "trust the dictionary" logic, apple is a fruit and therefore cannot be a valid trademark for a computer. Compare: http://www.rootsweb.com/~canbrnep/may101934gesner.htm article which states that the inventor, Gesner, "named his product Keroselain, from the Greek, but later shortened it to Kerosene. In 1853 he went to New York, took out several patents for the manufacture of kerosene..." Does this mean Kerosene is the "name" of the chemical, or the "brand" of the product derived from the patented process? In his 1854 patent (11,203, assigned to the Asphalt Mining and Kerosene Gas Company) he said he "denominates" the new product "kerosene." If the product was sold as "Kerosene brand lamp-oil" then it would be more clearly a brand name, but such ephemera is hard to track down. Lupinelawyer 05:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Same goes for trampoline [2]. The etymology is very specific and refutes the trademark notion. —LarryGilbert 21:46, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
Trampoline was a trademarked word. In "George Nissen - The Man and the Kangaroo" [3] the origin of the word is traced to the Spanish word for a diving board, "el trampolín." Nissen also remarks about the use of the term by other companies during the 1950s. He said, "They weren't supposed to do that. The real generic term is 'rebound tumbling.'" In the early 1960s, he decided to let the trademark lapse. —Kevin Wohler 18:03, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

nylon, spandex

Even though the Wikipedia article on nylon says it was once a trademark, I couldn't find an authoratative reference stating that it was once a trademark. Does anyone have one? I believe spandex was also once a trademark, but again, I couldn't find a reference. Samw 17:14, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It seems that any of the newer synthetic fibers have both a generic name and a brand name, like just about every drug/medication. I think that elastane and spandex are the generic names for the brand names Lycra® and Elaspan®, though I'm not sure why there are two generic names for the same fibre. Frankly, I thought that spandex was the brand, so perhaps this is the same mix-up as with nylon. --radiojon 06:13, 2003 Sep 6 (UTC)
I've found an authoratative reference for spandex at http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=76142&dict=CALD and will now put it in. Samw 21:19, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Actually, both Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster say spandex is generic and Lycra® (D.c and M-W) is a trademark, capitalised. The websites I've found seem to concur with this usage. --radiojon 02:19, 2003 Sep 11 (UTC)
Understood. What I meant is that I'm using the Cambridge Dictionary reference to mean that spandex was once a trademark. I agree it is clearly now generic, hence it's inclusion in this article. If you're not convinced it was once a trademark, please remove it. (I'm tempted to remove nylon.) Samw 03:02, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I looked up "nylon" and "spandex" in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. It lists "Spandex" with a capital "S" as "proprietary". It does not list nylon as proprietary. I am now removing nylon from the list. Samw 17:48, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Under the "Terms which are not generecized trademarks" section I have removed the reference to (IUPAC name PA 6,6) - nylon refers to a family of polyamides of which nylon 6,6 is the most common but not sole member. 80.176.108.18 12:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be a bit wary about relying on dictionaries. Just because it's not TM now doesn't mean it wasn't, unless that's noted in the etymology. My Webster'sTM calls "nylon" an "arbitrary coinage", but I recall German makers couldn't call it that when they invented an equivalent, because Nylon was protected (if N TM). TrekphilerTM 18:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Bubble Wrap

'Bubble wrap' needs to be discussed here. Sam Wong, who posted the term, cites the U.S. Patent and Trademark Web site as his authority. It is true that bubble wrap has been patented, but that does nothing to back up his claim that it is a genericized term. In the abstract I read at uspto.gov, the term shows up in a description, but it is not capitalized nor referred to as a trademark or brand name. Further, no on-line dictionary I have consulted documents that it was ever a trademark. Can someone prove 'bubble wrap' was ever trademarked? from Paul Klenk

I don't understand your assertion that it wasn't trademark. From the footnote in the main article, repeated here: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=d4jcmf.2.5
Word Mark BUBBLE WRAP 
Goods and Services IC 017. US 050. G & S: Cellular Cushioning Packaging Material which Contains Entrapped Bubbles of Air or Other Gases. FIRST USE: 19681000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19681000 
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING 
Serial Number 73326063 
Filing Date August 31, 1981 
Published for Opposition April 12, 1983 
Registration Number 1247076 
Registration Date August 2, 1983 
Owner (REGISTRANT) Sealed Air Corporation CORPORATION DELAWARE Park 80 Plz. E. Saddle Brook NEW JERSEY 07662 
Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED 
Attorney of Record FLOYD A. GIBSON 
Prior Registrations 0922998;0955899;1078920 
Type of Mark 'TRADEMARK '
Register PRINCIPAL-2(F) 
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). 
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Are we disputing the USPTO trademark registration information that "BUBBLE WRAP" is trademarked? Samw 02:52, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Sam, thanks for the documentation on Bubble Wrap. Because your links produce error messages (at least for me), it was impossible to know exactly what the uspto docs said. If you will reread my comments, you will see I never actually asserted that it wasn't a trademark, just that I could find no documentation and wanted to see some, and wished to discuss it. That is why I did not delete the entry. from Paul Klenk

Teflon

Is there any non-teflon non-stick surface that people would be referring to? Aren't they all actually Teflon? Rmhermen 17:03, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)

  • Teflon is a registered trademark of DuPont, which is aggresivly defended. The brand origionally refered to PTFE, or polytetrafluoethylene, which was invented in 1938. It has sense been expanded to include PFA, ETFE, and FEP; however, DuPont's patent rights to these compounds have expired and products containing them are sold by other companies, which are not Teflon brand but are often called Teflon by the end users. www.teflon.com Gentgeen 19:41, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Zodiac

For the same reason, 'Zodiac' ought to be removed. Remember, we are not merely looking for brand names. We are looking for words that originated as a brand name, then generally came to be known as any similar object of any brand. 'Zodiac' doesn't come anywhere near being a genericized trademark. (Contributed by Paul Klenk)
Many people call boats with inflatble pontoons or even any inflatable boat of any sort a zodiac. Rmhermen 17:00, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)

Windex

To be honest, I don't actually live in the U.S., so I can't claim to know how widely-used this is as a generic term; I was going by statements made by others on-site. However, I did a quick bit of research, and found that Google returned several hundred hits for "some windex", but very few for anything that would have to be another brand, like "cheap windex" or "generic windex". I did find many uses of it as a verb ("windexed" and "windexing" both give many hits), and following a few links did suggest people didn't have a particular brand in mind. Statements like "...involved cleaning (mopping, scrubbing, and windexing)..." and even "the Windexed sky" (how poetic...) suggest usage similar to Hoover. - IMSoP 00:01, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Around here (midwestern US), _recipes_ for making your own Windex are commonly circulated, sometimes in conjunction with similar recipes for stain removers and other household cleaning products. There are also recipes for making your own Play-Dough. I think most folks do know that it's a trademark (unlike Bulldozer or Thermos, which are so genericized that people laugh and disbelieve if you tell them it's a brand name), but they go ahead and use it generically anyway, because there isn't a commonly-known generic word for it. The same goes for Klenex: we call them that no matter what brand they are, because there's no good generic word for them. There's "nosewipe", but that's too informal for many contexts; there's "facial tissue", which is the generic term you see on the packaging, but that sounds too technical, and people will look at you funny if you call them that. So we call them "Klenex" even though Puffs are the better and more popular brand. I have been given to understand that in some parts of the world people just call them "tissues", but here that term is normally associated with very thin colorful translucent papers used for crafts. We all know Klenex and Windex and Play-Dough are brand names, but we use them generically anyway. (You will also occasionally hear phrases such as "off-brand Play-Dough" or "generic Klenex" or "Windex substitute".) --Jonadab, 2006 May 26
I think people not having a particular brand in mind doesn't mean the same as the word being used generically. I mean, should we be adding "coke," "pepsi," and "sprite" to the list? Because, I ask for those things all the time, and I don't really have a particular brand in mind when I do. I was going to mention "drano" too, but maybe you could argue that actually is a term being used generically. I dunno, the whole idea of this section is stupid and POV. Anthony DiPierro 01:09, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Personally, I would add Coke to the list - I'd never ask for a "rum & Pepsi", or even a "rum & Cola", but it's the latter I'm referring to, and in some bars I'll be served the former. If that's not using it generically, I don't know what is! But then, I guess that rather backs up your point about it being overly POV, since somebody else might completely disagree - I gather that in the US, Coke and Pepsi have had genuine brand-wars, but here in the UK nobody much is bothered, AFAIK. - IMSoP 01:35, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Eww, rum and pepsi? Pepsi is too sweet to be mixed with rum. In any case, I think there's a big difference between not caring and using a term generically. But I guess that any example I bring up you're just going to say is using the term generically. I mean, basically any brand name product which can be used as a noun and has generic competition is going to be a cadidate if you just count things you don't care about. Fruit Loops, Cherios, Frosted Flakes, Rice Crispies, 7-11, Clear Eyes, the Club, M&Ms, Clorox, Benadryl, Tylenol, Nyquil, Trojans, Gatorade, Netscape, Napster, Kazaa, Winzip, AOL Instant Messenger (or AIM), etc.
Sweet? Pepsi is bitter. Coke is much sweeter.
I second the vote for "Coke." Friends of mine who lived in Texas say that "coke" is often used there to refer to any soft drink, not just colas; asking for an "orange coke" means you want an orange soda, not a Coke with orange flavor in it. By the way, why not Rice Krispies? —LarryGilbert 09:21, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)
I don't understand the statement: there's a big difference between not caring and using a term generically Surely that's how a trademark gets gerericized in the first place: by people not caring? Coke is the absolute epitome of a trademark used worldwide generically. The point is common usage in a range of situations: e.g. in a restaurant in the UK if you ask for a coke you will get cola. Nobody says 'a glass of cola please'. It is understood.
Not if you want a Pepsi, it's not. And I've asked for Coke & been asked if I mean Pepsi, so it's N clearly universal, either. TrekphilerTM, 13.01 22/12/05

As a slight aside on the reference to cola wars and whether anyone cares what cola they get: in the UK, due to franchising the customer very rarely gets a choice; there's usually one vending machine (either coca-cola or pepsi) and even pubs, cafes, takeaways etc. often only stock one or the other. So you ask for a coke and get whatever cola they have signed up with. user:Btljs Mar 10 2004.

In the US many establishments sell either Coca-Cola or Pepsi, but not both. In my experience when someone asks for a "coke" when the restaurant serves only Pepsi, the clerk will state, "we serve Pepsi, is that OK?" or some such. Some people really do prefer one over the other and would be irritated to get what they didn't order. It wouldn't surprise me if the suppliers gave specific orders to the management not to serve one when the other is ordered unless the customer OKs it. Coke and Pepsi take the cola wars pretty seriously and there's a lot of legal muscle (and money) involved in protecting the respective trademarks.Gr8white 00:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

lava lamp

This is not really a trademark. The true trademark is Lava Lite®. I bet they've been kicking themselves. :-) —LarryGilbert 10:22, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)

Moxie

Can someone provide a reference that this is still trademarked? Both Webster's and Bartleby's list it as "from a trademark". Samw 13:28, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sure. It's in the USPTO's Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS), registration number 0189066. Go to TESS, link to "New User Form Search (Basic)", enter "moxie beverage" for the Search Term, choose "ALL" on the pop-up menu for "Field", and hit "Submit Query". In the search results, follow the link for registration number 0189066.
Also see the Moxie page by Monarch Beverage Company, the makers.
—LarryGilbert 23:45, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)
OK, but the text at [4], states, "the word “moxie,” which means “energy” or “pep,” originated with the Moxie soft drink brand", implying that "moxie" is a word in its own right independent of the current trademark. So this isn't a genericized trademark like the other trademarks, the word has taken on meaning independent of the original trademark. I'll mull over how to write this up in the main article. Samw 02:31, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You do have a point in that it's not a term ascribed to other soft drinks. ("Gimme a moxie!"?) Still, it was first coined as a trademark, so it would be unlikely to exist today otherwise. I've added a suggested number 5 to your list under #Definition of Genericized Trademark. —LarryGilbert 03:32, 2004 Mar 8 (UTC)

PalmPilot

Palm Pilot is interesting because (if i recall correctly), Palm corporation was forbidden (by a pen company owning the trademark Pilot) from including the word "Pilot" in the product name, yet it is still used to refer to them... but not generically (at least, as far as i know); it only refers to devices running PalmOS. Another thought, i'm not sure where to put this... it might be interesting to categorize which are used to only refer to similar (or, as teflon, identical) products, which are used to refer to anything resembling it, and which (as the verb "to photoshop") have taken on a life of their own. come to think of it, is Photoshop even mentioned? (Random832 Jan 12, 2004)

I personally have heard "palm pilot" used generically to refer to any PDA. (BTW, the original trademark is one word, "PalmPilot".) —LarryGilbert 09:21, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)
I have heard it used that way, but only by people who don't own one (of any brand) or know very much about them, in the same sense that I have heard the phrase "America Online" used to refer to the internet, by a person who wasn't really clear on what it was, in that he'd never personally used it or anything. (This was a few years ago when that was still possible for a normal person.) I don't think this is the same thing as a genericized trademark, since the confusion arises from _unfamiliarity_. Genericization of a trademark is almost the reverse, as it normally happens when people are quite familiar with the product. I've never heard anyone who owns a different brand of handheld call it a PalmPilot, although I have heard the term "palmtop" in this generic sense (though "handheld" is more common). This is in Ohio. If you've heard people who are sufficiently familiar with handheld computers to actually use them use the term "Palm Pilot" generically to refer to other brands, please give more details, such as which part of the world this is in. --Jonadab, 2006 May 26

Ethernet

Ethernet is on the list... it's trademarked? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:54, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A carefully-picked Google query suggests Xerox have (or had) control of the term Ethernet - perhaps it should be mentioned there. - IMSoP 01:38, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I checked the USPTO's database [5]. "Ethernet" was registered as a trademark of Xerox on September 15, 1981, registration number 73243364. The registration was cancelled on March 25, 1988. No details as to why. —LarryGilbert 19:36, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

Unix

Unix is not in any of the lists. Shouldn't we add it? ✏ Sverdrup 18:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. I would say yes. But I'd like to see others chime in. You mean the operating system, I assume, not the metal goods, writing instruments, etc. ;-) By the way, I have also seen it capitalized as "UNIX," but I don't know whether that or "Unix" is considered correct. Even more intriguing, the USPTO database still lists the registration of UNIX as "live" and gives "Unix System Laboratories" as the current holder, but I have read elsewhere that USL was dissolved after it was acquired by Novell [6]. —LarryGilbert 00:55, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)
It isn't genericised. There's no other term which has been displaced by this trademark - The article page lists "operating system" which is clearly false. The commonly-used term is "unix-based" or "*nix" or the like, indicating that the original heritage is retained. Removing. Thumper 13:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Live. Novell and SCO are battling over ownership of trademark and codebase in court right now. The generic is indeed *nix. BTW, the correct uses small capitals.75.42.82.54 (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)JH

Toothpaste

An anonymous use contributed toothpaste as an originally trademarked word. Standard dictionaries and the USPTO office doesn't support this. Does anyone have an OED to confirm the etymology? Samw 03:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, since you mentionned it, I grabbed my mum's "Compact OED" (the whole thing printed very small in one very big book), and found a supporting quote from 1832, but nothing to imply that it was ever other than a descriptive term - being, as it is, a paste applied to teeth. ("Tooth-paste" doesn't have a full entry, it's just listed in the "comb. forms" for "tooth") I'm removing the listing for lack of evidence. - IMSoP 15:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

T-Shirt

I seem to remember hearing this was a brand name at first, but I can't find any supporting evidence. 24.91.43.225 2 July 2005 13:00 (UTC)

Not from the possible etymology here. Merriam webster doesn't list it as a trademark either. 24.4.199.243 04:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Scotch Tape

Where I live, clear cellophane adhesive tape is referred to as scotch tape, Even though Scotch Magic Tape is a brand owned by 3M Is this a widespread enough use to be included in the article?24.91.43.225 2 July 2005 13:00 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've never heard anybody use the correct term, "cellotape" or whatever the devil it is. Also, there's a term for it listed "genericized" in Commonwealth I've never heard, either. (I'm born & raised Canadian.) TrekphilerTM, 13.06 06 22/12/05
Cellotape is a trademark as well, actually, and it's by far the most commonly-used term in the UK for sticky tape. Thumper 16:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe the correct generic term is "transparent tape", but no, nobody actually calls it that. Throughout the midwestern US (at least) we call it Scotch tape no matter what brand it is. This is another example of one that most people are vaguely aware is technically a brand name, but everybody uses it generically anyway. --Jonadab, 2006 May 26
It's also called "Scotch tape" here on the west coast as well.

Boursin

????

Frisbee

In the article, Frisbee is listed under both Genericized_trademark#List_of_genericized_trademarks and Genericized_trademark#Trademarks_at_risk_of_becoming_generic. Where does it belong? --Clement Cherlin 22:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The Frisbee article states it's still trademarked, so I removed it from the genericized list. Samw 00:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


Wite-out?

Wite-out/White-out is listed in both the main section and "in danger of..." section. I'm not sure what should be done, so I'll leave it to someone else. 24.4.199.243 06:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's pretty obvious "Witeout" the trademark is a play on "white out" the English phrase. I've removed it. Samw 21:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
In the Netherlands the Trademark is TippEx and it's the most common name for any correction fluid.

immunogen

The reference at Webster's is pretty good[7]. Is there any reason why we don't think this reference is good enough? The company http://www.immunogen.com/ uses a capital "G" to enforce the trademark presumably because they lost the original trademark. Samw 04:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ping-Pong

According to Wikipedia's article on Table Tennis[8], "ping-pong" was in widespread use as a term for the game before it was trademarked.

Zipper

It makes no sense for zipper to be included in both the list of words that have become generic and the list of active trademarks. I removed it from the latter as it has not been an active trademark in ages.Gr8white 00:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Pan-Cake Make-Up

I also added this entry. There's an interesting story involving the Patty Hearst trial and a lawyer for Max Factor who objected to the generic use of "pancake makeup" at http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id1532/pg3/index.htmlGr8white 00:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Q-Tips

I also think this doesn't belong in both lists - one of the criteria for the first being "...it is unlikely that the registered owners would be able to successfully enforce their exclusive rights..." Pretty sure it's still active (and actively defended) http://www.qtips.com/index_noIntro.html Gr8white 00:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Aspirin

I have noted that aspirin is not used generically in other English speaking countries (like Australia where Panadol is usually used) as it is in the US. D4g0thur 14:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Three removals

The following three have been removed. All three cases they are not genuine cases of genericized trademark (where a brand name becomes the common, generic name for all such products including those of different brands).

  • Google - search engine; especially as a verb, to search the web with Google. In Wikipedic culture, Wikipedians use the term "google test" when they try to see if an article name is mainstream.
  • Mickey Mouse - cartoon character (has generic slang usage to describe something silly or trivial: "that's so mickey-mouse")
  • PG - parental guidance (a class in the MPAA film rating system, as are PG 13 and G). Rated X became generic quite early in the game as pornoproducers awarded it to their own wares to connote authenticity; in popular speech X remains far better established than the trade mark NC-17 which theoretically replaced it.

Google has been removed because, though usage of the name has been extended to now be a verb, the verb is still applied to the use of the same product (google). For it to be a genericized trademark, use of the word google would need to become the new general term for all and any search engines. This is not the case, so it is not a genericized trademark. When someone googles something, they use google, so not a genericized trademark.

Mickey Mouse is out for similar reasons. Though the name has been extended from its original use, it has not become the generic name for other similar products that officially come under other brand names. In addition, Mickey Mouse is not a brand or trade name at all. It is a character name and under copyright, but this is not the same thing as a brand name (and this page is to list brand or trade names only.)

PG is out for reasons similar to Mickey Mouse. PG is not a trade or a brand name. It is merely the name of a classification within a system. Though it had been originally been used in the US, PG as a film classification is also now used in Australia too. The Australian PG exists within an all-new separate rating system. Yes its usage has extended from the original use, however this extension of meaning or usage itself does not make the term a genericized trademark. It could only be a genericized trademark if it was a trade name in the first place, and if it became the common generic name for all rating systems, which it has not.

X-rated was also not a trademarked term that came into popular , generic use. It seems to have been generic first, used occifically later.

The above three terms are not genericized trademark but if you feel strongly they should be in wikipedia, this is not the page for them. Precinct13 00:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure Mickey's N TM'd? All major comic book characters are as a matter of standard practise, to prevent competitors from using knockoffs under close names. (How Marvel & DC avoided 50yrs of war over LSH, Avengers, & the Legion of Substitute X-Men, I'll never know.) Trekphiler 19:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. The reasons listed for its removal were absolutely valid. It needed to go regardless of the TM issue.

Discussion of words of unknown status

We have some homework to do. I have come across some extremely famous (in other words, indisputable) genericized trademarks whose origins as trademarks are not mentioned in their dictionary definitions. We do not want to exclude them simply because dictionaries haven't decided to include this information, because their trademark origin and subsequent genericization are commonly known. These words were recalled to my memory at the following site: http://www.otterbein.edu/home/fac/brccbly/general/bitsnbytes/trademarks.htm. Note that I do not cite Otterbein as an authority, but merely a source of information. We need to find other ways to authenticate these words. I list them each below as separate paragraphs for the purposes of discussion, but exclude the words which are already included in the article: from Paul Klenk

These words require research, as they have now entered the 'lore' of genericized trademarks but do not seem to be documented as former trademarks in their dictionary definitions. Untrademarked trademarks: We need to consider the possibility that some of these indeed started out as product names, but were never actually officially trademarked due to neglect by their owners, and thus became generic. I say this still qualifies them for this page. I suggest we use this space to post words we are unsure about, so anyone can help research. My research motto is, 'Check a fact before it becomes a fact.' Who can tell me what movie that is from? contributed by Paul Klenk
cornflakes
Corn Flakes plausibly could have been a trademark of Kellog, but I don't know how to verify that. If so, it would explain why Post's equivalent product was for decades not officially called Corn Flakes.
cube steak
fiberglass
milk of magnesia
octane
octane seems to me *very* unlikely to be trademarkeable, at least in any usage referring to the chemical, because it follows a long established international naming system for organic molecules. Both halves of it (oct- and -ane) have specific meanings in chemistry. Basically it's an eight-carbon alkane. (Questions of whether it's cyclo- or not are neither here nor there as far as trademarks are concerned.) See also octene (an eight-carbon alkene) or octanol (an eight-carbon alcohol). Organic chemists name practically everything this way. --Jonadab, 2006 May 26
I wonder if the person who placed "octane" here meant "Ethyl", which was a name for leaded gasoline in the days before gasoline containing tetraethyl lead became common. "Ethyl" may have been a trademark, while I doubt, as you do, that "octane" ever was. It's also possible that "Octane" as a shorthand for octane number may be what the OP meant, though I doubt that was trademarked, either. Argyriou 23:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
raisin bran
shredded wheat
The shredded wheat article contains information about this one.
trampoline

I added 'Champagne' as it has a similar fate as Roquefort cheese. Though it may not technically be trademarked (I don't know either way) the term is certainly vehemently protected by its producers in the Champage region of France. No, I'm changing my mind and deleting it. Never mind. (Contributed by Paul Klenk Oct. 14, 2003)

I would like your thoughts about champagne. We know this: people refer to whole classes of white sparkling wine as champagne, but true champagne must come from that region in France. I doubt that the name is trademarked in the same way other products like Kleenex are, but should that be a limiting factor? Do we need a category for such food items, like Parma ham and Roquefort cheese, etc.? Furthermore, when describing the wine and not the region, champagne is not even capitalized, at least not in English. Nevertheless, the term has been genericized. As it isn't a trademark, it doesn't strictly fit on this page, but I think a Related Class of items may be in order. What might we call those items? (Paul Klenk Oct. 15, 2003)
Yes things like Champagne, Parma, "Russian Vodka" really are trademarked. There is no need to add levels of complication. Rmhermen 13:02, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)
All Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée designations are protected, yes. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:51, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cheez Nips?

What's this supposed to be? Cheez-Its or Cheese Nips? It can't be both. PrometheusX303 14:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A Treasure Trove of Candidates for the List: I stumbled on a great way to unearth words that are great candidates for genericized trademarks. I visited Web sites selling office supplies, groceries, and toys, and read through hundreds of the brand names until a few obvious words popped out at me -- brand names I often hear used generically in the U.S. Try it yourself; you will be amazed. Few if any of these show up in dictionaries, but I think you will agree that some of these belong on the list anyway. For your consideration: (Paul Klenk Oct. 15, 2003)

Most compelling candidates: X-Acto knife (craft knife); Sweet 'N Low (artificial sweetener); Ziploc bags (resealable storage bags); Tupperware (plastic food storage ware); Nilla wafers (vanilla cookies); Handi Wipes (premoistened disposable cloths); Crisco (vegetable shortening); Cool Whip (whipped dessert topping); Cheetos (puffed cheese snacks); Fudgsicle (chocolate-flavored frozen dessert); Sanka (decaffeinated coffee); Windex (window spray cleaner); Oscar (award statuette -- this is a fiercely protected trademark and image); Tylenol (acetaminophen tablets); Q-tips (cotton swabs); Day-Timer (personal calendar); Swiss Army knife (multi-function knife/tool); Leatherman (multi-function knife/tool); Dixie cups (disposable bathroom cups); K-Y jelly (personal lubricant). (Paul Klenk Oct. 15, 2003)
Well, In generic use x-acto and ziplock tend to be altered a la white-out. I've never even heard of Handi Wipes, Sanka, or Day-Timer and neither had anyone else I asked. I also haven't heard Sweet 'N Low, Nilla Wafers, Oscar, Tylenol, or KY used as generic terms, though that may just be around here. The rest I'd say you have an excellent case for, especially tupperware and qtips. 24.91.43.225 2 July 2005 13:00 (UTC)
Less compelling candidates, but worth looking at: Nerf ball (foam toy ball); Play Doh (play dough); Coffee-Mate (powdered creamer); Palm Pilot (personal data assistant); Ritz crackers (snack crackers); Eskimo Pie (ice cream novelty bar); Braunschweigert (braunschweiger spread); Chinet (heavy-duty disposable dinner plates); Lorna Doones (shortbread cookies). (Paul Klenk Oct. 15, 2003)
Play dough I would think definitely, possibly nerf nd palm. But again, no one I asked had ever heard of Braunschweigert or Lorna Doones. 24.91.43.225 2 July 2005 13:00 (UTC)
sanka was in common usage 20 years ago but not any more. "handi wipes" are "moist towelettes"; who actually uses them? "day-timer" is a new brand, you'll hear more about it. "eskimo-pie" sounds dated to me; "chinet" i've never heard of; "lorna-doones" not very common around here.
but you haven't heard of tylenol as a generic? what part of the world do you hail from?

Benwing 04:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Day-Timer is well over 40 years old. Not new by any means, and with many competitors. Diary management systems of any brand are often referred to as "day-timers". I think this is an excellent candidate. HKL47 23:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Credits

By way of introducing myself to the group, I would like to take credit for two corrections which are attributed only to my IP address, instead of to my user name: Correcting the spelling of Jell-O (from the incorrect Jello) and properly capitalizing Allen wrench. I made these edits before I registered, and, being particularly proud that I caught the very obvious Jell-O before any of you veterans did, I figure I ought to claim responsibility. This is a very interesting page, by the way. from Paul Klenk

A way to make these lists [more] useful

OK, so the amount of debate on this page suggests to me that the current lists are providing more confusion than information. However, the information, once understood, is undeniably interesting. I therefore propose that the current flat lists be expanded to provide the missing information. I'm not, generally, over-keen on tables, but in this case, I think we need one, and here's a quick first stab at what it might look like:

Term Usage Trademark owner Notes Sources
Coke a soft drink, particularly a cola Coca-Cola see also cola
Cola a type of soft drink (Coca-Cola) while not itself a trademark, the term is a "genericization" of "Coca-Cola" Merriam-Webster Online
Walkman a personal stereo Sony in France, they tried to mandate the use of ballardeur
(etc)

[Note that this is a layout example, not an informational one; specifically, I find the argument for cola tenuous at best.]

Any thoughts? - IMSoP 02:19, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm already thinking those headers aren't quite right - it needs to inlclude something along the lines of
Term Trademark-owner Trademark-meaning Generic-user Generic-meaning
e.g. Coke Coca-Cola Corp Coca-Cola UK, Southern US Any cola, or sometimes any carbonated drink
but not with those headings, obviously. And is it better to just have sources under notes? - IMSoP 02:34, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Date of trademark would be useful too. And I think general notes is fine to cover who, where, when etc. Btljs 10 Mar 2004

Spork?

According to the spork article, the word used to be a trademark in the US, and still is a trademark in England. I doubt that it qualifies as a genericized trademark, but I thought that I would bring it up on the Talk page to get other opinions. gK ¿? 06:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

USPTO http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=pttkft.2.2 list that it's a trademark again since 2001. But yes, I would think it's reasonable to add spork. Samw 01:13, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I Am Not Spork? TrekphilerTM 13.18, 22/12/05

US-centric?

As a Brit, to me this page still seems a little US-biased. Firstly, because it doesn't acknowledge that trademark status differs between countries. For example, I believe 'aspirin' is still a tradmark in some countries, even though it's lost that status in the US. This affects the list divisions &c.

But also because many brand names are available/used/recognised only in some places. (I'm sure I'm not the only one to have been confused and annoyed by references (in books, films, &c) to mysterious brand names. It took me years to work out what a 'Twinkie' was!) A few of these are noted in the page, but it'd be interesting to expand that, and maybe include a warning that generic brand names don't necessarily travel.

And on a more fundamental level, it seem to me that Americans are much more likely to use brand names generically than Brits. That's only my impression, but it's quite a strong one. It'd be interesting to discuss, or at least mention, that the tendency to prefer brand names or real generic names seems to vary geographically, especially if anyone can find any real information on this.

I don't know whether/how the page should address any of these issues, but maybe some of you more experienced folks do? -- Gidds 19:43, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

I think the list is losing its usefulness. See discussion above on "Definition of Genericized Trademark". I think we need more rigorous criteria of what should be listed here. Samw 04:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Bravo Gidds for suggesting geographic comparo. I'd be intrigued to learn. Being Canadian, it's hard not to think American usage is the international standard... Trekphiler 19:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

On this piece should there a piece about whether is it used in the UK/US/Can/Aus/NZ

  • Advil – Ibuprofen (USA)
  • Nurofen - Ibuprofen (Britain)

I have put the piece on medical trademarks being different on the different side of the Atlantic, but we (the British) do use trademarks however Americans use them more because they use more branded goods. - 159753

IANAL, but AFAIK, in Germany, a genericized trademark is still protected. For example, although everybody calls the head-ache remedy acetylosalicylic acid by the name Aspirine, only Bayer markets it by this name, and all competitors have to use other names, usually "ASS", which is the abbreviation for "Acetylsalicylsäure", i.e. the generic name. This is quite useful for Bayer: If you walk into a pharmacy and ask for "Aspirine", you get the Bayer product, which is twice as expensive as other products, which you will get if you know that it saves money to ask for "ASS" instead. Simon A. 16:04, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does the concept of a genericised trademark exist in the UK? I'm just thinking that everyone calls sticky tape Sellotape but that is a trademarked brandname isn't it? Its the same with Pritt-Stick and Tippex isn't it? Or am I interpreting the idea incorrectly. --Neo July 2, 2005 21:36 (UTC)

A genericized trademark can still be protected, and many of these marks are still protected in the US, in that other companies are not permitted to market competing products using the name. However, we say that the marks are genericized when the general public goes ahead and calls competing products by the trademark name in informal speech. There are also former trademarks that have fallen into the public domain, either by not being defended or because the trademark holder is no longer a concern, but the marks on this list do not need to be in that category, and most of them are not.

Some UK terms spring to mind duct/gaffer tape , adrenaline/epinephrine and hoover(vacuum cleaner)? - joe

Capitalization

From User talk:Jcrwiki: I noticed you changed the list of genericized trademarks to uppercase. Shouldn't they be lowercase to indicate they have become generic? Samw 01:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I only changed the list to capitalize everything at the beginning of each bullet, not because each term should actually be capitalized. But I am not sure if I am doing this talk thing correctly. Jcrwiki 19:12, 7 Jun 2005 (EST)
I haven't studied the MoS to understand if bullets should always be capitalized. However in this case, I propose we distinguish between true generics and valid trademarks by writing the generics in lowercase. If you agree, I can make the change. Samw 00:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the MoS says either, but most manuals of style state that bulleted lists, just like numbered lists, or any other vertical list, follows normal rules for capitalization.
Chicago Manual of Style: Vertical Lists, Bullets
Online Technical Writing: Lists
Jcrwiki 00:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry but your answer is ambigious? I would like to use lower case for the list of generics and leave the still trademarked list capitalized. Do you agree? Thanks. (BTW, you're links to the Chicago Manual of Style and Online techincal writing lists don't work for me. I'm assuming they're behind your firewall and not publically accessbile?) Samw 03:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think I have fixed the link problems. Try the above links again. But overall, what I meant is that the first word in any bulleted list should be capitalized regardless of whether the word itself is or is not normally capitalized. Here is the excerpt from the Chicago MOS:
5. Bulleted lists are considered appropriate mainly for instructional or promotional material and are treated the same as numbered lists in terms of capitalization and punctuation.
Also, here is an excerpt from the Online techincal Writing page:
4. Use sentence-style capitalization on list items.
The same rules applies to any vertical list, simple, bulleted, numbered, or otherwise. And I am far from a grammar expert. I just wanted to support the reason for the change. I would assume that this rule is so everything in a list looks uniform. 16:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, point taken: lists should be capitalized. However, as genericized trademarks, I propose we list them in lower case to distinguish them from currently valid trademarks which are still capitalized. Samw 03:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
AFAIK, we don't follow the Chicago Manual of Style here, we follow the WP:MOS. =) However, the WP:MOS does agree in this case: "Each entry begins with a capital letter, even if it is a sentence fragment." However, in accordance with Ignore All Rules, it is important to break the rule in this case in order to highlight that these are indeed genericized. Powers 12:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Adrenaline?

Should adrenaline be added? From the article:

The basis for the name epinephrine in the United States was out of necessity because the name adrenalin was registered as a trademark by Parke, Davis & Co. In other countries where this trademark was not registered, the name adrenaline was adopted at the insistence of the British pharmacologist Henry Hallett Dale. Resistance to the adoption of epinephrine has even resulted in some dispute as to the validity of the name (Aronson, 2000).

Addrenaline is used in the US (epinephrine only in certain medical contexts), with the trademark "Adrenalin" forgotten. But which name was it under first in the US or Europe? There's a lot of arguing on its talk page and I'm not sure what to make of it all. 24.4.199.243 08:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

cf. also methedrine = methamphetamine. Benwing 04:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wording has become incorrect

The heading for the non-English section reads like this:

Non-English genericized trademarks are non-English trademarks or brand names which have become words in English common usage.

But what it really contains is genericized trademarks in non-English speaking countries. It has nothing to do with English common usage. The heading should be changed to reflect this, or the data should be reorganized.

Fixed Samw 04:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Trademarks at risk of becoming generic

It seems to me that the title and underlying assumptions of the section so titled "Trademarks at risk of becoming generic" is POV. The POV, of course, is that becoming generic is a bad thing, and therefore a trademark that might become generic is "at risk" of becoming generic rather than the more netural "Trademarks that may be becoming generic" or some such. Nohat 21:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've elaborated under "Legal concepts" why it is bad. It is not an issue of NPOV. There is a cost to obtaining the trademark thus by definition losing the trademark is bad. If the explanation isn't clear in the article, I can try to elaborate more. Samw 04:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Bad for the company who owns the trademark, certainly, but that doesn't necessarily mean bad for society in general or in some way "inherently bad", particularly to those who are of the mind that corporate ownership of certain words and names is a bad thing. Nohat 19:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Indeed if someone else wants to use a trademark to describe their product and they don't own the trademark, that trademarked being judged as being generic would be a great thing for that person. It's all relative. I'm going to try to NPOV it a bit. Nohat 22:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You've been replaced

I'm N clear what criteria the writer's using, so I'm reluctant to change it: Fiberglas & Frisbee. LC "fiberglass" has replaced the TM ID; nobody I know even knows it ever was TM. And I've never heard anybody call a frisbee a "flying disk"...

It's rare to hear flying discs called "frisbees" in disc sports such as ultimate and disc golf becuase it's rare that people actually use Wham-O brand Frisbees.
I used to call them "pluto platters" - but then I'm ancient history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HKL47 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Utterly misleading article

This article is, to the lay reader, utterly misleading. As the article on generic trademarks rightly says, "a generic mark forms part of the public domain and can be commercially exploited by anyone." Virtually none of the trademarks listed here as genericized can be commercially exploited by anyone - if you don't believe me, I'd suggest you try to make vacuum cleaners called Hoover. Save up for your legal fund first. And the included statement that "all marks in the list are used generically to some extent" just confuses matters more. Either the article on genericization needs changing, or this list does. I have, therefore, changed the wording on the list to reflect the fact that none of the trademarks listed should be regarded as generic. Ianbetteridge 15:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Benefits and Disadvantages

This issue is never addressed in the article. Are there any benefits to owning a genericized trademark?

I think it is, but the fact that you ask simply means that the article needs more work. A few comments here may hopefully clarify matters. A genericized trademark is no longer 'owned' as such, and it is misleading to think of 'benefits and disdvantages'. The process of a trademark becoming generic — which we may usefully term genericide — occurs where the trademark becomes synonymous in the mind of the public with the general type of product or service which the party provides. The main consequence of this is that the party which once held proprietary interests in relation to the trademark no longer has the ability to enforce these interests. It is therefore difficult to see how there is any 'benefit' arising out of 'owning' a genericized trademark, as the owner can no longer exercise control over it — having a mark become generic is a fate to be avoided. The only arguable 'benefit' is that where a mark has succumbed to genericide, it must already have been fairly well known, which implies that the trademark owner was doing something right up to a certain point!
Also, as noted in the introductory section, some trademark owners actually seek to have their marks become generic, however this generally reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of trademarks, and constitutes a serious threat to maintaining proprietary rights over their marks. I intend to revert/edit your edits in an attempt to make these points more clear — 18 Feb 2005.

I checked this with a marketing professor (and practitioner) at the University of Oxford, and he says that it is indeed the case that companies do not want their trademark to become a generic.

Yes, as stated, only trade mark owners who are particularly ignorant of trade mark law would seek to have their marks become generic. Nevertheless it does happen, regardless of the views of marketing professors from the University of Oxford — 16 Apr 2005.

Many of these links don't go to the page of the product. Dove takes you to the bird, not the beuty product. I am going to change as many as I can. PrometheusX303 02:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

barbie

I think it's debatable if Barbie is a generalized term. Also almost everythign stated is POV so I've removed the entry. " * Barbie - brand of doll of unachievable physical perfection equated with a girl who has everything (for all of the doll's accessories) or an air headed blond. Barbie's ambiguous relationship with boyfriend Ken is also cause for comment. "

There are dolls made to look similar to Barbie and sold (with accessories and things) under other names. My sister had some of them, when she was a kid, as well as some actual Barbie dolls. She called them all Barbie dolls (or just Barbies), whether they were officially BarbieTM or not. However, I don't know how widespread this usage is.

Removal of entry in list

Removed text:

  • Red Cross – emergency relief for disasters or medical needs

after reading interview located at http://www.shacknews.com/extras/2006/020906_redcross_1.x

194.83.168.1 16:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up

Per the above, there were a lot of trademarks in there which are not used generically (i.e. applied to products other than those of the trademark holder), so I have pruned the list. Apologies if I have removed some which are genericised in other markets / regions. Ideally every one should have a reference to the trademark holder, and the article should support the fact of it being genericised. Just zis Guy you know? 11:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto

(that's a pun, btw : )

Removed the following (please do no re-add without verifiable citations):

1.) Several of these are used generically as BRANDs, but are not generic terms for the item. For example, saying that you're going to go play your Nintendo, means one any number of nintendo game systems, but not some other brand. For comparison, Atari came close to being this in the 80s, and the Sony Walkman has become this for portable stereos. Removing Game Boy, Playstation, Coke, Pepsi, etc. for the same reasons. (The generic term for Coke/Pepsi is "cola" which is noted on the page already).

2.) The generic term (as noted) is sports drink, or energy drink. For example, Gatorade isn't used for them all, the way Kool-aid is for flavoured "ade" drinks. For similar reasons, removed Airwick, Bird's Eye, Duracell, Frigidaire ("fridge" is short for refrigerator), Gilette, Kaopectate (compare to Pepto-Bismol), Lycra (spandex is more well-known), Night Nurse (compare to Nyquil), and One-a-Day.

3.) "K-mart clothes" is what is being thought of here. One doesn't say K-mart and think clothes, necessarily. It's the use of K-mart as an adjective, with the implication of low-end goods. It is comparable to Wal-mart, Woolworth, and the "dime stores" of prior times. Just as there are companies known for high-end quality goods (Sears tools, are known for that in some areas, or Godiva chocolates).

There are several others that I think should be removed for similar reasons, but which I'm not as certain about (due to Canadian or GB usage, for example).

Loved the WP:OR comments above (on this talk page) about about how someone's friend or mother used the terms : ) - jc37 21:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-english

I suggest that these should be transwikied to each Wikipedia of the appropriate language. Since it's so long, pasting the list to a sub-page of this talk page (similar to archiving): Talk:List of generic and genericized trademarks/Non-english. - jc37 21:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree (I know it's not a poll...) I agree that the list is too long, I agree on the transwikification, but I disagree on removing the non-English trademarks from the en.wp. Not only does it make for very interesting reading to see what other peoples adopt as common words, but it also helps cross-polinization among languages - if the list on my home country is so long, it's because I went through all the other countries looking for applicable trademarks. I propose the non-English list to go to its own article but here on en.wp. --maf 22:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
What would you suggest naming the article? - jc37 22:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
That will be an article that will never be found on its own, so its name doesn't need to be simple or short. A detail that I noticed is that the non-English list does not separate the "generic" from the "genericized". There's a formal distinction between both terms, and that could at least be maintained in the title of the new article in case someone wants to make the distinction for some language. So, I would go for List of non-English generic and genericized trademarks or, my second choice, List of generic and genericized trademarks (non-English). --maf 11:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, moved it to your first choice. - jc37 13:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
And I'll work on the lead, links, etc. of the new article. --maf 16:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wi-Fi?

Should the brand Wifi be added?

From the article:
"To understand the value of Wi-Fi Certification, you need to know that Wi-Fi is short for "Wireless Fidelity," and it is the popular name for 802.11-based technologies that have passed Wi-FI certification testing. This includes IEEE 802.11a, 802.11b, 802.11g and upcoming 802.11n technologies."

The term probably needs more time and spread to be generalized, but in many conversations I've heard people use this term instead of the awkwradly pronouncable WLAN, which still means a local network and not the technology itself (eg. LAN and Ethernet).

--165.72.200.11 07:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Kerosene

Kerosene is on the list of trademarks and on the list of non-trademarks. Clearly, only one can be correct. -Rikoshi 22:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What about Frisbee and Formica (plastic)?

They both seem pretty generic to me. Hayford Peirce 17:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Botox!

It's actually a brand name! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.30.137.127 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Luxaflex and Spa

I just added these two. I know that in the Netherlands, a 'luxaflex' is just any window blinding, and that Spa refers to carbonated water. Both are brandnames. --User:Krator (t c) 21:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Both true, but Spa is actually a place in Belgium named. In English it actually means springs, like a health spa.

Petrol

"# petrol – its tradename when (before internal combustion engines were invented) it was sold in small bottles in chemists as a treatment for lice"

It just doesn't make sense.


Arthurian Legend 15:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Double listings

Tannoy, Hula Hoop, Aqua-Lung. Why are some of these listed in two different sections? You have a "list of genericized Trademarks" and An alphabetical listing. Are these lists suppose to be listing the same exact thing on the same page? This article really needs some work. It is very confusing. Peter Tangney 18:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added a brief explanation; feel free to elaborate. Samw 03:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

article for AFD

I don't think this article is encyclopedic. It confounds two issues, one is the improper use of valid trademarks, trademarks that are "generic" in the general populace (eg. "plexiglass" used where "acrylic glass" would be the proper English. Using "Plexiglas" the valid trademark improperly), the second issue is trademarks that have been "lost" and are no longer registered. So simply there are no "generic" trademarks. A trademark is either currently registered or it is not. Whether or not a large portion of the public remains ignorant of that is of only ancillary concern, such usage could be listed under "popular culture" but not as fact as this article implies. In addition all sources of the "lost" trademarks must be clearly identified to distinguish them from "popular" belief. I can anticipate now, "but I use "plexiglass" all the time instead of "acrylic glass", doesn't matter, it's not encyclopedic if it's not sources.Tstrobaugh 14:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Link to Court proceedings that led to "Aspirin" being declared "generic", so users can see what documentation should be required for all "lost" trademarks such as aspirin.Tstrobaugh 16:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I also want to point out that wikipedia is complicit in undermining various trademarks. This validation of misusing trademarks by stating they are "generic" because of popular misuse is a violation of wikipedia policy. Even administrators (see comments:User_talk:Tstrobaugh#Plexiglass) are under the impression that if enough people use a trademark incorrectly then it is generic. "Generification" is indeed the process by which trademarks are lost but there is no need for wikipedia to participate in the acceleration of the "genericide" of the various trademarks.Tstrobaugh 20:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What about anti-genericization?

OK, that's not a word, but what I mean is trademarking a generic term for a product that has never had an applicable trademark in order to co-opt the public awareness of the generic product. This process which usually negatively affects the traditional manufacturers of the product who rely on the goodwill of that genericised awareness (phew, I acknowledge that 'sentence' as officially weird). This process is different from the enforcement of Appelation Controllee, since, for example, wine growers in Champagne have a genuine geographic claim to the word.

The most obvious example that comes to mind (and obviously what has set me off here) is the Australian Ug Boot (or Ugh or Ugg). In this case, an American company has trademarked the name 'Ugg' and several variants, manufacturers boots in China and sells them worldwide. They vigorously protect their trademark (which is not valid in Australia) preventing traditional Australian manufacturers from marketing genuine (i.e. Australian made) boots. See the ugg boot article in Wikipedia.

I expect there are other examples of terms that have been removed from the generic wordscape and co-opted as commercial trademarks in such a way that the trademark owner gains the goodwill of that term without having earned it in any way.

Is there room on this page for a discussion of this? I'm thinking of just a section header with a brief discussion of the phenomenon (hopefully by someone who, unlike me, can write a coherent description of it). Then if there are only a couple of examples, then a sentence with a link to the Wiki page (if it exists) would suffice for each one. If many examples are identified, then probably a new page would need to be built.

--HKL47 01:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Would Microsoft Windows fall into this category? Windowing software predates this O/S. Samw 03:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
True, however, generic windows operating systems did not; nor did anyone call any old operating system 'Windows'. Ug Boots have been around for 100 years, being made by both cottage industries and relatively large businesses. I don't think Microsoft Windows fits here. --HKL47 08:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

List of nothing?

I think folks have gotten a little too carried away with citations and nit-picky definitions. Looks like what used to be a useful list is now a skeleton of a few terms. Today's removal of Kleenex® takes the cake. How many times have you needed a facial tissue and hollered out "Anyone have a facial tissue?" Or said on a nice day, "Hey, let's go throw the aerodynamic flying disk!" instead of Frisbee®. MeekMark (talk • contribs) 15:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:V. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for citing the Verification article; I cite plenty of things in my edits, but I am just pointing out it has been taken to an extreme here; I don't think it is worth my time to research when or where Frisbees became a generic term. I think everyone (especially users of Wikipedia) would be better served by having a more complete list here than just a handful of entries. I think the very long list was getting out of hand, and a lot of entries were very weak, but a lot of entries should stay. MeekMark (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources and Cites

Verifiabilty is one thing and is good, but does every sentence, every word need a reference? Why not let some consensus balance some research like in the rest of Wikipedia. This is not much of a list. In many dictionaries, a citation for a word or example consists of only quoting it in literature, sometimes not even very notable literature. Finding a generic use of a trademark and citing it wouldn't be a reference, but rather a citation. I think a lot of Wikipedians get this confused, using the same criteria for a cite and a reference when a citation can be only an example of a case in which English usage is clearly of importance to the Wikipedia article.

I AM NOT SAYING TO USE BLOG ENTRIES for cites, really. I am saying that the cite of generic use could be put to a lesser standard. Let me give you a model for a citation:

We wish to find a use of generic kleenex. During our research, we find an article in People Magazine written in typical people-speak (that was a pun, sorry). Now in that article, let's pretend it has a sentence that says, "We caught Sally with kleenex padding in her dress." Now can we base an entire subject or article in Wikipedia based on a non-reliable and non-peer reviewed statement of vernacular about the proper use of the word "kleenex"? NO WAY. Or about Sally? Nope. (Although an article on Sally might very well use this as a reference if People Magazine is considered a source of verifiable information on her.) But we weren't using this sentence as a reference for an article about Kleenex or Sally; rather we are citing the common use of a genericized trademark. This is sufficient evidence of Usage, similar to what a dictionary might use it. The publishers of People in this example either don't mind the generic use, or they simply missed the chance to reword the article.

I would just like to open up this list to prevent the article from becoming worthless because no one can find an article in Linguistics Today or the Shredded Paper Weekly on the uses of the word kleenex.

And just as the WP:V article says about surprising or unusual claims must have excellent sources, I think that this would apply to unusual genericized trademarks. If someone claimed that a mac meant any computer in Bolivia, I would be pretty amused unless it was true and verified by some extraordinary citations and maybe even a peer-reviewed linguistics journal.

My apologies to Kimberly-Clark and Sally! -> I like to saw logs! (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Source criteria

I noticed that dictionary entries aren't being considered a valid source? In my mind that's the perfect source: if a trademark is so popular that it enters a dictionary (and the dictionary acknowledges that it's a trademark) then it clearly is a genericized trademark. Samw (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Perhaps we should convert this list into a "List of misused trademarks" That way the trademark owners would not feel threatened by wiki-assertions that their property is generic, and readers could have a source to remind them that "Sheetrock" is a brand.

I propose we switch to a table format like this:

Trademark or Brand Name Proper generic name Trademark owner
Band-Aid adhesive bandage Johnson & Johnson
Kleenex facial tissue Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc.
Sheetrock drywall US Gypsum
Xerox photocopy/photocopier Xerox

Sound reasonable? ComputerGeezer (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! The harder issue is what constitutes an acceptable reference. You need to provide reference for each entry. Samw (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that an assertion that "the Band-Aid trademark has now become generic" would obviously require substantive, authoritative references. But since we would be asserting that "Band-Aid is a valid trademark, and you should use 'adhesive bandage' as a generic term" I think a simple link to the trademark owner entry on Wikipedia would be sufficient. (That reference makes it clear that the trademark is valid, and that Band-Aid® is, in fact, a type of adhesive bandage.)

I think the column "Proper generic name" is a joke, it's too subjective, and gives the impression that people are wrong, and the written text is right. If a trademark is generalized, then it is generalized, i.e. there are no proper generalized trademarks. →AzaToth 17:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a reference proving that one of the trademarks listed is generic in some jurisdiction, please add it to the notes column. The problem was that the old "list" was empty because it asserted that the only things which could be listed were generic. I'm not suggesting that Steve Martin should have sung "I'm picking out a Thermos® Brand vacuum flask for you." I'm just pointing out that any list which doesn't contrast the brand name (adjective) with the generic (noun) is going to end up as empty as a vacuum flask after lunch. (And if you think vacuum insulated bottle is a better name than flask, then change the list...) ComputerGeezer (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There can't be something like "misused generic trademark". If the collective mind have made it generic, then it is a generic trademark. →AzaToth 00:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
True, trademarks are not generic. A trademark may be misused generically. (I do it myself.) If trademark owners allow their marks to be routinely misused over time, then a court with proper jurisdiction may declare the marks generic and no longer the property of their former owners. There is no "collective mind" which can strip a trademark from its owner in all juridictions. Where ownership is lost in a particular jurisdiction, it can be noted on the table with a proper reference to the decision. ComputerGeezer (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I concur. I will cite an example from history. Bayer Aspirin is a trademark in many jurisdictions, but is a generic word in the U.S. because of the retribution of the U.S. gubment against Bayer and Germany following World War I. The loss of their U.S. trademark status is widely documented. This word is definitely generic in the U.S. and definitely not elsewhere. Terms besides aspirin (of which there are many) are practically unheard of in most merkin culture. This one is generic by force of law. Bayer can't get it back if they tried.
This is not a frequent situation. Trademark owners don't usually lose them, but they often choose to relinquish them, like Touch-Tone. The other issue is that a strong national brand might obtain international trademarks too late and be locked out of their own trademark in foreign jurisdictions. It gets pretty confusing to non-lawyers, like the way Hormel has decided that spam is not Spam and has apparently kept its trademark status because spam indeed is not like Spam! It is no less confusing than words like resume and resume, or red, read, reed, and read. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks/Archive_1&oldid=237157290"