Talk:Generic trademark

Definition of Genericized Trademark

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

I think there are multiple categories of trademarks and generics:

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

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

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

ii) demonstrated general use as a generic by:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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. http://www.chillingeffects.org/domain/notice.cgi?NoticeID=687 DJ Clayworth 13:17, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I used Webster's as my reference. See definition 2 at: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=cola I believe the etymology would be kola bean -> Coca-cola trademark -> cola generic. I'll put cola back in if you don't mind with this reference Samw 17:02, 5 Sep 2003 (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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 US, 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)

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.

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)

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, 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 19:55, 2004 Mar 7 (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)

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

cube steak

milk of magnesia

octane

raisin bran

shredded wheat

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)

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)

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)

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