Trademark law and common usage

[maquiscat]

So a post in another section about Pop Tarts led me to an article on popular brands that have become common generic words.

How a Brand Name Becomes Generic (Published 2019)

Pass the Kleenex, please.

www.nytimes.com

For those not reading the article, did you know that escalator, trampoline and dumpster were all once trademarked names? I didn't. I knew of the phenomenon with products like Band-Aids, Jell-O, and Kleenex.

An interesting point given in the article was, "...in trademark law, you cannot trademark things that are descriptive or generic in nature."

I agree with this whole heartedly. However it was also said, "If a brand name is understood by the public to refer broadly to a category of goods and services rather than a brand’s specific good or service, a company may be at risk of losing its trademark."

This is problematic, IMO. Many companies are in danger for this right now; Xerox, Lego, even Google could lose their trademark.

While I agree that something that is already generic and descriptive prior to someone trademarking it (say Accounting, for example) should not be allowed to be trademarked, I do think that if something is trademarked, it should be retained until the point the trademark owner in no longer producing the product, even if it does become generic in its use by the public.

What is your take on this?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Maybe that is why one can’t trademark “Acanna”, “Abagga” or “Aboxa” - it sounds too much like “a can of”, “a bag of” or “a box of”.

 

[Crovax]

So a post in another section about Pop Tarts led me to an article on popular brands that have become common generic words.

How a Brand Name Becomes Generic (Published 2019)

Pass the Kleenex, please.

www.nytimes.com

For those not reading the article, did you know that escalator, trampoline and dumpster were all once trademarked names? I didn't. I knew of the phenomenon with products like Band-Aids, Jell-O, and Kleenex.

An interesting point given in the article was, "...in trademark law, you cannot trademark things that are descriptive or generic in nature."

I agree with this whole heartedly. However it was also said, "If a brand name is understood by the public to refer broadly to a category of goods and services rather than a brand’s specific good or service, a company may be at risk of losing its trademark."

This is problematic, IMO. Many companies are in danger for this right now; Xerox, Lego, even Google could lose their trademark.

While I agree that something that is already generic and descriptive prior to someone trademarking it (say Accounting, for example) should not be allowed to be trademarked, I do think that if something is trademarked, it should be retained until the point the trademark owner in no longer producing the product, even if it does become generic in its use by the public.

What is your take on this?

Once something becomes so popular that it is ubiquitous they have made plenty of money off it so I'm not too worried about it I'm much more worried about copyright laws that keep getting extended solely because of the mouse

 

[maquiscat]

Maybe that is why one can’t trademark “Acanna”, “Abagga” or “Aboxa” - it sounds too much like “a can of”, “a bag of” or “a box of”.

Was there an actual case for this?

 

[maquiscat]

Once something becomes so popular that it is ubiquitous they have made plenty of money off it so I'm not too worried about it I'm much more worried about copyright laws that keep getting extended solely because of the mouse

I agree. And I do find copyright and trademark to be wholly separate things worthy of different considerations, despite both being effectively intellectual property issues.