"Kleenex" & "Q-Tip" as generic nouns.
Brian Phillips
ask for a "facial tissue" (in the US), we ask for a "Kleenex". Same with
"Q-Tips", and a variety of other things. And, while I'm on the subject,
does anyone have a quasi-exhaustive list of brand names that are used this
way?
Brian
"Normal people, by definition, are average."
jan_...@hotmail.com
I know that "cellophane" graduated from a brand name to a generic.
Perspex and plexiglass are both use generally for acrylic.
Jan Sand
Robert Lipton
Brian Phillips wrote:
Legally it's "Trademark violation."
Around here, we refer to it as "genericization"
Bob
Donna Richoux
> Is there a word for the practice of using a brand name as a noun? We don't
> ask for a "facial tissue" (in the US), we ask for a "Kleenex". Same with
> "Q-Tips", and a variety of other things.
Generification. Some say the verb is "generify," some use "genericize."
Please do not tell us these are not the words you were looking for. As I
just mentioned a day or two ago, we used to be plagued with people
insisting that there must be some other word.
>And, while I'm on the subject,
> does anyone have a quasi-exhaustive list of brand names that are used this
> way?
Quite a few are listed in Mark Israel's FAQ at alt-usage-english.org, in
the section called "trademarks."
--
Best wishes -- Donna Richoux
R H Draney
news:_rpR8.14024$PW.1...@news2.central.cox.net:
> Is there a word for the practice of using a brand name as a noun?
> We don't ask for a "facial tissue" (in the US), we ask for a
> "Kleenex". Same with "Q-Tips", and a variety of other things.
> And, while I'm on the subject, does anyone have a quasi-exhaustive
> list of brand names that are used this way?
http://www.prairienet.org/~rkrause/brands.html
http://rinkworks.com/words/eponyms.shtml
Not apparent at either of these sites, I might add "portapotty" and
"frigidaire" (I have an odd referent for this one; my *oven* is a
Frigidaire...my refrigerator is a Hotpoint)....r
Earle Jones
"Brian Phillips" <errant...@cox.net> wrote:
*
The "Thermos" bottle, which at one time was the exclusive trade mark of
the U. S. Thermos Corporation -- is now a generic term.
"Adrenalin" was once a trade nome for epinephrine.
Modern companies defend their brands vigorously. Xerox is a good
example. "Frigidaire", a trade mark of General Electric is sometimes
used generically.
There are many other examples.
earle
*
david56
Polymethylmethacrylate, to be precise.
--
David
I say what it occurs to me to say.
=====
The address is valid today, but I will change it to keep ahead of the
spammers.
Alexander Browne
Earle Jones <earle...@attbi.com> wrote:
> Modern companies defend their brands vigorously. Xerox is a good
> example. "Frigidaire", a trade mark of General Electric is sometimes
> used generically.
When refering to the toy bricks, I always say 'legos', but I've read
that the manufacturer prefers 'Lego bricks' to try to prevent the word
from becoming generic.
--
Alexander Browne | a...@apple2.com
Saint Paul, Minn., U.S.
meirman
<earle...@attbi.com> posted:
>The "Thermos" bottle, which at one time was the exclusive trade mark of
>the U. S. Thermos Corporation -- is now a generic term.
>
>"Adrenalin" was once a trade nome for epinephrine.
I'm not contradicting you, but I sort of thought it was the other way
around. They constantly say "The body releases adrenalin" as if it
were something made in the body.
>
>Modern companies defend their brands vigorously. Xerox is a good
>example. "Frigidaire", a trade mark of General Electric is sometimes
>used generically.
My grandmother called it the frigidaire, but maybe that was because
she had a Frigidaire. I never checked. Still, that made me think it
was an old term from when it was the leading brand, far ahead of
others. Was there a period like that, and is the expression one from
the old days, fading away now?
>There are many other examples.
>
>earle
>*
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 17 years
meirman
<dado...@earthlink.net> posted:
It must be very hard to shop and cook.
Bob Cunningham
> Brian Phillips <errant...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Is there a word for the practice of using a brand name as a noun? We don't
> > ask for a "facial tissue" (in the US), we ask for a "Kleenex". Same with
> > "Q-Tips", and a variety of other things.
> Generification. Some say the verb is "generify," some use "genericize."
> Please do not tell us these are not the words you were looking for. As I
> just mentioned a day or two ago, we used to be plagued with people
> insisting that there must be some other word.
Actually, "generalization" is a pretty good word for the same thing.
You'd probably want to qualify it as something like "brand-name
generalization", but you can say the same about "generification", since it
has another meaning not related to brand names.
It's not quite right to say that "generification" means to use a brand
name as a noun. If I say, "When you go to the store, get me a box of
Kleenex", and if I mean Kleenex and not some other brand, then that's
using "Kleenex" as a noun, but it's not generification.
It's generification only if I don't care what brand of tissues I get.
When I was a boy, my grandmother sent me to the store for some "dutch
cleanser". I knew she didn't care whether I got the one that had the
brand name "Old Dutch Cleanser" or another popular one whose name I
forget. That was generification.
There may not be a name for using a brand name as a noun if you intend it
to refer to that brand only.
Maria Conlon
meirman wrote in message
>Earle Jones posted:
>>Modern companies defend their brands vigorously. Xerox is a good
>>example. "Frigidaire", a trade mark of General Electric is sometimes
>>used generically.
>
>My grandmother called it the frigidaire, but maybe that was because
>she had a Frigidaire. I never checked. Still, that made me think it
>was an old term from when it was the leading brand, far ahead of
>others. Was there a period like that, and is the expression one from
>the old days, fading away now?
My guess is that it's the latter -- an old term, now fading. The common
term now is "fridge."
That is: saying "Frigidaire" is fading. Saying "fridge" is not fading at
all. (I would think "fridge" is short for "refrigerator" but it could
also be short for "Fridigaire," I suppose.)
We never said "Frigidaire" in our house when I was a child. First, it
was an "ice box" (even after it wasn't an ice box any more; this was
fairly common). Then it was "refrigerator" for about two days and then
it became "fridge." And that's what it still is now that I'm all grown
up, except when we (my husband and I) revert to "ice box."
I think the similarity of sound between "Frigidaire" and "refrigerator"
is what caused "Frigidaire" to become the "generic" term in some
households. I'll bet some people had "Coldspot" Frigidaires.
PS: I think "Xerox" is gradually being replaced by "copy" or "copier,"
at least where I work. The only thing we call the Xerox and make Xeroxes
on is the actual, real Xerox. All the other copiers are just copiers and
they are used to make copies.
Maria
Tony Cooper
"meirman" <mei...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> My grandmother called it the frigidaire, but maybe that was because
> she had a Frigidaire. I never checked. Still, that made me think it
> was an old term from when it was the leading brand, far ahead of
> others. Was there a period like that, and is the expression one from
> the old days, fading away now?
My first recollections are of having an ice box. A true ice box with
blocks of ice in the top section. When we got our first refrigerator -
I have no idea of what brand it was - we referred to it as a frigidaire.
It was a status thing to speak of your frigidaire since it let people
know you had one. The "frigidaire" was up on legs, had a tiny ice cube
tray compartment, and a coil thing on top. I think it may have been gas
rather than electric.
--
Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
Provider of Jots & Tittles
--
Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
Provider of Jots & Tittles
CyberCypher
news:_rpR8.14024$PW.1...@news2.central.cox.net:
> Is there a word for the practice of using a brand name as a noun?
Corporate lawyers tell us that it is called copyright infringement.
> We don't ask for a "facial tissue" (in the US), we ask for a
> "Kleenex". Same with "Q-Tips", and a variety of other things.
> And, while I'm on the subject, does anyone have a quasi-exhaustive
> list of brand names that are used this way?
You seem to be living in the dark ages still. I gave up the practice 30
years ago when whoever it is that makes Kleenex (registered trademark)
and Xerox (registered trademark) told us to stop.
> "Normal people, by definition, are average."
Produce one, please, then talk about it.
--
Franke:
Grammar 1: Internalized rules for the spoken language.
Grammar 2: Formal rules for the written language.
Grammar 1 does not equal Grammar 2.
CyberCypher
news:af5v5v$brmd4$1...@ID-113505.news.dfncis.de:
>
> "meirman" <mei...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>
>> My grandmother called it the frigidaire, but maybe that was
>> because she had a Frigidaire. I never checked. Still, that made
>> me think it was an old term from when it was the leading brand,
>> far ahead of others. Was there a period like that, and is the
>> expression one from the old days, fading away now?
>
> My first recollections are of having an ice box. A true ice box
> with blocks of ice in the top section. When we got our first
> refrigerator - I have no idea of what brand it was - we referred
> to it as a frigidaire. It was a status thing to speak of your
> frigidaire since it let people know you had one. The
> "frigidaire" was up on legs, had a tiny ice cube tray compartment,
> and a coil thing on top. I think it may have been gas rather than
> electric.
I loved that old ice box we had when I was a kid. Whenever the ice man
arrived with a new block of ice, it was treat time 'cause he had to
take out his ice pick and stab, stab, stab to make it fit. That meant I
got to eat the chips that fell where they mayed.
John Smith
>
> "Brian Phillips" <errant...@cox.net> burbled
> news:_rpR8.14024$PW.1...@news2.central.cox.net:
>
> > Is there a word for the practice of using a brand name as a noun?
>
> Corporate lawyers tell us that it is called copyright infringement.
Yeah, they would, of course. But unless the judge agrees with them,
they're just spouting B.S. But they'll get paid a lot anyway, and the
cost will be passed on to the dumb consumer.
\\P. Schultz
Jonathan G. Ballard
CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
> "Brian Phillips" <errant...@cox.net> burbled
> news:_rpR8.14024$PW.1...@news2.central.cox.net:
>
> > Is there a word for the practice of using a brand name as a noun?
>
> Corporate lawyers tell us that it is called copyright infringement.
>
Actually, copyrights cover "original works of expression" such as songs,
books, software, etc. Brand names are covered by trademarks, a rather
seperate legal concept. And although this should in no way be
considered legal advice, I doubt a corporate lawyer would try to sue
someone for asking for a Kleenex. The situation would be quite
different, however, if Puffs attempted to market their product as a type
of "kleenex".
Trademark owners have to be vigilant in defending the use of their marks
as well. But I always like to look for the word "brand" after the
trademark, usually in very small print. They do this to avoid their
product becoming "genericized" (if a suitable word hasn't already been
coined).
Apparently many people refer(ed?) to decaffinated coffee as "Sanka".
When I was young, the Sanka commercials referred to their product as
"Sanka brand" coffe. I thought they were saying "sankabran" or some
such, and only later realized what they were saying.
> > We don't ask for a "facial tissue" (in the US), we ask for a
> > "Kleenex". Same with "Q-Tips", and a variety of other things.
> > And, while I'm on the subject, does anyone have a quasi-exhaustive
> > list of brand names that are used this way?
>
> You seem to be living in the dark ages still. I gave up the practice 30
> years ago when whoever it is that makes Kleenex (registered trademark)
> and Xerox (registered trademark) told us to stop.
>
I still hear it quite often. Not so much with Xerox, but Kleenex is
ubiquitous
[snip]
Cheers,
Jon
jan_...@hotmail.com
<errant...@cox.net> wrote:
>Is there a word for the practice of using a brand name as a noun? We don't
>ask for a "facial tissue" (in the US), we ask for a "Kleenex". Same with
>"Q-Tips", and a variety of other things. And, while I'm on the subject,
>does anyone have a quasi-exhaustive list of brand names that are used this
>way?
Some products are so unique that there is no generic. Is there a
generic for "Velcro"?
Although "slide fastener" is used, I think, in Britain, most Americans
have made "Zipper" generic.
"Nylon" was originally trademarked, but I think the term has
generalized for women's stockings. I don't know if the plastic itself
has generalized.
Jan Sand
Tony Cooper
news:3d16a87f....@east.usenetserver.com...
> On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 19:37:30 GMT, "Brian Phillips"
> <errant...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Is there a word for the practice of using a brand name as a noun? We
don't
> >ask for a "facial tissue" (in the US), we ask for a "Kleenex". Same
with
> >"Q-Tips", and a variety of other things. And, while I'm on the
subject,
> >does anyone have a quasi-exhaustive list of brand names that are used
this
> >way?
>
> Some products are so unique that there is no generic. Is there a
> generic for "Velcro"?
Yes, there is. "Hook and loop fasteners" is a common description for
products not using Velcro brand hook and loop fasteners.
See http://hook-loop-fastener.com/ for a company that makes a similar
product to Velcro.
CyberCypher
news:jballard123-3C2B...@netnews.attbi.com:
> In article <Xns92376DA6F...@130.133.1.4>,
> CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
>
>> "Brian Phillips" <errant...@cox.net> burbled
>> news:_rpR8.14024$PW.1...@news2.central.cox.net:
>>
>> > Is there a word for the practice of using a brand name as a
>> > noun?
>>
>> Corporate lawyers tell us that it is called copyright
>> infringement.
>>
>
> Actually, copyrights cover "original works of expression" such as
> songs, books, software, etc.
Yerright. I thought too fast and not well enough. It's a trademark
problem and not a copyright problem.
After 10 years in Tokyo and 6 in Taiwan, I almost never hear or use
"Kleenex", although I used to be able to buy ten boxes of Kleenex at a
time at what was touted as a discount in Tokyo, but most of the facial
tissues there were not Kleenex. The standard term here is "tissue".
CyberCypher
news:jballard123-3C2B...@netnews.attbi.com:
> In article <Xns92376DA6F...@130.133.1.4>,
> CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> wrote:
>
>> "Brian Phillips" <errant...@cox.net> burbled
>> news:_rpR8.14024$PW.1...@news2.central.cox.net:
>>
>> > Is there a word for the practice of using a brand name as a
>> > noun?
>>
>> Corporate lawyers tell us that it is called copyright
>> infringement.
>>
>
> Actually, copyrights cover "original works of expression" such as
> songs, books, software, etc.
Yerright. I thought too fast and not well enough. It's a trademark
problem and not a copyright problem.
> Brand names are covered by
After 10 years in Tokyo and 6 in Taiwan, I almost never hear or use
"Kleenex", although I used to be able to buy ten boxes of Kleenex at a
time at what was touted as a discount in Tokyo, but most of the facial
tissues there were not Kleenex. The standard term here is "tissue".
--
Mark Wallace
> Although "slide fastener" is used, I think, in Britain,
'Zip fastener' or, more often than not, just 'zip'.
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/mainmenu.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
david56
>
> Some products are so unique that there is no generic. Is there a
> generic for "Velcro"?
Not in general use in the UK.
> Although "slide fastener" is used, I think, in Britain, most Americans
> have made "Zipper" generic.
I have never heard "slide fastener" and would have thought it might
pertain to my son's trombone. UK usage is almost universally "zip",
although "zipper" would be understood. Is Zipper a trade name? I
didn't think so. Many of the good quality zips here are made by the YKK
company.
Dr Robin Bignall
<mwallace...@dse.nl> wrote:
>jan_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> Although "slide fastener" is used, I think, in Britain,
>
>'Zip fastener' or, more often than not, just 'zip'.
Another one in Britain is 'Hoover' for any sort of vacuum cleaner.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)
Raymond S. Wise
"david56" <bass.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3D16D5FB...@ntlworld.com...
> jan_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Some products are so unique that there is no generic. Is there a
> > generic for "Velcro"?
>
> Not in general use in the UK.
>
> > Although "slide fastener" is used, I think, in Britain, most Americans
> > have made "Zipper" generic.
>
> I have never heard "slide fastener" and would have thought it might
> pertain to my son's trombone. UK usage is almost universally "zip",
> although "zipper" would be understood. Is Zipper a trade name? I
> didn't think so. Many of the good quality zips here are made by the YKK
> company.
>
> --
> David
According to the section "Word History" in the entry for the word "zipper"
in the AHD4 at
http://www.bartleby.com/61/90/Z0019000.html
"Registered in 1925, _zipper_ was originally a B.F. Goodrich trademark for
overshoes with fasteners.... As the fastener that 'zipped' came to be used
in other articles, its name was used as well. B.F. Goodrich sued to protect
its trademark but was allowed to retain proprietary rights only over _Zipper
Boots._"
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
meirman
<tony_co...@yahoo.com> posted:
>
>"meirman" <mei...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>
>> My grandmother called it the frigidaire, but maybe that was because
>> she had a Frigidaire. I never checked. Still, that made me think it
>> was an old term from when it was the leading brand, far ahead of
>> others. Was there a period like that, and is the expression one from
>> the old days, fading away now?
>
>My first recollections are of having an ice box. A true ice box with
>blocks of ice in the top section. When we got our first refrigerator -
>I have no idea of what brand it was - we referred to it as a frigidaire.
>It was a status thing to speak of your frigidaire since it let people
>know you had one. The "frigidaire" was up on legs, had a tiny ice cube
>tray compartment, and a coil thing on top. I think it may have been gas
>rather than electric.
If they can burn gas to run a refrigerator, why can't a laptop
computor run on coal?
>
>
>--
>Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
>Provider of Jots & Tittles
meirman
<mcon...@sprynet.com> posted:
>
>meirman wrote in message
>>Earle Jones posted:
>
>>>Modern companies defend their brands vigorously. Xerox is a good
>>>example. "Frigidaire", a trade mark of General Electric is sometimes
>>>used generically.
>>
>>My grandmother called it the frigidaire, but maybe that was because
>>she had a Frigidaire. I never checked. Still, that made me think it
>>was an old term from when it was the leading brand, far ahead of
>>others. Was there a period like that, and is the expression one from
>>the old days, fading away now?
>
>My guess is that it's the latter -- an old term, now fading. The common
>term now is "fridge."
>
>That is: saying "Frigidaire" is fading. Saying "fridge" is not fading at
>all. (I would think "fridge" is short for "refrigerator" but it could
>also be short for "Fridigaire," I suppose.)
I think it is refrigerator, even though I wasn't there at the
creation, and even noting that it has a D. Of course frige just
wouldn't read right. (and some people even incorrectly put in a d in
refrigerator.)
>We never said "Frigidaire" in our house when I was a child. First, it
>was an "ice box" (even after it wasn't an ice box any more; this was
My mother grew up with an ice box. When she saw the iceman and the
ice wagon, especially when it was hot, she and the other kids would
ask for slivers of ice to suck on.
>fairly common). Then it was "refrigerator" for about two days and then
>it became "fridge." And that's what it still is now that I'm all grown
>up, except when we (my husband and I) revert to "ice box."
I doubt you are older than my mother
>I think the similarity of sound between "Frigidaire" and "refrigerator"
>is what caused "Frigidaire" to become the "generic" term in some
>households. I'll bet some people had "Coldspot" Frigidaires.
>
>PS: I think "Xerox" is gradually being replaced by "copy" or "copier,"
>at least where I work. The only thing we call the Xerox and make Xeroxes
>on is the actual, real Xerox. All the other copiers are just copiers and
>they are used to make copies.
We had a section on trademarks during Property class in my attempt at
law school, and I thought it might make me feel better, but now that I
expect no better answers, I actually feel worse about this. It
doesn't seem quite right to me that Xerox is forced to refer to Xerox
brand copiers, or similarly Jello brand gellatin desert, or Scotch
brand cellophane tape.
If the law had developed another way, they could have been rewarded
and honored that everyone called it a Xerox machine, or Scotch tape or
Jello, everyone could speak in normal English, their trademark
wouldn't have been in danger, and other brands could have called their
own a Royal brand copier if they wanted to be explicit, to get credit
for their company. The notion and practice that the company has to
monitor other people and that people outside the company that the
company can't control can ruin its trademark really bothers me.
>Maria
alexy
>Is there a word for the practice of using a brand name as a noun? We don't
>ask for a "facial tissue" (in the US), we ask for a "Kleenex". Same with
>"Q-Tips", and a variety of other things. And, while I'm on the subject,
>does anyone have a quasi-exhaustive list of brand names that are used this
>way?
>
>Brian
>
>"Normal people, by definition, are average."
>
I think that any list should distinguish between those former brand
names that have truly become generic (such as "aspirin") and those
brand names (such as "Xerox") that are still trademarks that are
protected by their owners, but seem to be used as generic terms by
much of the public.
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.
alexy
>Some products are so unique that there is no generic. Is there a
>generic for "Velcro"?
I've seen it referred to as "hook and loop fastener" in catalogs
describing products using "imitation Velcro".
Donna Richoux
> We had a section on trademarks during Property class in my attempt at
> law school, and I thought it might make me feel better, but now that I
> expect no better answers, I actually feel worse about this. It
> doesn't seem quite right to me that Xerox is forced to refer to Xerox
> brand copiers, or similarly Jello brand gellatin desert, or Scotch
> brand cellophane tape.
>
> If the law had developed another way, they could have been rewarded
> and honored that everyone called it a Xerox machine, or Scotch tape or
> Jello, everyone could speak in normal English, their trademark
> wouldn't have been in danger, and other brands could have called their
> own a Royal brand copier if they wanted to be explicit, to get credit
> for their company. The notion and practice that the company has to
> monitor other people and that people outside the company that the
> company can't control can ruin its trademark really bothers me.
When this has come up before, I've asked if anyone can point to court
cases that actually discuss these questions -- how much did the general
public's use of a phrase affect the judicial decision, and how was that
general use demonstrated and measured?
My recollection is that no recent court cases turned up. I don't mean
they don't exist, but that the question is yet to be answered.
I *think* that most of the well-known trademarks lost were in the 19th
and early 20th century, and that since the mid-20th century, the kind of
policies big companies have followed as a result -- educating the public
about the significance of the wording, and, as needed, pursuing those
who would violate the trademark in an important way -- has been enough
to keep the rights.
Even if you could prove that fifty million people routinely call any
facial tissue a "kleenex," that would not be enough for Kimberly-Clark
to lose their trademark, nor for you to be allowed to manufacture
"Meirman Kleenex." Apparently, their showing that they attempted to
defend it is enough, showing that they *have* been doing the right
things. Even if they can't control general language.
I am always interested in learning more about this, such as being sent
to relevant court decisions.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
John O'Flaherty
wrote:
>In alt.english.usage on Sun, 23 Jun 2002 21:06:00 GMT Earle Jones
><earle...@attbi.com> posted:
>>
>>"Adrenalin" was once a trade nome for epinephrine.
>
>I'm not contradicting you, but I sort of thought it was the other way
>around. They constantly say "The body releases adrenalin" as if it
>were something made in the body.
According to a couple of dictionaries, Adrenalin (without an 'e' at
the end) is a trade name. The words adrenaline and epinephrine mean
the same and are from Latin and Greek respectively. The M-W says
'adrenaline' is often used in non-technical contexts.
john
Gwen Lenker
<jball...@keinspam-insightbb.com> wrote:
[...]
>Apparently many people refer(ed?) to decaffinated coffee as "Sanka".
>When I was young, the Sanka commercials referred to their product as
>"Sanka brand" coffe. I thought they were saying "sankabran" or some
>such, and only later realized what they were saying.
"I would even give up coffee for Sanka --
Even Sanka, Bianca, for you."
-- Cole Porter, "Kiss Me, Kate"
Raymond S. Wise
"John O'Flaherty" <wewelc...@blackhole.net> wrote in message
news:rd9ehuslj462otkmu...@4ax.com...
Like other trademarks, the word "Adrenalin" is used for products far removed
from its original use. But I was considerably surprised to find that
"Adrenalin" is used for a stimulant that falls under the "dietary
supplement" laws at the same time that it continues to be used as a
trademark for epinephrine, which falls under the laws governing medication:
At
http://www.thinkvitamins.com/hardcore2.html
is a picture of "Adrenalin (tm) Pre-Workout Stimulant & Fat Burner." No
ingredients given. A little more searching turned up a list of ingredients
at
"Ingredients per Tab : 200 mg of caffeine
35 mg of 1R 2S norephedrine
hcl
100 mg of SYNEPHRINE hcl
3.4 mg of yohimbine hcl"
(The spelling "Adrenaline" also is used as a trademark, but not for
stimulants.)
Raymond S. Wise
"Raymond S. Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> wrote in message
news:uheq0bo...@corp.supernews.com...
I just now took a look at the online versions of *The Cambridge
International Dictionary of English* and the (Australian) *Macquarie Concise
Dictionary* and found that they make no mention of trademark and have
"adrenalin" and "adrenaline" as variant spellings for a word seemingly in
generic use. I'm surprised about the entry in the Cambridge International:
Since it's supposed to be in international use, shouldn't it indicate when a
given spelling is a trademark in the USA?
Raymond S. Wise
It turns out that "epinephrin" was also a trademark ( or "proprietary
name"):
From the 1909 supplement to *The Century Dictionary* at
[quote]
adrenalin [...]_ [_adrenal_ + _in_2.]
The active principle of the adrenal glands, first
isolated by a Japanese chemist, Takamine.
Its probable formula is [formula given]. It is practi-
cally identical with Abel's epinephrin, and is a powerful
heart-stimulant and hemostatic. See _adrenal extract._
[end quote]
[quote]
adrenal [...] --Adrenal extract, a medicinal
preparation made from the suprarenal glands and be-
lieved to be the internal secretion of these bodies. It
increases blood-pressure and constricts the vessels, and
is employed to arrest hemorrhage and to diminish mu-
cous secretion. See _adrenalin._
[end quote]
[quote]
epinephrin [...], n. [...] 1. A term intro-
duced by J. J. Abel to designate the active
blood-pressure raising principle of the adrenal
glands. See also _adrenalin._--2. The pro-
prietary name of a preparation made from the
suprarenal capsule, which possesses marked
hemostatic properties.
[end quote]
meirman
Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> posted:
>
>"david56" <bass.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:3D16D5FB...@ntlworld.com...
>> jan_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > Some products are so unique that there is no generic. Is there a
>> > generic for "Velcro"?
>>
>> Not in general use in the UK.
>>
>> > Although "slide fastener" is used, I think, in Britain, most Americans
>> > have made "Zipper" generic.
>>
>> I have never heard "slide fastener" and would have thought it might
For food storage bags, like Zip-lock bags, they were willingly called
ziplock when people had to use their squeezed fingers to close them.
When they added a mechanical thing to close them, I think both
customers and the advertisers wanted to call them slide fasteners. A
zipper should have teeth, I think.
>> pertain to my son's trombone. UK usage is almost universally "zip",
>> although "zipper" would be understood. Is Zipper a trade name? I
>> didn't think so. Many of the good quality zips here are made by the YKK
>> company.
It's a big brand in the US to, in clothes and in fabric shops.
>> --
>> David
>
>
>According to the section "Word History" in the entry for the word "zipper"
>in the AHD4 at
>
>http://www.bartleby.com/61/90/Z0019000.html
>
>"Registered in 1925, _zipper_ was originally a B.F. Goodrich trademark for
>overshoes with fasteners.... As the fastener that 'zipped' came to be used
Fasteners sounds non-continuous to me, like individual clips, also
used on boots. They're trying to avoid saying zipper because it might
be thought silly to say zipper was the trademark for overshoes with
zippers. Or it would require another sentence and they're saving
space.
>in other articles, its name was used as well. B.F. Goodrich sued to protect
>its trademark but was allowed to retain proprietary rights only over _Zipper
>Boots._"
Ray Heindl
5964B0.140...@netnews.attbi.com:
> "Frigidaire", a trade mark of General Electric is sometimes
> used generically.
I think you mean General Motors, which bought Frigidaire after its
first product flopped. But the name is presumably now owned by
Electrolux, of which Frigidaire is a part.
--
Ray Heindl
Ray Heindl
news:llsdhugp141r1qtbv...@4ax.com:
> If they can burn gas to run a refrigerator, why can't a laptop
> computor run on coal?
Most of them do, although the coal is burned miles away.
--
Ray Heindl
meirman
tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) posted:
>meirman <mei...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> We had a section on trademarks during Property class in my attempt at
>> law school, and I thought it might make me feel better, but now that I
>> expect no better answers, I actually feel worse about this. It
>> doesn't seem quite right to me that Xerox is forced to refer to Xerox
>> brand copiers, or similarly Jello brand gellatin desert, or Scotch
>> brand cellophane tape.
>>
>> If the law had developed another way, they could have been rewarded
>> and honored that everyone called it a Xerox machine, or Scotch tape or
>> Jello, everyone could speak in normal English, their trademark
>> wouldn't have been in danger, and other brands could have called their
>> own a Royal brand copier if they wanted to be explicit, to get credit
>> for their company. The notion and practice that the company has to
>> monitor other people and that people outside the company that the
>> company can't control can ruin its trademark really bothers me.
>
>When this has come up before, I've asked if anyone can point to court
>cases that actually discuss these questions -- how much did the general
>public's use of a phrase affect the judicial decision, and how was that
>general use demonstrated and measured?
I don't have many books left from law school because I borrowed some
and gave away the ones I thought I would never use again. I think I
borrowed the Property hornbook. I do have Brown on Property and it
doesn't say a word about trademarks or even intellectual property.
Isn't this covered in the Property course?
>
>My recollection is that no recent court cases turned up. I don't mean
>they don't exist, but that the question is yet to be answered.
>
>I *think* that most of the well-known trademarks lost were in the 19th
>and early 20th century, and that since the mid-20th century, the kind of
>policies big companies have followed as a result -- educating the public
>about the significance of the wording, and, as needed, pursuing those
>who would violate the trademark in an important way -- has been enough
>to keep the rights.
It's not just the loss of rights that bothers me. Your list includes
two of the things I don't like. Educating them about the wording is a
waste of everyone's time if the law were only different and it makes
people, at least those who write and corporations, say silly things
like Scotch Brand cellophane tape. And pursuing is even worse.
Taking up court time, legal expense, pushing other people around.
>Even if you could prove that fifty million people routinely call any
>facial tissue a "kleenex," that would not be enough for Kimberly-Clark
>to lose their trademark, nor for you to be allowed to manufacture
>"Meirman Kleenex." Apparently, their showing that they attempted to
>defend it is enough, showing that they *have* been doing the right
>things. Even if they can't control general language.
I don't object to them preventing Meirman Kleenex from being labelled
on the box or used in my company's own advertising, even though the
stuff is softer and more absorbent, only to them objecting to calling
tissue in general kleenex. I think honoring those who made the
product famous should not endanger their rights.
If you are saying I won't cause anyone to lose property by using brand
names as generic names, if that's true, I'll stop avoiding it. Now I
don't do it for the same reason I don't walk over other people's
grass.
>I am always interested in learning more about this, such as being sent
>to relevant court decisions.
meirman
O'Flaherty <wewelc...@blackhole.net> posted:
So I guess that means I have to start saying the body releases adrenal
hormones. I'm certainly not going to claim it releases something made
somewhere else. Adrenal hormones doesn't sound that specific. Aren't
there a lot of hormones made in the adrenal glands? Is there another
word for the one I want that people will recognize?
>
>john
Pat Durkin
"Donna Richoux" <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:1feaf2t.ay6cw3zxd1e7N%tr...@euronet.nl...
> meirman <mei...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>
> I am always interested in learning more about this, such as being sent
> to relevant court decisions.
>
http://ifaq.wap.org/computers/mstrademark.html
I found this (an item of interest in obtaining a trademark symbol),
while trying to find the specific _Washington Post_ trademark
infringement lawsuit. I haven't found it yet, but a local restaurant, a
former inn on East Washington Ave, took the name "The Washington Post",
and in its ads and signs used the same script as that used in the banner
of the Post. Interior decor involved the front and interior pages
splashed on the walls.
The restaurant lost the lawsuit, kept the script, and changed the name
to "The Washington Host". I don't know if they were just plain not
good, or if the costs of defending the original name bankrupted them.
They went out of business 2 years later. Of course, that (3-4 years)is
about the average life-span of most trendy restaurants hereabouts. That
happened about 15 years ago.
There was a recent "Washington Post" trademark protection lawsuit
http://www.jmls.edu/cyber/cases/total1.html filed 1997. (a lot of
companies, and this deals with WWW usage of the Post format)
Odysseus
>
> I think that any list should distinguish between those former brand
> names that have truly become generic (such as "aspirin") and those
> brand names (such as "Xerox") that are still trademarks that are
> protected by their owners, but seem to be used as generic terms by
> much of the public.
The FAQ cited upthread does. There are four main categories: former
trademarks, words derived from trademarks, current trademarks used
generically, and words mistaken for trademarks. The last has only one
entry, "nylon".
--Odysseus
Aokay (David G. Bryce)
what you want. Or at least start.
aokay
Steve Hayes
>If they can burn gas to run a refrigerator, why can't a laptop
>computor run on coal?
A lot do. I know mine does/
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
That sux!
GrapeApe
>ziplock when people had to use their squeezed fingers to close them.
But these bags that closed so existed before Dow or whoever put them on a line
of baggies... uh Plastic Sandwich bags we could buy in boxes as if they were
garbage bags.
What did we call them before the TradeMark? Slide Fasteners?
Joe Fineman
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 06:22:27 -0400, meirman <mei...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
> >If they can burn gas to run a refrigerator, why can't a laptop
> >computor run on coal?
>
> A lot do. I know mine does/
Very likely mine does, too, in part. I think there is a coal-fired
plant that I see from the trolley to Boston. But electric power is
(so to speak) fungible, and it would be hard to attribute any
particular wiggle of my ac voltage to that, or to the hydro plant at
Niagara Falls, or to the nuclear plant in Vermont, or even (these
days) a windmill somewhere.
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: You shall love your crooked neighbor :||
||: With your crooked heart. :||
Jim MacArthur
> In article <earle.jones-5964...@netnews.attbi.com>,
> Earle Jones <earle...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Modern companies defend their brands vigorously. Xerox is a good
>>used generically.
>
>
> When refering to the toy bricks, I always say 'legos', but I've read
> that the manufacturer prefers 'Lego bricks' to try to prevent the word
> from becoming generic.
>
I've seen Americans use that before, but I find it very odd. When I grew
up (and still now, on the odd occasions when I hear it) people used Lego
as a mass noun, so while you could have a lot of Lego, or a Lego brick,
I never heard anyone refer to 'a Lego' or several 'Legos'. This is in
the UK.
Apart from that, the pluralisation just looks wrong to me; what would
the Dutch say?
meirman
<j...@TheWorld.com> posted:
>haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes) writes:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002 06:22:27 -0400, meirman <mei...@invalid.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >If they can burn gas to run a refrigerator, why can't a laptop
>> >computor run on coal?
>>
>> A lot do. I know mine does/
>
>Very likely mine does, too, in part. I think there is a coal-fired
>plant that I see from the trolley to Boston. But electric power is
>(so to speak) fungible, and it would be hard to attribute any
>particular wiggle of my ac voltage to that, or to the hydro plant at
>Niagara Falls, or to the nuclear plant in Vermont, or even (these
>days) a windmill somewhere.
Of course if you work for Enron, you can charge extra for moving
electricity around, even if you're not doing it.
Sara Lorimer
> Alexander Browne wrote:
> > When refering to the toy bricks, I always say 'legos', but I've read
> > that the manufacturer prefers 'Lego bricks' to try to prevent the word
> > from becoming generic.
> >
> I've seen Americans use that before, but I find it very odd. When I grew
> up (and still now, on the odd occasions when I hear it) people used Lego
> as a mass noun, so while you could have a lot of Lego, or a Lego brick,
> I never heard anyone refer to 'a Lego' or several 'Legos'. This is in
> the UK.
> Apart from that, the pluralisation just looks wrong to me; what would
> the Dutch say?
Eh, who cares about the Dutch. Legos are Danish.
Mark Wallace
> Jim MacArthur wrote:
>
>> Alexander Browne wrote:
>>> When refering to the toy bricks, I always say 'legos', but I've
>>> read that the manufacturer prefers 'Lego bricks' to try to
>>> prevent the word from becoming generic.
>>>
>> I've seen Americans use that before, but I find it very odd.
>> When I grew up (and still now, on the odd occasions when I hear
>> it) people used Lego as a mass noun, so while you could have a
>> lot of Lego, or a Lego brick, I never heard anyone refer to 'a
>> Lego' or several 'Legos'. This is in the UK.
>> Apart from that, the pluralisation just looks wrong to me; what
>> would the Dutch say?
Same as in English: lego blockjes/stukjes (bricks/thinghies). No
legooien or lego's.
> Eh, who cares about the Dutch. Legos are Danish.
So's bacon. Where's me sarnie?
--
Mark Wallace
-----------------------------------------------------
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit:
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.virtualave.net/mainmenu.htm
-----------------------------------------------------
Sebastian Beach
<bass.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>jan_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Some products are so unique that there is no generic. Is there a
>> generic for "Velcro"?
>
>Not in general use in the UK.
>
>> Although "slide fastener" is used, I think, in Britain, most Americans
>> have made "Zipper" generic.
>
>I have never heard "slide fastener" and would have thought it might
>pertain to my son's trombone. UK usage is almost universally "zip",
>although "zipper" would be understood. Is Zipper a trade name? I
>didn't think so. Many of the good quality zips here are made by the YKK
>company.
And in Britain Biro is a generic term which is not understood by my US
friends.
Sebastian Beach
Mark Wallace
> And in Britain Biro is a generic term which is not understood by
> my US friends.
Probably because they think it was a 'Murken invention.
John Dawkins
"Mark Wallace" <mwallace...@dse.nl> wrote:
> Sebastian Beach wrote:
>
> > And in Britain Biro is a generic term which is not understood by
> > my US friends.
>
> Probably because they think it was a 'Murken invention.
Nah. Polya, Erdos, and von Neumann were not the only things that
Hungary gave to the world.
--
J.
Pat Durkin
"Sebastian Beach" <Beach_th...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d18940a...@nntpserver.swip.net...
I do find it now in M-W Online, and it isn't located as to region of
use. It was a real stumper for me in a crossword puzzle, years ago.
Main Entry: Bi·ro
Pronunciation: 'bI-(")rO
Function: trademark
-- used for a ballpoint pen
(I expect the pronunciation is as in "buy-ro", but I do believe I have
heard it pronounced on TV as "beer-o")
Please educate us. Since it is a generic use, I expect you do
understand why it may never have become popular here in the US, where we
have bics. How old is its usage as an implement, and then as a generic
term?
I just checked my American Heritage Dictionary.... dated 1969-70, 5th
printing, and "biro" doesn't appear there.
From the page facing the Table of Contents v:
"Words that are believed to be registered trademarks have been checked
with authoritative sources. No investigation has been made of
common -law trademark rights in any word, because such investigation is
impracticable. Words that are known to have current registration are
shown with an initial capital and are also identified as trademarks.
The inclusion of any word in this Dictionary is not, however, an express
ion of the publishers' opinion as to whether or not it is subject to
proprietary rights. Indeed, no definition in this Dictionary is to be
regarded as affecting the validity of any trademark."
Thus, it does list "Scotch tape. A trademark for a transparent
cellulose adhesive tape".
Whenever we didn't use "scotch tape" we used "cellophane tape".
I understand that "cellophane" originated as a brand name, but AMH
doesn't capitalize it or define it as an early trademark, while it does
have "Celluloid. A trademark..."
Both have the following root + add-on conversion: cellulose + phane,
cellulose + oid .
Raymond S. Wise
"Pat Durkin" <p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uhhum91...@corp.supernews.com...
I have to admit that I was amused by the following entry in my edition of
*The Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary* (a French-English bilingual
dictionary):
[quote]
bic(R) /bik/ _nm_ biro(R).
[end quote]
That is, a trademark used generically is used to translate another trademark
used generically. (I don't know if "Bic" was ever used generically in the
US, but in my experience it is not used that way nowadays.)
Maria Conlon
Pat Durkin wrote
>From the page facing the Table of Contents v:
>"Words that are believed to be registered trademarks have been checked
>with authoritative sources. No investigation has been made of
>common -law trademark rights in any word, because such investigation is
>impracticable. Words that are known to have current registration are
>shown with an initial capital and are also identified as trademarks.
>The inclusion of any word in this Dictionary is not, however, an
express
>ion of the publishers' opinion as to whether or not it is subject to
>proprietary rights. Indeed, no definition in this Dictionary is to be
>regarded as affecting the validity of any trademark."
On my reader, the first line break in the second to last (penultimate!)
sentence is after "express" and before "ion." I must tell you, I spent
a moment or two wondering what the heck an "express ion" is. A fast
"ion" of the publishers' opinion? And, if so, what does "ion" mean in
that case?
It takes longer to tell it than it took to wonder about it and figure it
out. Then I had to laugh. I guess I'm easily distracted and easily
amused.
Maria
Pat Durkin
"Maria Conlon" <mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:afb49q$cqq83$1...@ID-113669.news.dfncis.de...
I think an express ion is about as close to a cow orker as we can get.
jan_...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>I wouldn't be reading and posting here if I weren't just like you.
>I think an express ion is about as close to a cow orker as we can get.
>
While an express ion is a rapid charged atomic particle, a cow orker
is merely a sexually perverse farm hand.
Jan Sand
Mark Wallace
> "Pat Durkin" <p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> Please educate us. Since it is a generic use, I expect you do
>> understand why it may never have become popular here in the US,
>> where we have bics. How old is its usage as an implement, and
>> then as a generic term?
>
> I have to admit that I was amused by the following entry in my
> edition of *The Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary* (a French-
> English bilingual dictionary):
>
>
> [quote]
>
> bic(R) /bik/ _nm_ biro(R).
>
> [end quote]
That's a beauty.
A collector's definiton, if anyone collects definitions.
> That is, a trademark used generically is used to translate
> another trademark used generically. (I don't know if "Bic" was
> ever used generically in the US, but in my experience it is not
> used that way nowadays.)
The word has a more 'cheap & disposable' feel to it that 'pen', what
with them making rasors that should be treated with the same
reverence as their pens.
I'd say either 'biro' or 'ballpoint'; but I prefer 'rolling ball'
pens, which are gradually becoming known as 'gel' pens.
fropper
Dr Robin Bignall
The Biro was the very first ball-point pen released in the UK. My
memory (which may be defective) dates it to just after WW2. At that
time comic books in colour were released onto the British market from
America, (or their availability was renewed after the war) and the ink
had a distinctive odour which I confused at the time with the smell of
Biro ink. The early Biros were quite expensive, but were soon popular.
I remember in the late 40s and 50s quite a lot of objection to them
from schools which considered that their use would detract from the
good handwriting produced by generations of pens and ink. The humble
Bik came later here.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)
Robert Lipton
fropper wrote:
> Kleenex I know, but what is a Q-Tip?
A small cardboard stick -- like a lollipop stick -- onto which someone
has glued two small balls of cotton, one at either end. Pictures are
available at
http://www.dribbleglass.com/backgrounds/backgrounds2.htm
and they are manufactured by Chesebrough-Ponds. Hope I've speleld hat
right!
Bob
Raymond S. Wise
"fropper" <tho...@abdomen.net> wrote in message
news:3d19a5dc$0$21004$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Kleenex I know, but what is a Q-Tip?
>
You mean Chesebrough-Pond's USA Co.'s Q-tips(R) Cotton Swabs? Better be
careful, or their lawyers might send you a letter:
See
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:n_-PD8SAqw0C:www.bway.net/~you/qtip.htm
l+%22q-tips%22+huh&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Joe Fineman
> Is Zipper a trade name?
Once upon a time it was -- not for the fastener itself, but for
galoshes equipped with it. These days it's a common noun.
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: Many are born impatient; the lucky ones become cabdrivers. :||
M.J.Powell
<bobl...@nyc.rr.com> writes
My box says: Cotton Buds, Batonnets Ouates, Wattestabchen,
Wattenstokjes, Bastoncini Ovattate, Bastoncillos de Alogondon.
I thought you'd want to know.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Brian Phillips
> generic for "Velcro"?
Velcro *is* the generic for "hook and loop" fastener.
Brian
"Normal people, by definition, are average."
alexy
>> Some products are so unique that there is no generic. Is there a
>> generic for "Velcro"?
>
>Velcro *is* the generic for "hook and loop" fastener.
On www.velcro.com, it says:
:VELCRO® and VELCRO with the FLYING-V® (DESIGN) are registered trademarks
:of Velcro Industries B.V.
Of course, it also says that I cannot reproduce what I just did
without their explicit permission, so I expect to be sued shortly for
the economic benefit I have gained by so doing!
--
Alex
Make the obvious change in the return address to reply by email.
Mark Wallace
> The Biro was the very first ball-point pen released in the UK. My
> memory (which may be defective) dates it to just after WW2. At
> that time comic books in colour were released onto the British
> market from America, (or their availability was renewed after the
> war) and the ink had a distinctive odour which I confused at the
> time with the smell of Biro ink. The early Biros were quite
> expensive, but were soon popular. I remember in the late 40s and
> 50s quite a lot of objection to them from schools which
> considered that their use would detract from the good handwriting
> produced by generations of pens and ink. The humble Bik came
> later here.
In the primary school I went to, only the children with good
handwriting could 'graduate' to using a ballpoint, instead of a
pencil. That's the only scholastic endeavour I ever failed at. If
my old teacher had anything to do with it, I'd still be using
nothing but pencils, today.
Mark Wallace
> "fropper" <tho...@abdomen.net> wrote in message
> news:3d19a5dc$0$21004$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> Kleenex I know, but what is a Q-Tip?
>
> You mean Chesebrough-Pond's USA Co.'s Q-tips(R) Cotton Swabs?
> Better be careful, or their lawyers might send you a letter:
You'll be right in the P, then.
Tony Cooper
"Brian Phillips" <errant...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:V4nS8.33050$PW.2...@news2.central.cox.net...
> > Some products are so unique that there is no generic. Is there a
> > generic for "Velcro"?
>
> Velcro *is* the generic for "hook and loop" fastener.
>
--
Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
Provider of Jots & Tittles
Pat Durkin
"Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:afdcfa$dkcoh$1...@ID-113505.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Brian Phillips" <errant...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:V4nS8.33050$PW.2...@news2.central.cox.net...
> > > Some products are so unique that there is no generic. Is there a
> > > generic for "Velcro"?
> >
> > Velcro *is* the generic for "hook and loop" fastener.
> >
> Wha? So Cocoa Cola is the generic for soft drink?
Well, I agree that velcro is the generic term for "hook and loop"
fastener. If it hasn't yet reached the status of scotch tape, or bic
pens (bic lighters), I think it will.
And no. To me, "coke" is generic for what other people ask for: a
soda, or a sody pop, etc.
Robert Bannister
We were absolutely forbidden to use them (high school, UK, 1951-59). I
was still using a fountain pen at university, because the ball point pens
we had in those days were far from reliable: splotchy messes in pocket,
wouldn't write on paper with a trace of grease, wouldn't write
upside-down, simply stopped writing when the ink solidified, very hard to
start a new pen writing at all.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> "Brian Phillips" <errant...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:V4nS8.33050$PW.2...@news2.central.cox.net...
> > > Some products are so unique that there is no generic. Is there a
> > > generic for "Velcro"?
> >
> > Velcro *is* the generic for "hook and loop" fastener.
> >
> Wha? So Cocoa Cola is the generic for soft drink?
No, but 'coke' is for the many people that drink the stuff (as opposed
to inhaling through their nose).
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Ah, now I understand: cotton buds, which is probably a brand name too.
--
Rob Bannister
Tony Cooper
> > > > Some products are so unique that there is no generic. Is there
a
> > > > generic for "Velcro"?
> > >
> > > Velcro *is* the generic for "hook and loop" fastener.
> > >
> > Wha? So Cocoa Cola is the generic for soft drink?
>
> No, but 'coke' is for the many people that drink the stuff (as opposed
> to inhaling through their nose).
Velcro is a trademarked brand name and not a generic. Coke is a
trademarked brand name and not a generic.
There are people that use either/both as a generic word, but they are
incorrect. Not that I will object, but the makers would.
meirman
<al...@mindhelicalwire.com> posted:
>"Brian Phillips" <errant...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> Some products are so unique that there is no generic. Is there a
>>> generic for "Velcro"?
>>
>>Velcro *is* the generic for "hook and loop" fastener.
>
>On www.velcro.com, it says:
>
>:VELCRO? and VELCRO with the FLYING-V? (DESIGN) are registered trademarks
>:of Velcro Industries B.V.
>
>Of course, it also says that I cannot reproduce what I just did
>without their explicit permission, so I expect to be sued shortly for
You must have misunderstood. You need the permission of Professional
Baseball.
>the economic benefit I have gained by so doing!
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 17 years
Pat Durkin
The point, I thought, was that these commercial brand names are used as
generic nouns. (per subject line?)
I have purchased cotton swabs with white cotton bits on both ends of
3-inch long flexible plastic sticks (double-tipped cotton
safety-flex(tm) swabs). They are labeled "MEGAS supersoft Cotton
Swabs". I refer to them as Q-Tips, though I pay about 1/2 the price of
Q-Tips. I am using the term generically, and although the manufacturer
might take me to court today for misuse of a trademark, in a few more
years, they will tire of that struggle and be happy to claim the product
as a wonderful gift to mankind. They may even go out of the Q-Tip
business, because it is foolish to spend good money to advertise a
product that is pricing itself out of the market due to unreasonable
advertising costs. They could stop advertising, and lower the cost, if
they want to stay in business, no?
Robert Bannister
In normal speech, the makers' wishes are of no interest whatsoever. I can
see that in official writing, one would have to be more careful, but in
English speech these words are generic. We are about English usage, aren't
we? Not about big companies' desires. Also, I'm pretty sure that 'coke' was
used in the US for cocaine and in the UK for a coal-based fuel, a very long
time before Coca Cola was even invented.
--
Rob Bannister
Raymond S. Wise
"Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:afdhsd$dgltu$1...@ID-113505.news.dfncis.de...
Well, as has been pointed out elsewhere, a trademark is inherently
adjectival. When someone says "This jacket closes with velcro" or "My
favorite coke is Dr Pepper" or even "I like to drink Coke" they certainly
aren't using "velcro" or "coke" or "Coke" as adjectives, which makes me
think that, technically, these words aren't being used as trademarks. The
words "Bic" and "Biro" are trademarks, but they are also nouns used
generically (and written without capitals) for ball-point pens (in France
and Great Britain, respectively).
If this line of reasoning is correct, however, it would seem that no company
would ever have a legal justification for contacting an author and
complaining about the use of "velcro," or "coke" as nouns. Hmm, perhaps they
don't! :-) On the other hand, no one doubts that the Velcro company, for
example, would have the legal right to object to a use such as " So-and-So's
(R) velcro."
"Cellophane" and "aspirin" are "officially" or "technically" generic.
"Velcro" and "coke" are "unofficially" generic. You would prefer that it be
stated in some other manner? How about "Velcro *is* used generically for
'hook and loop fastener'"?
Skitt
> Tony Cooper wrote:
If I remember correctly, this was discussed here before, with a mention that
the Coca Cola company was very reluctant to embrace "Coke" as a name for
their product, but they eventually did so and registered it.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Dr Robin Bignall
<mwallace...@dse.nl> wrote:
>Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
>
>> The Biro was the very first ball-point pen released in the UK. My
>> memory (which may be defective) dates it to just after WW2. At
>> that time comic books in colour were released onto the British
>> market from America, (or their availability was renewed after the
>> war) and the ink had a distinctive odour which I confused at the
>> time with the smell of Biro ink. The early Biros were quite
>> expensive, but were soon popular. I remember in the late 40s and
>> 50s quite a lot of objection to them from schools which
>> considered that their use would detract from the good handwriting
>> produced by generations of pens and ink. The humble Bik came
>> later here.
>
>In the primary school I went to, only the children with good
>handwriting could 'graduate' to using a ballpoint, instead of a
>pencil. That's the only scholastic endeavour I ever failed at. If
>my old teacher had anything to do with it, I'd still be using
>nothing but pencils, today.
They took a similar stance over graduating to pen and ink from pencil
in my school, too. Ball points were not allowed at all. Do you
remember those school pens? If you snapped the nib off it left two
sharp points at the front which made them great darts which would
stick into the plaster wall. Much more fun than writing. I can still
smell that guvmint-issue ink they used, too; a bit like stale drains
with a bit of disinfectant thrown in.
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)
Skitt
> "Mark Wallace" wrote:
>> In the primary school I went to, only the children with good
>> handwriting could 'graduate' to using a ballpoint, instead of a
>> pencil. That's the only scholastic endeavour I ever failed at. If
>> my old teacher had anything to do with it, I'd still be using
>> nothing but pencils, today.
>
> They took a similar stance over graduating to pen and ink from pencil
> in my school, too. Ball points were not allowed at all. Do you
> remember those school pens? If you snapped the nib off it left two
> sharp points at the front which made them great darts which would
> stick into the plaster wall. Much more fun than writing. I can still
> smell that guvmint-issue ink they used, too; a bit like stale drains
> with a bit of disinfectant thrown in.
I'm afraid that in my school we might have been considered to be more
advanced. We took the nib, broke off one half of the front of it and
cracked the back half so that if developed a split that could be slipped
onto the front of a paper folded into the form of a dart. Awesome! Stuck
into plaster, wood, cardboard, people ...
Tony Cooper
>
> "Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:afdhsd$dgltu$1...@ID-113505.news.dfncis.de...
> > "Robert Bannister" <rob...@it.net.au> wrote in message
> >
> > > > > > Some products are so unique that there is no generic. Is
> there
> > a
> > > > > > generic for "Velcro"?
> > > > >
> > > > > Velcro *is* the generic for "hook and loop" fastener.
> > > > >
> > > > Wha? So Cocoa Cola is the generic for soft drink?
> > >
> > > No, but 'coke' is for the many people that drink the stuff (as
> opposed
> > > to inhaling through their nose).
> >
> > Velcro is a trademarked brand name and not a generic. Coke is a
> > trademarked brand name and not a generic.
> >
> > There are people that use either/both as a generic word, but they
are
> > incorrect. Not that I will object, but the makers would.
>
> The point, I thought, was that these commercial brand names are used
as
> generic nouns. (per subject line?)
Well, no, that's not the point. To me. For you and I to use the terms
as generic nouns in here or in general conversation not what the
manufactuer objects to. It's if we own a grocery store and advertise
Cokes or Q-Tips and sell something else. If one of us writes something
for publication about cleaning camera lenses, it would be better to
write "cotton tip swab". The manufacturer must make a reasonable effort
to stop the name from going into generic use. That doesn't include
private conversation.
The simplest example I can think of is Coke. If you order "Coke" in a
restaurant, the waiter/waitress will either serve you Coca Cola or say
"We serve Pepsi. Will that be all right?" If they don't, Coca Cola
will purse the case. They aren't coming after you or me
--
Tony Cooper aka: Tony_Co...@Yahoo.com
Provider of Jots & Tittles though. It's the seller in a commercial
situaton.
Tony Cooper
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> > "Robert Bannister" <rob...@it.net.au> wrote in message
> >
> > > > > > Some products are so unique that there is no generic. Is
there
> > a
> > > > > > generic for "Velcro"?
> > > > >
> > > > > Velcro *is* the generic for "hook and loop" fastener.
> > > > >
> > > > Wha? So Cocoa Cola is the generic for soft drink?
> > >
> > > No, but 'coke' is for the many people that drink the stuff (as
opposed
> > > to inhaling through their nose).
> >
> > Velcro is a trademarked brand name and not a generic. Coke is a
> > trademarked brand name and not a generic.
> >
> > There are people that use either/both as a generic word, but they
are
> > incorrect. Not that I will object, but the makers would.
>
> In normal speech, the makers' wishes are of no interest whatsoever. I
can
> see that in official writing, one would have to be more careful,
Agreed.
but in
> English speech these words are generic.
Not in agreement. They may be *used* generically, but they are not
generic. It's not a case of usage determines definition when there's a
clear definition and a clear abuse of definition.
We are about English usage, aren't
> we? Not about big companies' desires.
Everything shapes usage. Big companies have as much right to shape
English usage as teenagers in a mall. Big companies have contributed
quite a bit - good and bad - to usage as we know it.
Also, I'm pretty sure that 'coke' was
> used in the US for cocaine and in the UK for a coal-based fuel, a very
long
> time before Coca Cola was even invented.
Bah. Those are different usages; more like homophones. The discussion
here is about the usage of Coke or coke when the meaning is the same.
Neither coke nor coke in your example would ever be capitalized unless
at the beginning of a sentence.
Tony Cooper
news:uhkmf12...@corp.supernews.com...
You can say whatever you want. You'd be technically wrong, but no one
would care or notice unless you're posting in a group of pedants. It's
saying it in print in advertisement (as in the Velcro example) or
something similar that is the restricted use. It's saying it with
intent to deceive that's wrong.
Tony Cooper
news:nblkhu437fsuj349l...@4ax.com...
There are many perverse rules of nature. One such is that you will be
wearing a shirt that you like when the ballpoint, Bic, biro, or fountain
pen leaks. Nothing ever leaks if it's a shirt that you despise or that
has shrunk in the closet so there are gaps between the buttons.
meirman
<tony_co...@yahoo.com> posted:
That's another example. If you called it a q-tip in that article and
some readers were careful to buy Q-tips for their camera, that would
be good for the Q-tip company. But noooooooooooooooooo. They're told
to go out of the way not to that and call it a cotton tip swab. In
the case of some products one can't even tell what that is.
Althought I guess they could say "something like Q-tips. Only 2 extra
words. You could even make it a macro.
>The manufacturer must make a reasonable effort
>to stop the name from going into generic use. That doesn't include
>private conversation.
>
>The simplest example I can think of is Coke. If you order "Coke" in a
>restaurant, the waiter/waitress will either serve you Coca Cola or say
>"We serve Pepsi. Will that be all right?" If they don't, Coca Cola
>will purse the case. They aren't coming after you or me
meirman
Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> posted:
.
>
>In normal speech, the makers' wishes are of no interest whatsoever. I can
>see that in official writing, one would have to be more careful, but in
>English speech these words are generic. We are about English usage, aren't
>we? Not about big companies' desires. Also, I'm pretty sure that 'coke' was
>used in the US for cocaine and in the UK for a coal-based fuel, a very long
We have coke here too of course. I used to drive by the coke ovens on
my way to work at Bethlehem steel. Can't use coal because the flames
get in the way.
>time before Coca Cola was even invented.
Tony Cooper
> >Well, no, that's not the point. To me. For you and I to use the
terms
> >as generic nouns in here or in general conversation not what the
> >manufactuer objects to. It's if we own a grocery store and advertise
> >Cokes or Q-Tips and sell something else. If one of us writes
something
> >for publication about cleaning camera lenses, it would be better to
> >write "cotton tip swab".
>
> That's another example. If you called it a q-tip in that article and
> some readers were careful to buy Q-tips for their camera, that would
> be good for the Q-tip company. But noooooooooooooooooo. They're told
> to go out of the way not to that and call it a cotton tip swab. In
> the case of some products one can't even tell what that is.
We had on person in here asking what a Q-Tip is. Cotton tip swab is
universal.
jan_...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
>We have coke here too of course. I used to drive by the coke ovens on
>my way to work at Bethlehem steel. Can't use coal because the flames
>get in the way.
It's been a very long time since I learned about steel production in
school, but I believe coke is coal with many of the contaminants
leached out by a heat process. It is used in the Bessemer process to
reduce the oxygen from iron ore which was originally deoxydised
through the use of charcoal which had relatively few impurities.
Extensive use of charcoal before the use of coke had deforested large
areas of England.
Jan Sand
Mark Wallace
And "cotton-tipped swab" is semantical.
R H Draney
news:afe4ej$dkb5k$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de:
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>> We had on person in here asking what a Q-Tip is. Cotton tip swab
>> is universal.
>
> And "cotton-tipped swab" is semantical.
And "Cotton-Eyed Joe" is choreographical....r
Simon R. Hughes
Thus Spake Tony Cooper:
> "Robert Bannister" <rob...@it.net.au> wrote in message
>
> > > > > Some products are so unique that there is no generic. Is there
> a
> > > > > generic for "Velcro"?
> > > >
> > > > Velcro *is* the generic for "hook and loop" fastener.
> > > >
> > > Wha? So Cocoa Cola is the generic for soft drink?
> >
> > No, but 'coke' is for the many people that drink the stuff (as opposed
> > to inhaling through their nose).
>
> Velcro is a trademarked brand name and not a generic. Coke is a
> trademarked brand name and not a generic.
Judicially.
> There are people that use either/both as a generic word, but they are
> incorrect. Not that I will object, but the makers would.
Linguistically, there cannot be correct or incorrect -- people
simply use the word that they know will be understood.
No one can reasonably claim that the American "John" is incorrect
when referring to a pissoir, but John might not like the usage.
--
Simon R. Hughes
jan_...@hotmail.com
<shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>Linguistically, there cannot be correct or incorrect -- people
>simply use the word that they know will be understood.
>
>No one can reasonably claim that the American "John" is incorrect
>when referring to a pissoir, but John might not like the usage.
It depends upon which John is referred to. There is the John who
patronizes ladies of the night and the semi-anonymous John Doe who
represents the average guy. Is one of these guys addicted to being
pissed upon?
Jan Sand
Donna Richoux
>
> That's another example. If you called it a q-tip in that article and
> some readers were careful to buy Q-tips for their camera, that would
> be good for the Q-tip company.
But what reality has shown, is that the opposite is just as likely to
happen -- such use contributes to the idea that "a q-tip" is just the
name for any such thing, and people buy any old brand. You strung a
couple of suppositions together there, and they are not necessarily the
most likely events.
I've seen that idea expressed before -- that a company should be
deliriously happy to find that its name is so well-known that it is
widely used to mean "any product that resembles ours" -- but, in truth,
they're not. I think this mistaken belief must be part of what keeps
this discussion returning. Companies would be happy to be the leading
producer in their market, but they still benefit from people recognizing
their brand name as a distinct brand name! Why?
1) They don't want people thinking "all kleenex is kleenex" and buying
Meirman's Cheapo Facial Tissue thinking it is "just the same" as
Kimberly-Clark's Kleenex Brand. If Kimberly-Clark is going to all the
trouble of creating a product, establishing the brand, advertising,
doing research to have the latest and best in quality, manufacturing
techniqes, packaging, etc, then they want people to look for their brand
and buy it. They want to see sales. They want people to associate their
name with reliable, even undefinable, quality, and to look for it. It's
no fun doing all the work and allowing coat-tail imitators reap all the
rewards.
2) Legally, they know they could even lose the exclusive rights to the
name they created, if they make no move to protect it. This would make
them very unhappy. It is easier to make consistent small steps to
protect the trademark, than to deal with the nightmare of losing it
altogether.
So they know, there is such a thing as being too popular. They've
learned from the mistakes of the 19th and early 20th century.
As I said in another thread, it really helps to distinguish between
being "legally" generic (a legally generic term plays a specific role in
trademark law) and just being sort of "popularly" generic, the generic
term of the masses, the word that the public uses in a casual and
general sense -- which cannot be regulated, but can be influenced.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
M.J.Powell
Bignall <docr...@red.sylvania> writes
Do you remember putting Carbide in the ink-wells? Or setting fire to a
piece of film, blowing it out, then placing inside a desk to smoulder?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
And Flopsy, Mopsy, Topsy, Dropsy, Popsy, et al, and Cotton-Tail are
bunny-rabbitical. (Maybe I included a few too many there, but they do
breed fast.)
--
wrmst rgrds
RB...(docrobi...@ntlworld.com)
meirman
Wise" <illinoi...@mninter.net> posted:
>
>"Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:afdhsd$dgltu$1...@ID-113505.news.dfncis.de...
>> "Robert Bannister" <rob...@it.net.au> wrote in message
>>
>> > > > > Some products are so unique that there is no generic. Is there
>> a
>> > > > > generic for "Velcro"?
>> > > >
>> > > > Velcro *is* the generic for "hook and loop" fastener.
>> > > >
>> > > Wha? So Cocoa Cola is the generic for soft drink?
>> >
>> > No, but 'coke' is for the many people that drink the stuff (as opposed
>> > to inhaling through their nose).
>>
>> Velcro is a trademarked brand name and not a generic. Coke is a
>> trademarked brand name and not a generic.
>>
>> There are people that use either/both as a generic word, but they are
>> incorrect. Not that I will object, but the makers would.
>>
>
>
>Well, as has been pointed out elsewhere, a trademark is inherently
>adjectival. When someone says "This jacket closes with velcro" or "My
>favorite coke is Dr Pepper" or even "I like to drink Coke" they certainly
>aren't using "velcro" or "coke" or "Coke" as adjectives, which makes me
I can't tell by looking if it is velcro or not, but Coke usually comes
in a container, or from a dispenser, with a label. I would never call
something Coke that wasn't Coke, not because I care about trademarks
but because it's inaccurate. I wouldn't be surprised if other people
do. (I think cola is a generic term.)
>think that, technically, these words aren't being used as trademarks. The
>words "Bic" and "Biro" are trademarks, but they are also nouns used
>generically (and written without capitals) for ball-point pens (in France
>and Great Britain, respectively).
>
>If this line of reasoning is correct, however, it would seem that no company
>would ever have a legal justification for contacting an author and
>complaining about the use of "velcro," or "coke" as nouns. Hmm, perhaps they
>don't! :-) On the other hand, no one doubts that the Velcro company, for
>example, would have the legal right to object to a use such as " So-and-So's
>(R) velcro."
>
>"Cellophane" and "aspirin" are "officially" or "technically" generic.
>"Velcro" and "coke" are "unofficially" generic. You would prefer that it be
>stated in some other manner? How about "Velcro *is* used generically for
>'hook and loop fastener'"?
meirman
Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> posted:
>Robert Lipton wrote:
Q once stood for something, like sterile, I think, but I forget.