Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don't Say Velcro (2017)

velcro.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 175 posts

Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)

#101

Post by Dwedit »

bitwize wrote: post #80
bradley13 wrote: post #5

Reminds me of the dark ages, when Xerox was so dominant in the copier market that people used their brand as a noun and a verb. They were threatened with loss of their trademark, because it had become so generic. So they had a massive publicity campaign, asking people to say "copy" instead of "xerox". Is this a uniquely US thing? In the UK, people always say "hoover" instead of "vacuum".

I think the "defend it or lose it" nature of trademarks may be a US wrinkle, but I'm not sure. During the 90s, Nintendo popularized the use of the term "game console" to avoid people's moms calling their competitors "Nintendos". Like Atari before them, their name had become synonymous with video games in general, something they wanted to avoid in order to protect their trademark. There are references to "consoles" be…

The manuals for the NES, SNES, and N64 never once used the term "Game Console". They exclusively called it the "Control Deck". It's not until the GameCube (2001) that they finally refer to the system as a "Console" in the user manual.

Does anyone know any people who actually called their consoles "Control Decks"?

Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)

#102

Post by zuminator »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #51
merelysounds wrote: post #28

Related, Google wrote a blog post[1] on a similar topic in 2006. As far as I know they've successfully avoided genericide and a 2017 lawsuit[2] ended with a ruling in their favor. Also, unsurprisingly, Adobe has a whole section in their trademarks page about photoshopping[3]: > Correct: The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software. > Incorrect: The image was photoshopped. [1]: https://googleblog.bl…

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/15... (from wikipedia sources) > plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence in this case to support a jury finding that the relevant public primarily understands the word "google" as a generic name for internet search engines and not as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular. I wonder what kind of evidence might actually be used.…

I think in Google's favor, their service is so utterly dominant[0] as a search engine that when someone asks you to google something they have a high expectation that it will be done on Google. As opposed to someone asking you to hoover up a mess but they don't really form an internal model of which vacuum cleaner you'll use, or asking to "borrow" a kleenex with no concern as to which brand of tissue you give them.

So even though you personally use DDG, surely there are still vastly more searches on Google than on all other search engines combined so there's no immediate danger of dilution.

I do have a question though for people familiar with trademark law. Why can't they just do away with the trademark dilution rule? So what if I want to go "rollerblading" on pair of K2s [1]? Why should Rollerblade be at risk of losing their trademark? Who is being served by this rule? It just seems to incentivize litigious behavior.

[0] https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share (note that they easily beat all other search engines combined

[1] https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/health-products/g46167391/b... (Good Housekeeping has no problem genericizing rollerblade all throughout this article. Perhaps unlike Velcro, Nordica is ok with this?)

Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)

#103

Post by miki123211 »

antender wrote: post #33
richie_adler wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Xerring"? Not "xeroxing"?

Yep, in Russian xerring (ксерить) sounds way better because "ox" part is rarely used in native words.

Polish does the same thing, ksero for the machine, kserować for the verb (wać is a somewhat common verb ending for the infinitive).

Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)

#104

Post by Nifty3929 »

I think this is one of those weird cases where they have to tell you the opposite of what they actually want, for legal reasons.

I think VELCRO(r) actually DOES want everybody to use their name the way it is commonly used - it's good for brand recognition.

But legally, retaining control of their brand requires them to clearly defend it from such generic use. This post is an example of that. If someone is using their brand in a way they don't want (like on a product not made by them), they can win a trademark case in court by pointing to posts like this.

Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)

#105

Post by grishka »

bradley13 wrote: post #5

Reminds me of the dark ages, when Xerox was so dominant in the copier market that people used their brand as a noun and a verb. They were threatened with loss of their trademark, because it had become so generic. So they had a massive publicity campaign, asking people to say "copy" instead of "xerox". Is this a uniquely US thing? In the UK, people always say "hoover" instead of "vacuum".

In Russian it did stick as a word for photocopiers (ксерокс), copies (ксерокопия) and the act of copying (ксерить, ксерокопировать) to this day.

At this point it's more of a legend, but it goes that the word we use for toilet, унитаз, is the brand name of the company that sold toilets in 19th century.

Scotch is one brand of adhesive tape but we call all such tape "скотч".

Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)

#106

Post by kube-system »

zuminator wrote: post #102
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/15... (from wikipedia sources) > plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence in this case to support a jury finding that the relevant public primarily understands the word "google" as a generic name for internet search engines and not as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular. I wonder what kind of evidence might actually be used.…

I think in Google's favor, their service is so utterly dominant[0] as a search engine that when someone asks you to google something they have a high expectation that it will be done on Google. As opposed to someone asking you to hoover up a mess but they don't really form an internal model of which vacuum cleaner you'll use, or asking to "borrow" a kleenex with no concern as to which brand of tissue you give them. S…

> I do have a question though for people familiar with trademark law. Why can't they just do away with the trademark dilution rule?

It’s not really a rule. It’s that genericization undermines the rationale for trademark protection.

Trademarks are granted to give a business exclusive use of an identifier in conjunction with a particular product or service in order to protect consumers from marketplace confusion.

For example, USPTO has granted a trademark for “iPhone” so that when consumers buy an “iPhone” they get what they expect. A phone made by Apple Inc. When people say “iPhone” they’re definitely talking about Apple Inc phones.

However, if consumers themselves don’t care, and they use a term to refer to any brand, even when they know it is from a different origin, then the word is no longer serving the purpose for which the trademark was granted.

Otis Elevator company doesn’t have a trademark on “Escalator” anymore because literally nobody cares what company manufactured the moving stairs they’re going up. Nobody is harmed, confused, or misled when other makes of moving stairs are called “escalators”.

Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)

#107

Post by tuetuopay »

alentred wrote: post #92

Funnily enough, even though vel-cro is a combination of two words in French (velour crochet), most people in France call it just "scratch" (as per the sound it makes).

I'm french and you taught me something today (velours-crochet), as I always called it scratch.

Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)

#108

Post by [deleted] »

Dwedit wrote: post #100
merelysounds wrote: post #28

Related, Google wrote a blog post[1] on a similar topic in 2006. As far as I know they've successfully avoided genericide and a 2017 lawsuit[2] ended with a ruling in their favor. Also, unsurprisingly, Adobe has a whole section in their trademarks page about photoshopping[3]: > Correct: The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software. > Incorrect: The image was photoshopped. [1]: https://googleblog.bl…

Actual photo shops existed before Adobe Photoshop.

[deleted]

Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)

#109

Post by 8jef »

And that explains why lawyers will never get love or sympathy from most living creatures. They'll always have to sue for getting any kind of consideration. In my ideal world, they don't exist at all, or they're called mediators.

But let's be clear: this is an ad. And ad folks are the worst, worst than lawyer, just a notch above dirt. And btw, not buying velcro products anymore.

Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)

#110

Post by kube-system »

dathinab wrote: post #31
1f60c wrote: post #19

(2017), according to https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/09/26/velcros-video... They're trying to avoid genericide. I think if they didn't do this, they could actually lose the trademark .

but can they really stop it? I mean in most cases where a term becomes "generic" it has been long time generic before at some point someone bothers to make a study/lawsuit which declares it as generic as result. For example pretty much everyone I know uses Lego as a generic term and knows about not Lego produced bricks. Currently Lego still managed to defend the trademark but IMHO it's just a matter of time until it…

Maybe. It’s an uphill battle, but if they start now at least they’ll be generating evidence in their favor for the inevitable trials to come. But it may be too late. Most companies that have done this successfully have started a bit earlier.
Post reply on HN