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

111–120 of 175 posts

Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)

#111

Post by tuetuopay »

wazoox wrote: post #68
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 France many trademarks became generic names: Frigidaire and its abbreviated form frigo is the standard name for a refrigerator (nobody ever says "réfrigérateur"). Kleenex is the standard word meaning "paper handkerchief". Sopalin is the standard word for "roll of paper towels". Many automotive parts are called from a brand name too : "Delco" is the only name an igniter is ever called; a flexible black tube is alwa…

Don't forget

- bic for a ball pen

- scotch for duct tape

- kalxon for a car honk

- rubalise for the white-and-red tape used in streets

- mobylette for that very specific old style scooter

- pédalo for the floating thingy on the beaches with pedals

As for cellophane I always called it "film plastique" or just "plastique", but this varies a lot from region to region and family to family.

As for Durit, it's actually a bit more interesting as the brand was genericised to "durite". It's so prevalent that we have expressions using it like "péter une durite" as a way to say "going crazy".

Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)

#112

Post by hx8 »

8jef wrote: post #109

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.

What exactly is so awful about this advertisement that it will cause you to never buy a product? It seemed super normal to me, do you just never buy products that advertise, or buy products that advertise using actors playing a lawyer?

Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)

#113

Post by kube-system »

JohnFen wrote: post #90
vel0city wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a region where lots of people refer to most colas as "coke", but you bet if I start selling cola in a red can with "Coke" on it I'm going to have some lawyers showing up at my door.

This. I don't think that "coke" on its own can be trademarked because it's an actual common word (a form of coal). The trademark would have to be the word in combination with other aspects that make it distinctive. The color scheme, or font, or associated decorative elements, for instance. "Coca-Cola", however, is distinctive on its own and is trademarkable as such.

> I don't think that "coke" on its own can be trademarked because it's an actual common word (a form of coal).

That wouldn’t be relevant unless you were actually talking about the form of coal.

Although many people say in shorthand that "[word] is trademarked.", trademarks are not “on a word” they’re on a particular use of a word. “coke” when referring to a beverage is mostly not a generic word. (Except maybe in the southern US :) )

For example "Apple" is trademarked in reference to computer hardware/software, etc. It isn't in reference to the fruit.

Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)

#114

Post by kube-system »

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).

That’s pretty damn creative as far as trademarks go. “Apple” and “Windows” were just borrowed completely.

Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)

#115

Post by cratermoon »

gumby wrote: post #89

« Velcro » is just roughly short for “hook (and) loop” in French (Velour et crochet — velvet and hook). So why not use the abbreviation? Trademarking it is like trademarking any common word, like Windows. Actually I do have some sympathy; from working at Xerox I somehow was convinced to say “photocopy” (not that anyone uses either expression any more). And I always say “web search” because I don’t want to endorse or…

HoLo?

Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)

#116

Post by api_or_ipa »

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 Canada an in-sink garbage disposal unit is called a Garburator. I recently learned that’s a brand name of said devices. I’ve lived in the states for a while now, but I’m entirely unsure what everyone calls them down here.

Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)

#117

Post by cratermoon »

That ship has (mostly) sailed, but companies have lost their brand rights for failing to police uses. Did you know Aspirin was once a brand name for the acetylsalicylic acid product Bayer invented?

Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)

#118

Post by culebron21 »

orthoxerox wrote: post #12
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".

> Is this a uniquely US thing? No, in Russia people have been xerring documents since photocopiers appeared there.

You should add that kserokopiya (xerocopy) has been in laws for ages. Like "to have the car insurance original or xerocopy".

Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)

#119

Post by sangnoir »

gumby wrote: post #89

« Velcro » is just roughly short for “hook (and) loop” in French (Velour et crochet — velvet and hook). So why not use the abbreviation? Trademarking it is like trademarking any common word, like Windows. Actually I do have some sympathy; from working at Xerox I somehow was convinced to say “photocopy” (not that anyone uses either expression any more). And I always say “web search” because I don’t want to endorse or…

> So why not use the abbreviation?

HooLoo? I think another company may object to that name.

Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)

#120

Post by smegger001 »

kube-system wrote: post #106
zuminator wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

Ironicly your example is one where Apple initially used someone else's trademarked brandname. IPhone had been initially owned and used by infogear and later was acquired by Cisco and used for a line of VoIP connected phones. Apple tried to negotiate a deal for the name but announced the Apple iPhone before they had actually finished negotiations over the name. Leading to a large legal battle that was eventually settled out of court where both companies were allowed to sell phones under the trademarked iPhone name.
Post reply on HN