Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nobody's going to move (back?) to "hook-and-loop," […] I do, depending on the audience — I'm fine with hook-and-loop. In general I try to avoid generic trademarks whenever reasonable. In English this takes more effort; in Dutch this isn't too much of an issue. No native Dutch speaker would consider calling an 'ijsdweilmachine' a 'zamboni', for example. It seems that this is very much a US English thing to do.
"Hook-and-loop" is a crappy name for it in English because it conveys an image of someone physically performing a hooking and looping action, like the old-timey hobby, latch hooking[0]. But the action you perform is really just either pressing together or pulling apart. The fact that the mechanism is comprised of tiny hooks and loops isn't really germane to how it works on a macro level. I quite like the "fur tape" m…
Don't Say Velcro (2017)
121–130 of 175 posts
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#122Cute attempt, but Velcro/velcro has already been genericised for decades at this point. Nobody's going to move (back?) to "hook-and-loop," especially when the alternative rolls off the tongue a lot better.
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#123I 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…
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#124Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 settl…
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#126In many other languages it is called "burdock tape" after the plant whose burrs was the inspiration behind the invention of velcro.
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#127Related, 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…
> Correct: The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software. This makes me laugh every time I read it. Surely, even the lawyers at Adobe are fully aware that literally nobody is going to use that mouthful of a term (complete with ®s, even). I always wonder why they didn't come up with a replacement that would actually have a chance.
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#128« 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)
#129Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#130Related, 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…
> Correct: The image was enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software. Dumb question: how would you pronounce this if you were saying it ? Specifically the ® symbol ?
Ridiculous.