In French c'est "le scratch".
Better than hook and loop!
Don't Say Velcro (2017)
81–90 of 175 posts
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
"Ridiculous", really ? Does my statement meet the threshold of ridiculous ? Funnily enough, I've never seen a funny legal brief.
The Onion filed one: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/2022...
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#83Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#84Related, 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)
#85Related, 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 wonder what kind of evidence might actually be used.
IANAL, but perhaps the dividing line isn't whether or not the term is commonly used as a generic one, but whether people are not generally aware that it's a brand name. I wasn't aware that "Velcro" was a brand name for a long time, for instance.
I think the majority of people using "google" generically are also fully aware that "Google" is a brand name.
So the evidence would be some sort of study showing that people think it's really generic?
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#86Cute 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.
> 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.
Nah, it happens in Dutch too. Aspirine for example is commonly used for the generic medicine, even though it's a brand name. (Hell, it's sometimes even used as a general term for a light over-the-counter pain killer like paracetamol.)
TomTom is also sometimes used for general navigation systems, though that has been going downhill as fast as the company.
"Googlen" is used too in the general sense. Google does have a huge market share, so it's usually correct, but people do "google on Bing".
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I suspect as long as they don’t allow competitors to genericize the trademark they’ll be ok. After all there are regions where all soda is called “coke” and that trademark hasn’t been lost.
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.
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#88Transformers do not transform but convert in Hasbro’s marketing and licensed materials, and strictly speaking they’re not even supposed to be Transformers but Transformers robots (which grammatically is wrong, but alas). Except, for whatever valid reason, inside the fiction, where Transformers becomes a perfectly valid noun they refer themselves with and they do transform, not convert, all day long. I don’t get it.
The decision to avoid use of the verb "to transform" is recent (2000s or 2010s), and probably due to legal troubles Hasbro's lawyers don't want to get into again. Recent Transformers media do eschew the usage of "transform" as a verb, preferring "convert" or "change form" instead. The part (organ?) that Cybertronians have that facilitates changing shape also had its name changed, from "transformation cog" in G1 to "conversion cog" in the War for Cybertron game. And Optimus Prime saying "Autobots, transform and roll out!" has gone the way of Mario saying "Yahoo!" (Nintendo feared trademark suits from the internet company Yahoo!).
The funny thing is, back in the days when Transformers transformed, their rivals the GoBots converted.
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#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 encourage the use of google.
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect as long as they don’t allow competitors to genericize the trademark they’ll be ok. After all there are regions where all soda is called “coke” and that trademark hasn’t been lost.
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.