Great. Hope this is real. I'd be impressed if the real lawyers did this.
There was a follow up video, also good https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLWMQLMiTPk
Don't Say Velcro (2017)
91–100 of 175 posts
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#92Funnily 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).
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#93I'm not a lawyer, and I'm confused. Do they lose their trademark if it gets used generically, or if they don't try to prevent that? Because common sense would imply the former, but then this video would just be a big admission that they already lost, no? "Everywhere you go, you see this scratchy, hairy fastener and you say 'Hey, that's velcro!'"
You have to remember the purpose of trademarks -- they aren't primarily intended to benefit the trademark holder, they're intended as a consumer protection thing.
The idea is that you can rely on the name/packaging/etc. to actually indicate that the product was made by who you think it was made by.
If a trademark becomes generic enough, then it stops serving that purpose and so is no longer able to serve its protective function.
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#94Cute 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.
"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" mock suggestion in the second video.
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#95Velcro that. I intend to velcro velcro for the velcroing future.
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#96Related, 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 ?
I think it's an inflection thing. You unnaturally emphasize the word, pause a bit, and try to fight back conveying incredulousness with your facial expression.
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#97Related, 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 ?
Silly-but-true answer: When I'm reading stuff like that aloud and wish to both be silly and make a point, I just read it as "registeredtrademark", very fast.
Serious answer: You don't. You just leave it out in speech.
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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...
I think that if Velcro's effort were explicitly comparable to The Onion, it wouldn't really help their case.
That being said, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote some funny opinions, but he was a literal Supreme Court Justice and could do as he pleased.
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#99Cute 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.
[deleted]
Re: Don't Say Velcro (2017)
#100Related, 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.