Don't Say Velcro (2017)(velcro.com) |
Don't Say Velcro (2017)(velcro.com) |
This must be a page for VELCRO®’s lawyers to point to during relevant lawsuits because the argument otherwise seems like a lost cause.
The funny thing is, back in the days when Transformers transformed, their rivals the GoBots converted.
It won’t work, but legally if they don’t make an effort then they lose it by default.
There was a follow up video, also good https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLWMQLMiTPk
Better than hook and loop!
We call it klittenband.. tangle band. Or tangle strip
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericize...
Klett comes from Arctium a plant with similar features (I guess) and verschluss is like the english term fastener or clasp.
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.
The Lego Group's material says that you are never to use Lego as a noun. It's always "Lego bricks", "Lego sets", "Lego minifigures", etc.
Colloquially, they don't really care what you call them, plural or singular.
Defending and suing helps keep it in the middle ground, but they're not going to sue Pat on the street for misusing the word -- which is where generic comes from, right?
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.blogspot.com/2006/10/do-you-google.html
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_litigation#Genericide_o...
[3]: https://www.adobe.com/legal/permissions/trademarks.html
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.
I guarantee you marketing teams at Adobe will use that term.
> 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. My lived experience has me telling people that I googled something despite my default search engine being DDG on all of my devices. One can’t really present the myriad spoken conversations which include this use as evidence in court, so what would they do?
Slightly aside: the “correct” examples that are given are always amusing but there’s something about Adobe’s double copyright symbol that hits me harder. That is too funny, not least because they’re 100% serious-face about it.
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?)
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?
Dumb question: how would you pronounce this if you were saying it ? Specifically the ® symbol ?
Serious answer: You don't. You just leave it out in speech.
Ridiculous.
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.
They are desperately trying to make it _not_ the abbreviation this comment claims it to be. Quite like "kleenex" in that way.
Normal people generally shouldn't care what the company's legal team wants or thinks--this campaign certainly doesn't stop me from using the term generically--but if the company defends its trademark in this way, it can extend the time _other_ _companies_ can use it as a generic description of what it does.
Velcro is the right word.
Xerox is acceptable but not what I reach for first.
Kleenex just sounds wrong. It's tissue and always has been.
Maybe it's a regional thing? NorCal.
You're arguing against a claim I didn't make. I simply said it's an abbreviation for a French phrase (the inventor was a French speaking swiss). Contractions of this sort are more common in French than straight acronyms, which tend to be more common in English. I didn't say it was some pre-existing word.
HooLoo? I think another company may object to that name.
They're trying to avoid genericide. I think if they didn't do this, they could actually lose the trademark.
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 becomes generic because it already defacto is and the only reason they still avoid it becoming generic is protectionism.
After all there are regions where all soda is called “coke” and that trademark hasn’t been lost.
Is this a uniquely US thing? In the UK, people always say "hoover" instead of "vacuum".
It's a free, cheap, and easy way to fight back.
To the great annoyance of many, I even usually google for things with DuckDuckGo. :)
I understand why they’re doing it and maybe in 2017 general mood was a bit different but right now there are people who would absolutely love to diminish the importance of a brand or two first thing in the morning even before their coffee. And they’re giving them ideas for free.
>Correct: I just bought some self-fastening shoes!
I will never say that
My n=1 experience is that when shopping for "hook and loop" strips online, I make sure that they are actual Velcro.
Beyond useless, I think that the attempt is misguided.
I get it, but still, that's the law for you. The most of us will still say Velcro because it's what we all know it as.
Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericize...
I fear that whilst velcroing items I will forget the need to not mention velcro as in to velcro or the thing velcro itself and the words the VELCRO™ lawyers said about not saying velcro will slip from my mind like poorly velcroed shoes.
Does anyone else think their use of velcro in casual conversation will be affected? Has anyone tried to use velcro and suffered any fall out? I might have to Google it.
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.
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!'"
If 3M comes out with their own hook-and-loop fastener and calls it "3M Velcro", the court would say "you can't sue 3M over this since you clearly don't care when people say Velcro". This whole video is just to establish precedent.
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.
Speaking of velcro shoes, I inherited some velcro fastening trainers because my eldest kid felt he'd grown out of using them (he has the same size foot as me). I feel very self conscious wearing them in public because nobody wears velcro trainers. In the 6 months I've had them, I've been keeping an eye out in a busy European city, and I've seen just 1 person and that was a sort of work uniform shoe some guy had. Nobody has "fashion" velcro shoes. They do look kinda goofy I suppose.
Seems to me (despite the almost certainly valid legal points in the comments here) that the Velcro one is a bit tongue-in-cheek whereas I was slightly taken aback at how direct and earnest the Prosecco one seemed.
Net result will be the same though, I suspect.
[0] https://euroweeklynews.com/2023/12/26/italy-warns-britons-to...
I started watching the first video with a large amount of skepticism (soulless company paying millions to create viral video about something I couldn't care less about), but I really couldn't help but like both the videos and the company itself more now. Well done, I guess.
* on the face of it, they are reminding people to not use their brand in a generic sense
* they also loaded it up with cutesy language. Maybe it is the most “meme-able” stuff legal would approve. “Don’t talk about me” is the best way to get talked about.
One of my least favourite thing is when massive corporations use this kind of cutesy language. To me, it brings to mind the wolf from Little Red Riding hood wearing her grandmother's clothes.
If the sentence was honest, it'd be something more like:
> Us lawyers are paid money to facilitate the VELCRO megacorp to make even more money. If you threaten the megacorp by misusing our trademark, we will sue you into the ground, no matter who you are, and regardless of whether it's the "right thing" or not.
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 always called a "Durit" whatever its brand.
A modular pre-made, stackable non permanent housing module is an "Algeco".
A bus stop with a roof is called an Abribus.
A supermarket trolley is almost always called a Caddie.
A credit card is universally called a "Carte Bleue" or CB, to the point that people will happily use the nonsensical "CB" acronym for a credit card when speaking English.
Cellophane is called Cellophane. I don't even know of an another word for it :)
- 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".
Sure, it is also klaxon, cellophane and scotch.
Interesting, that champagne is the only case I know that won the fight. My friends often say sparkling wine for generic brands.
This floor is made of floor
shaving razor -> gilete (instead of "lâmina de barbear")
chewing gum -> chiclete (instead of "goma de mascar")
cotton swab -> cotonete (a J&J brand, instead of "haste flexível")
polystyrene -> isopor (a Knauf brand, instead of "esferovite" or "poliestireno expandido")
Xerox is a curious thing here. It is a so strong synonym to photocopy that almost no one remembers that it is a brand (at least, I don't remember seeing in person any Xerox device). It is so strong that xerox also means the shops were the photocopies are made.
Just place Google Maps over São Paulo, search for "xerox" and see what happens
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" before this happened, dating back to the early 80s, but in everyday language most kids called them "video game systems" or by their brand names (Atari, Nintendo, Sega, etc.).
Does anyone know any people who actually called their consoles "Control Decks"?
https://www.dicio.com.br/xerocar/ https://dicionario.priberam.org/xerocar
No, in Russia people have been xerring documents since photocopiers appeared there.
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".
Cynically, I wonder if they intentionally chose an alternative that they know is a dud. They clearly do benefit from people calling it Velcro, they just can’t have a trademark judge thinking that they want people to call it Velcro.
In any case, the video is quite fun and well done. If you take it as a marketing campaign without putting too much weight on the legal strategy, it’s smart and well-executed on their part.
Surely you know from reading the article that it's actually "Velcro® Brand". It's easier to follow than most telenovelas. We get it, hook and loop isn’t in our everyday vocabulary, but calling it Velcro (TM) just wouldn’t be true.
Turns out judges used to be lawyers and are pretty good at reading between the lines, too.
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.
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".
A long long time ago I built a robot out of a garbage can to celebrate this weird connection: https://youtu.be/LFD63moEUkw?si=qDQ54dVNIvOG8nrM
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”.
We really need to come up with another term that is more generic but just as snappy and easy to say as "googling".
"Coca-Cola", however, is distinctive on its own and is trademarkable as such.
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.
https://www.gerbenlaw.com/trademarks/food-companies/coca-col...
Trademarks are all about context. Exxon used to have a cartoon tiger as a mascot who sometimes looked a bit like Tony the Tiger. This was usually fine because the contexts were pretty different, one was for foods and one was for gasoline, radically different product markets. However, once Exxon started using their cartoon tiger mascot to sell the foods in the TigerMart convenience stores Kellog sued them and won.
https://www.forbes.com/2000/10/17/1017forbes500.html?sh=6a04...
If I go to a restaurant and ask for "Coke" they're not going to get confused and grab me some coal. I'd be pretty confused to open a red 12oz can that says Coke on it and find it full of coal dust. Nobody is confusing these products.
Nintendo also referred to their cartridges as Game Paks, another term not used outside official Nintendo materials (including Nintendo Power). Everybody just called them cartridges, carts, or just games. It kind of reminds me of how Texas Instruments tried to get "Command Module" over as a term for their TI-99/4(A) cartridges. It didn't go over.
Oddly enough, the official TI-ism for the 99/4A unit itself was "console".
