- Joined
- Mar 30, 2009
- Messages
- 10,404
- Reaction score
- 27,613
Well, in certain circumstances, it makes sense. By way of example, "flip phone" was originally a Motorola trademark ("clamshell design"). Clearly, "flip phone" is distinguishable from "Velcro," "Xerox," or "Advil" which, in and of themselves, mean nothing. Specifically, "flip phone" is descriptive. You could see how a competitor's inability to use the term "flip phone" as a descriptor would be detrimental to competition.
In other circumstances, it is a shame when a strong trademark (i.e., a "fanciful" (Reebok) or "arbitrary" (Apple) mark) is genericized, because typically it is a direct result of that company's success.
In other circumstances, it is a shame when a strong trademark (i.e., a "fanciful" (Reebok) or "arbitrary" (Apple) mark) is genericized, because typically it is a direct result of that company's success.