[HN Gopher] Don't Say Velcro (2017)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Don't Say Velcro (2017)
        
       Author : sickmate
       Score  : 89 points
       Date   : 2023-12-29 13:28 UTC (9 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.velcro.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.velcro.com)
        
       | Zekio wrote:
       | they should've had a longer name if they didn't want to become a
       | noun
        
       | voidee wrote:
       | "Still confused?" LOL, yes!
        
       | neals wrote:
       | So, you can either try to change what's in the vocabulary of 300
       | million people for generations. Or change your brand name. They
       | chose the first. Interesting.
        
         | OliveMate wrote:
         | That's trade mark laws for you. If you don't try and protect
         | your trade mark at every opportunity it can be stripped from
         | you and every Tom, Dick, and Harry can put out whatever they
         | want with your name/term.
         | 
         | 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...
        
       | bradley13 wrote:
       | Reminds me of the dark ages, when Xerox was so dominant in the
       | copier market that people used their brand as a noun and a verb.
       | They were threatened with loss of their trademark, because it had
       | become so generic. So they had a massive publicity campaign,
       | asking people to say "copy" instead of "xerox".
       | 
       | Is this a uniquely US thing? In the UK, people always say
       | "hoover" instead of "vacuum".
        
         | orthoxerox wrote:
         | > Is this a uniquely US thing?
         | 
         | No, in Russia people have been xerring documents since
         | photocopiers appeared there.
        
           | richie_adler wrote:
           | "Xerring"? Not "xeroxing"?
        
             | antender wrote:
             | Yep, in Russian xerring (kserit') sounds way better because
             | "ox" part is rarely used in native words.
        
               | richie_adler wrote:
               | TIL. Thanks!
        
               | miki123211 wrote:
               | Polish does the same thing, ksero for the machine,
               | kserowac for the verb (wac is a somewhat common verb
               | ending for the infinitive).
        
           | notpushkin wrote:
           | Username checks out, haha.
        
           | culebron21 wrote:
           | You should add that kserokopiya (xerocopy) has been in laws
           | for ages. Like "to have the car insurance original or
           | xerocopy".
        
         | cassianoleal wrote:
         | In Brazil, "xerox" is synonym with copy and is used in pretty
         | much any context where the latter word makes sense (even if
         | it's not a copy of a document). The verb "xerocar" derives from
         | it, and even appears in dictionaries.
         | 
         | https://www.dicio.com.br/xerocar/
         | https://dicionario.priberam.org/xerocar
        
         | EvanAnderson wrote:
         | Always a good time to share this:
         | https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000002847155/verbat...
        
         | lucasoshiro wrote:
         | This happens a lot here in Brazil. Some brands are so famous
         | that they are synonyms of some products, e. g. Gillette (razor
         | blade), Bom Bril (steel wool), Insulfim (window film) and so
         | on.
         | 
         | 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 Sao Paulo, search for "xerox" and
         | see what happens
        
         | wazoox wrote:
         | In France many trademarks became generic names:
         | 
         | Frigidaire and its abbreviated form frigo is the standard name
         | for a refrigerator (nobody ever says "refrigerateur").
         | 
         | 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 :)
        
           | rzzzt wrote:
           | Escalator was a trademark registered by Otis, the company
           | that made those stairs-go-up devices: https://en.wikipedia.or
           | g/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericize...
        
           | tuetuopay wrote:
           | Don't forget
           | 
           | - 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
           | 
           | - pedalo 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 "peter une durite" as a way to
           | say "going crazy".
        
           | firebat45 wrote:
           | >Cellophane is called Cellophane.
           | 
           | This floor is made of floor
        
           | Biganon wrote:
           | I'm Swiss (French speaking) and I call cellophane "saran",
           | which... is another brand!
        
           | theragra wrote:
           | In Russian we also do this 1uite a lot. Xerox, google and
           | photoshop are absolutely normal for activities. Also, thermos
           | for vacuum flask. Dandy is a term for NES clones. doshirak or
           | rolton for ramen noodles. Fairy for dish washing liquid.
           | 
           | 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.
        
         | frozenlettuce wrote:
         | In Brazil it is still used as a photocopy term (much easier to
         | say "tirar uma xerox" than "tirar uma fotocopia"). Other common
         | terms that we use that came from brands:
         | 
         | shaving razor -> gilete (instead of "lamina de barbear")
         | 
         | chewing gum -> chiclete (instead of "goma de mascar")
         | 
         | cotton swab -> cotonete (a J&J brand, instead of "haste
         | flexivel")
         | 
         | polystyrene -> isopor (a Knauf brand, instead of "esferovite"
         | or "poliestireno expandido")
        
         | bitwize wrote:
         | I think the "defend it or lose it" nature of trademarks may be
         | a US wrinkle, but I'm not sure.
         | 
         | 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.).
        
           | Dwedit wrote:
           | The manuals for the NES, SNES, and N64 never once used the
           | term "Game Console". They exclusively called it the "Control
           | Deck". It's not until the GameCube (2001) that they finally
           | refer to the system as a "Console" in the user manual.
           | 
           | Does anyone know any people who actually called their
           | consoles "Control Decks"?
        
             | bitwize wrote:
             | Again, Control Deck was how they branded their own
             | products. In the 90s they ran advertisements advising
             | people to refer to their competitors' products as game
             | consoles. I don't remember anyone using the term "Control
             | Deck" to refer to the console.
             | 
             | 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".
        
               | Dwedit wrote:
               | The famous 1990 ad saying "There's no such thing as a
               | Nintendo"
               | https://images.nintendolife.com/16326a1099812/no-such-
               | thing-... does not mention "Consoles". Do you know of any
               | 90s Nintendo ads that do use the word Console?
        
               | bitwize wrote:
               | It was one of those things I could've sworn I saw at the
               | time. It would've been later than that one, and I swear
               | it was Nintendo urging the use of the term console. It
               | could be something else, or I might be misremembering
               | entirely.
        
         | grishka wrote:
         | In Russian it did stick as a word for photocopiers (kseroks),
         | copies (kserokopiia) and the act of copying (kserit',
         | kserokopirovat') to this day.
         | 
         | At this point it's more of a legend, but it goes that the word
         | we use for toilet, unitaz, 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
         | "skotch".
        
           | kevin_thibedeau wrote:
           | Other than kseroks, the other uses can be considered valid
           | applications of the Greek root words.
        
         | api_or_ipa wrote:
         | In Canada an in-sink garbage disposal unit is called a
         | Garburator. I recently learned that's a brand name of said
         | devices. I've lived in the states for a while now, but I'm
         | entirely unsure what everyone calls them down here.
        
       | jsymolon wrote:
       | Going to have to xerox this for my wall.
        
         | mcphage wrote:
         | Someone ought to give them a kleenex for all of their boo-
         | hooing.
        
           | shafyy wrote:
           | Some young folks probably need to google what xeroxing means
        
             | theGeatZhopa wrote:
             | But after the changing pampers, please.
        
             | EvanAnderson wrote:
             | It is the Cadillac of search engines, after all-- a real
             | doozy.
        
               | peterleiser wrote:
               | I laughed so hard that I needed a bandaid.
        
         | CharlesW wrote:
         | Whoa buddy, let's do a quick zoom first.
        
       | verandaguy wrote:
       | Cute 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.
        
         | vanviegen wrote:
         | That may not matter to Velcro (TM). As long as they're publicly
         | making attempts to defend their trademark, perhaps that is
         | enough for them to keep legal rights to it.
        
           | boringuser2 wrote:
           | It doesn't read like an honest attempt, it reads like a
           | tongue-in-cheek parody of one.
           | 
           | Turns out judges used to be lawyers and are pretty good at
           | reading between the lines, too.
        
           | mathgeek wrote:
           | > That may not matter to Velcro (TM)
           | 
           | Surely you know from reading the article that it's actually
           | "Velcro(r) 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.
        
             | bitwize wrote:
             | "I am stuck on Band-Aid(r) brand, 'cause Band-Aid(r)'s
             | stuck on me!"
        
         | paulgb wrote:
         | > Nobody's going to move (back?) to "hook-and-loop," especially
         | when the alternative rolls off the tongue a lot better.
         | 
         | 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.
        
         | Freak_NL wrote:
         | > 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.
        
           | lucumo wrote:
           | 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".
        
           | zuminator wrote:
           | "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.
           | 
           | [0] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4MDeHa_1C-w
        
             | pavon wrote:
             | Yeah. If someone was to say their clothes had hook-and-loop
             | fastener, I would never think of velcro. I would think of
             | the metal hooks and loops (or eyes) on bra straps, old
             | jackets, dress pants, etc.
        
         | Tyr42 wrote:
         | I know the first robotics competitions exclusively refer to
         | hook tape and loop tape as needed in their specifications.
        
       | VoodooJuJu wrote:
       | I can't tell if this is good marketing disguised as a joke or if
       | it's just mega-out-of-touch cringe.
        
         | esprehn wrote:
         | The former, but also it's CYA.
        
       | asylteltine wrote:
       | This is literally a psyop. This is free marketing. Don't fall for
       | it.
        
       | pard68 wrote:
       | This is humor, right?
        
         | mycodendral wrote:
         | yes, a cheeky CYA
        
       | tunnuz wrote:
       | I'm assuming this is meant to be a joke.
        
         | mingus88 wrote:
         | No I think this is a good faith effort to protect their
         | trademark
         | 
         | It won't work, but legally if they don't make an effort then
         | they lose it by default.
        
       | liquidise wrote:
       | (2017)
        
       | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
       | Similarly, many people who own vacuum cleaners which aren't
       | Hoover-branded still own hoovers and many chocolate and creme
       | sandwich cookies which aren't Oreo-branded are still oreos. I
       | think some people in the US will refer to drinks which I call
       | "soda" as "coke". Like a "Sprite-coke" if you don't want a cola.
       | 
       | This must be a page for VELCRO(r)'s lawyers to point to during
       | relevant lawsuits because the argument otherwise seems like a
       | lost cause.
        
       | 1f60c wrote:
       | (2017), according to
       | https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/09/26/velcros-video...
       | 
       | They're trying to avoid genericide. I think if they _didn 't_ do
       | this, they could actually _lose the trademark_.
        
         | dathinab wrote:
         | 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 becomes generic because it already
         | defacto is and the only reason they still avoid it becoming
         | generic is protectionism.
        
           | bombcar wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | vel0city wrote:
             | 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.
        
               | JohnFen wrote:
               | 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.
        
               | kube-system wrote:
               | > I don't think that "coke" on its own can be trademarked
               | because it's an actual common word (a form of coal).
               | 
               | 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.
        
               | vel0city wrote:
               | The Coca-Cola Company absolutely has a registered
               | trademark of Coke for a ton of different products.
               | 
               | 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=6
               | a04...
               | 
               | 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.
        
               | bombcar wrote:
               | I've noticed more of laces don't even ask "Is Pepsi ok?"
               | which might be where things start to fall apart.
        
           | chrismorgan wrote:
           | Yes. Xerox is one example of a company that succeeded with
           | their marketing campaign in a lot of the world. I understand
           | that in Australia one used to xerox documents, but now you
           | certainly photocopy them. In India they still xerox
           | documents.
        
           | kube-system wrote:
           | Maybe. It's an uphill battle, but if they start now at least
           | they'll be generating evidence in their favor for the
           | inevitable trials to come. But it may be too late. Most
           | companies that have done this successfully have started a bit
           | earlier.
        
         | jordanpg wrote:
         | Yes. This video is now required viewing in intro trademark
         | classes at law schools to illustrate this point.
        
       | CodinM wrote:
       | ah let me get into my jeep to get some xeroxes of my opinion and
       | drive to give them some kleenexes
        
       | jbverschoor wrote:
       | Americans tend to use brand names instead of the words for
       | things.. Xerox, Velcro etc...
       | 
       | We call it klittenband.. tangle band. Or tangle strip
        
         | dchest wrote:
         | Not only Americans, xerox is a word for copier in other
         | languages. In Mongolia, it's canon instead.
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericize...
        
       | TobyTheDog123 wrote:
       | Velcro!
        
       | nmstoker wrote:
       | Oh goodness, will this hasten the velcropolipse?
       | 
       | 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(tm) 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.
        
       | colesantiago wrote:
       | v e l c r o (r)
        
       | merelysounds wrote:
       | Related, 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(r) Photoshop(r)
       | 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
        
         | Faaak wrote:
         | > Correct: The image was enhanced with Adobe(r) Photoshop(r)
         | Elements software.
         | 
         | Dumb question: how would you pronounce this if you were saying
         | it ? Specifically the (r) symbol ?
        
           | PopAlongKid wrote:
           | "R in circle". Just like copyright is "C in circle".
        
             | Freak_NL wrote:
             | I can just imagine actors on some TV show saying this
             | because the corporate sponsors demanded 'correct usage'.
        
               | bitwize wrote:
               | In Ren & Stimpy comics, Powdered Toast Man always
               | referred to the product for which he was named as
               | Powdered Toast(r) or Powdered Toast(tm). I always took
               | that as a hint that he pronounced the marks somehow.
        
             | PopAlongKid wrote:
             | Why the downvotes for such a simple, factual statement that
             | answered the question? If you do an internet search for the
             | phrase "C in circle" you'll find it is a quite common way
             | to describe this symbol. On the Wikipedia talk page,
             | someone mentioned hearing this description in their school
             | textbooks which were recorded in an audio version. Way back
             | when I volunteered for Recording for the Blind (now
             | Learning Ally) I recall that this was also the designated
             | way to read this symbol.
        
           | Gare wrote:
           | By saying adobeisaregisteredtrademarkofadobecorporation very
           | fast :)
        
           | bitwize wrote:
           | Unicode's name for it is REGISTERED SIGN. It's usually silent
           | when part of a brand name, though.
        
           | dfxm12 wrote:
           | 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.
        
           | danaris wrote:
           | 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.
        
           | firebat45 wrote:
           | Going by the Velcro website, you should be saying "Adobe
           | Brand Photoshop Brand Elements software".
           | 
           | Ridiculous.
        
         | lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
         | 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. 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.
        
           | phreack wrote:
           | Law is weird, but in real life people use google as a verb
           | meaning "search on the internet" every single time. When a
           | public figure says something like "look it up on Google"
           | instead of "google it" (and you an almost hear the (c) in the
           | former), that almost always means they've been in long talks
           | with Google representatives about an ad campaign and they
           | urged the speaker to not use the brand as a verb.
        
           | JohnFen wrote:
           | > 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?
        
           | zuminator wrote:
           | I think in Google's favor, their service is so utterly
           | dominant[0] as a search engine that when someone asks you to
           | google something they have a high expectation that it will be
           | done on Google. As opposed to someone asking you to hoover up
           | a mess but they don't really form an internal model of which
           | vacuum cleaner you'll use, or asking to "borrow" a kleenex
           | with no concern as to which brand of tissue you give them.
           | 
           | 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?)
        
             | kube-system wrote:
             | > 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 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".
        
               | smegger001 wrote:
               | 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 settled out of court
               | where both companies were allowed to sell phones under
               | the trademarked iPhone name.
        
               | kube-system wrote:
               | And speaking of Cisco, "IOS" for that matter too.
        
         | JohnFen wrote:
         | > Correct: The image was enhanced with Adobe(r) Photoshop(r)
         | 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 (r)s, even).
         | 
         | I always wonder why they didn't come up with a replacement that
         | would actually have a chance.
        
           | somedude895 wrote:
           | Because they don't care whether people actually do it, nor is
           | it realistic that they would. I'm sure the person who wrote
           | that "correct" option made it that silly on purpose and
           | laughed on pushing Publish.
        
           | aidenn0 wrote:
           | > 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 (r)s,
           | even).
           | 
           | I guarantee you marketing teams at Adobe will use that term.
        
           | NegativeK wrote:
           | People with enough reach to be worth suing will write it that
           | way, or close enough.
        
         | Dwedit wrote:
         | Actual photo shops existed before Adobe Photoshop.
        
       | HL33tibCe7 wrote:
       | > Us lawyers have to protect our people. Using the VELCRO(r)
       | trademark properly allows us to protect the integrity of the
       | VELCRO(r) Brand and our trademark rights, and protect consumers
       | from purchasing products incorrectly identified as VELCRO(r)
       | Brand products. It's, you know, the right thing to do.
       | 
       | 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.
        
       | burrish wrote:
       | >Incorrect: I just bought some velcro shoes!
       | 
       | >Correct: I just bought some self-fastening shoes!
       | 
       | I will never say that
        
       | Findecanor wrote:
       | In many other languages it is called "burdock tape" after the
       | plant whose burrs was the inspiration behind the invention of
       | velcro.
        
         | tmtvl wrote:
         | I'm just gonna call it "burtape" from now on. Easier to say
         | than "hook-and-loop".
        
       | mrangle wrote:
       | Imagine launching a campaign aimed at reducing brand dominance.
       | 
       | 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.
        
       | docdeek wrote:
       | No problem in France - the generic term for Velcro here is
       | 'scratch'.
        
         | entropie wrote:
         | Klettverschluss in germany.
         | 
         | Klett comes from Arctium a plant with similar features (I
         | guess) and verschluss is like the english term fastener or
         | clasp.
        
           | dvh wrote:
           | Suchy zips in Slovak (lit. Dry zipper)
        
         | jraph wrote:
         | Many people in France say velcro though.
        
       | bee_rider wrote:
       | It is an interesting page because
       | 
       | * 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.
        
       | herghost wrote:
       | Compare with "Prosecco" recently starting an advertising campaign
       | on the London Underground[0] telling people to stop calling
       | whatever generic, non-region protected sparkling wine they're
       | drinking "Prosecco" because Prosecco is DOC protected.
       | 
       | 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...
        
         | elaus wrote:
         | I think the two videos from Velcro really hit the right spot
         | between fun and educational.
         | 
         | 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.
        
       | blagie wrote:
       | Pro-tip: I work very hard to help make generic the trademarks of
       | corporations I think are evil (and vice-versa for ones I like).
       | 
       | 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. :)
        
       | elmimmo wrote:
       | Transformers 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.
        
         | bitwize wrote:
         | 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.
        
       | pointlessone wrote:
       | > you diminish the importance of our brand and our lawyers lose
       | their _insert fastening sound._
       | 
       | 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.
        
       | Lornedon wrote:
       | I'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!'"
        
         | KMnO4 wrote:
         | You lose the right to defend your trademark if you don't make
         | an effort to defend your trademark.
         | 
         | 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.
        
         | JohnFen wrote:
         | 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.
        
       | jeffrallen wrote:
       | In French c'est "le scratch".
       | 
       | Better than hook and loop!
       | 
       | PS: https://youtu.be/ZLWMQLMiTPk?feature=shared&t=111
        
       | gumby wrote:
       | << 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.
        
         | cratermoon wrote:
         | HoLo?
        
           | ranting-moth wrote:
           | No, they're usually high.
        
         | sangnoir wrote:
         | > So why not use the abbreviation?
         | 
         | HooLoo? I think another company may object to that name.
        
           | fragmede wrote:
           | Hulu, the video streaming company, doesn't do much in the
           | textiles/garmeny industry, and would have little trademark
           | claim to the name used in a different industry.
        
             | Tagbert wrote:
             | Unless they were Monster Incorporated, makers of expensive,
             | gold-plated cables with a history of seeing anyone who uses
             | "monster" in a product name regardless of commercial
             | industry.
        
         | rel wrote:
         | Reminds me tangentially of this great recreation of a
         | deposition: https://youtu.be/PZbqAMEwtOE
        
         | milsorgen wrote:
         | I say bing it just to go against the grain. There was a time
         | when people thought twice upon hearing it but now most people
         | inherently understand the phrase which is mildly amusing.
        
         | compiler-guy wrote:
         | "Velcro" wasn't a common word, and was not short for "hook and
         | loop" when the company trademarked it. They coined the term.
         | 
         | 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.
        
           | Fatnino wrote:
           | Based on nothing but my gut:
           | 
           | 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.
        
             | Fuzzwah wrote:
             | Of course it's a regional thing. There's many examples from
             | around the world. For many in Britain "hoover" is
             | synonymous with vacuum cleaners, and "tannoy' for loud
             | speaker / public address system.
        
               | krisoft wrote:
               | In hungary the brand name of KUKA (of orange robot arm
               | fame) become genericized to mean any kind of trash bin. I
               | heard it happened because they produced the first widely
               | used garbage trucks in Hungary and they had their brand
               | name written on the trucks (or perhaps even on the
               | garbage cans, depending on where you read the story). So
               | much so that the garbage trucks are called "kukas auto",
               | and the profession of garbage collection itself is just
               | called "kukas".
               | 
               | 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
        
           | gumby wrote:
           | > Velcro" wasn't a common word, and was not short for "hook
           | and loop" when the company trademarked it. They coined the
           | term.
           | 
           | 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.
        
       | FrustratedMonky wrote:
       | 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
        
       | alentred wrote:
       | Funnily 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).
        
         | tuetuopay wrote:
         | I'm french and you taught me something today (velours-crochet),
         | as I always called it scratch.
        
         | kube-system wrote:
         | That's pretty damn creative as far as trademarks go. "Apple"
         | and "Windows" were just borrowed completely.
        
       | xbar wrote:
       | Velcro that. I intend to velcro velcro for the velcroing future.
        
       | Nifty3929 wrote:
       | I 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 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.
        
         | acyou wrote:
         | Ding ding ding. They even throw their lawyers under the bus,
         | saying that they are discouraging use of the term Velcro for
         | the purpose of legal defense of their valuable Velcro
         | trademark. Did this gain any real traction at any point?
        
         | janci wrote:
         | Same as LEGO brick controversy. Supposedly the bricks are not
         | Legos, LEGOs and certainly not legos. At least per their legal
         | dept.
        
           | ajcp wrote:
           | I think it's a North American thing to call anything LEGO
           | "Legos", denoting that it is a thing made up of many pieces
           | of "Lego" right? In Europe if you pointed to a LEGO set or a
           | pile of LEGO pieces every response you'd get would be "that's
           | LEGO". But then again in Europe, or at least in Germany, we
           | had many different brands to choose from for the same kind of
           | construction play, whereas in North America it seemed like
           | it's just LEGO.
        
             | qingcharles wrote:
             | I agree, in the UK I never heard them referred to as
             | "Legos" and only ever heard that in American media. It
             | always felt like one of those sloppy contractions Americans
             | use, like "Do you wanna go with?" and "I'll write him"
        
             | JohnFen wrote:
             | There are several different brands of LEGO-compatible
             | bricks in the US. In practice, though, the bricks are
             | called "legos" generically, whether they're LEGO or not.
        
           | bena wrote:
           | Yes, the people who say "Lego" is the "correct" plural are
           | also wrong according to the document they cite for that
           | opinion.
           | 
           | 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.
        
         | NegativeK wrote:
         | There's a middle ground between not having enough brand
         | recognition and losing control over your trademark to the point
         | where it becomes generic.
         | 
         | 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?
        
       | 8jef wrote:
       | And that explains why lawyers will never get love or sympathy
       | from most living creatures. They'll always have to sue for
       | getting any kind of consideration. In my ideal world, they don't
       | exist at all, or they're called mediators.
       | 
       | 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.
        
         | hx8 wrote:
         | What exactly is so awful about this advertisement that it will
         | cause you to never buy a product? It seemed super normal to me,
         | do you just never buy products that advertise, or buy products
         | that advertise using actors playing a lawyer?
        
       | cratermoon wrote:
       | That ship has (mostly) sailed, but companies have lost their
       | brand rights for failing to police uses. Did you know Aspirin was
       | once a brand name for the acetylsalicylic acid product Bayer
       | invented?
        
       | aidenn0 wrote:
       | For those who haven't seen it before: If both surfaces you are
       | fastening together are (relatively) rigid, then mushroom-head
       | fasteners (e.g. 3M Dual Lock) have many advantages over hook-and-
       | loop fasteners.
        
       | 1-6 wrote:
       | Ok, I'll just find a hippier word to use to describe "hook and
       | loop" so Velcro will lose their relevance.
        
       | CannisterFlux wrote:
       | In Spanish it's officially "velcro" from the French abbreviation
       | https://dle.rae.es/velcro and no alternative. About as generic as
       | you get.
       | 
       | 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.
        
       | satisfice wrote:
       | I'm going to say it more now.
        
       | compiler-guy wrote:
       | If you've never seen the video ad that went along with this
       | campaign, it's hilarious and worth watching, as is the follow up.
       | I love the good humor about the whole thing. And it has made
       | their campaign stick in ways that other similar campaigns have
       | not.
       | 
       | https://youtu.be/rRi8LptvFZY?si=nfzpn2DDngeyyETN
       | 
       | https://youtu.be/ZLWMQLMiTPk?si=28csS65KpQyoFrEn
        
       | block_dagger wrote:
       | Imagine if OpenAI had named ChatGPT something that rolled off the
       | tongue like Velcro. Missed opportunity.
        
         | layer8 wrote:
         | It's still memorable in at least one language:
         | https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/158e8os/in_case_an...
        
       | whatgoodisaroad wrote:
       | There's a straussian dynamic at work here where the company wants
       | to informally encourage generic use of their brand, but must also
       | formally defend proper use of their brand for legal reasons.
       | Courts need to see you at least appear to defend yourself.
        
       | ivanche wrote:
       | In Serbia we never say Velcro but thistle stripe (burdock
       | stripe). Interestingly enough, we say gilette for razor and
       | digitron for calculator.
        
       | msikora wrote:
       | Probably different with Velcro, but in the case of Google
       | wouldn't the term "google it" which just really means "search it
       | on the internet" be extremely helpful? Helpful in ways very
       | different from velcro or gilette (in many countries generic term
       | for 'razor')
        
       | readyplayernull wrote:
       | Trademarks that have conflict with common use words should have
       | their vowels randomized: crovel, eppla, zonama, tema, etc.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-12-29 23:02 UTC)