Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / generic marks / genericism / Verb it up? Why becoming generic might be good for a trade mark

Verb it up? Why becoming generic might be good for a trade mark

- ,
Have we not always learned that becoming "generic" is one of the worst things that can ever happen to a trade mark?

Well, think again...! While it is still a sensible strategy to advise trade mark owners how to prevent their trade mark from becoming generic, it appears that some businesses are changing their mind regarding this point and actually appear to like the idea of trade marks that can be "verbed up". At least, this is what Noam Cohen argues in this week's The New York Times' article "The Power of the Brand as Verb ". A quick and interesting read.

Picture from zazzle.com

Thanks go to Markenblog.de for alerting the IPKat to this article. After reading the article, Merpel wonders whether it is a good or bad thing that the term "IPKat" does not necessarily lend itself to genericism...
Verb it up? Why becoming generic might be good for a trade mark Verb it up? Why becoming generic might be good for a trade mark Reviewed by Birgit Clark on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 Rating: 5

3 comments:

  1. Mats BjörkenfeldtTuesday, 21 July 2009 at 15:11:00 GMT+1

    Verb it up? Why becoming generic might be good for the public

    Let´s appreciate all philantropical trade mark owner as Judges Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook did in Ty Inc. v. Perryman, 306 F.3d 509(7th Cir. 2002). p.9:

    “Although there is a social cost when a mark becomes generic—the trademark owner has to invest in a new trademark to identify his brand—there is also a social benefit, namely an addition to ordinary language. A nontrivial number of words in common use began life as trademarks. See, e.g., Shawn M. Clankie, “Brand Name Use in Creative Writing: Genericide or Language Right?”
    in Perspectives on Plagiarism and Intellectual Property in a Postmodern World 253 (Lisa Buranen and Alice M. Royeds. 1999); Monroe Friedman, “The Changing Language of
    a Consumer Society: Brand Name Usage in Popular American Novels in the Postwar Era,” 11 Journal of Consumer Research 927 (1985). An interpretation of antidilution law as arming trademark owners to enjoin uses of their mark that, while not confusing, threaten to render the mark generic may therefore not be in the public interest.”

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nikos PrentoulisTuesday, 21 July 2009 at 15:39:00 GMT+1

    I'm old school and think that the "profit now - think later" strategy is not really beneficial, unless you don't care about free-riders or your purpose is to do away with a brand really fast. It may make some sense in the IT industry, but, in court, the road from famous to generic is not very long.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousTuesday, 21 July 2009 at 20:02:00 GMT+1

    I supposed one could be "tuftied" or "merpeled".

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.