Talk:Generic trademark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

(ATTENTION: Split of this talk page)[edit]

Much of the discussion on this page was regarding the list of generic and genericized trademarks. That list now has its own page, and the related discussion has been moved to its talk page.

Please don't re-create the list here. The list already exists on the List of generic and genericized trademarks page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComputerGeezer (talkcontribs) 00:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

   Whether to split the article was discussed under the section #Split, below on this talk page.
--Jerzyt 04:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

(Routine talk, i.e. discussion of the accompanying article's content)[edit]

Proposal to change the Title of this Article[edit]

I think the title of this article should be changed to "Genericized Trademarks." If you aks any trademark lawyer (and I'm one of them)m they'll tell you that there is no such thing as a "Generic Trademark" because generic terms cannot ever be trademarks. So, there are "generic terms" and genericized trademarks (i.e., terms that use to be trademarks). Therefore, I believe a title change is appropriate in the interest of accuracy. Cheers, Alpha908 (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 6 April 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There is a feeling that the two terms are slightly different - genericized trademark is a subset of generic trademark, and that the article should probably make that clearer, and be expanded to include generic trademarks that are not genericized trademarks. There are some good arguments made on both sides, but all in all no consensus, and the current four year title is the default stable one to remain with for now.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)



Generic trademarkGenericized trademark – Present name is an irrational oxymoron, and thus confusing to readers. There is no such thing as a "generic trademark"; if it's generic, it is not a trademark, even if it once had been. A (former) trademark can become genericized, and is then a genericized trademark, in the same sense that a cut-off leg is an amputated limb. It is still an ungainly construction; trademark genericization is really what this article is about, and is the most logical and WP:PRECISE term, but some might object on WP:CONCISE grounds, and I would weakly agree that genericized trademark is clear enough to use in the context of this article. By way of direct analogy, a (former) crime may have been legalized; in a particular context it can be called a legalized crime, but it is not a "legal crime". PS: I'm using -ize not -ise because the article already does. While "generic trademark" does occur in some sources, I see no evidence that it's the most common usage, and more to the point a) it is not the proper legal usage (i.e., the usage in sources that are actually reliable on this legal topic); and b) even if it were the common name we could still reject it on the basis that it fails WP:AT policy by being reader-confusing.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose. You may think it's "irrational", but it is the common name, and COMMONNAME is policy. Your other variations don't appear in the ngram - Ngrams not found: genericized trademark, genericised trademark, trademark genericization, trademark genericisation. As for "proper legal usage", googling "generic trademark" brings up on the very first page this from the website of an actual law firm and this from the website of the American University Law Review. This from the website of the William & Mary Law Review is on the second page of results. What would really be "reader confusing" would be to title articles with obscure or made-up names because we're trying to be prescriptive rather than descriptive and calling things what we think they "should" be called. After all, as Voltaire said, the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
    • See Dicklyon's note below. They're not even the same topic. Thanks for the lecture, though. You need to actually read WP:COMMONNAME. It is a small part of the policy, and not at all the most important part. We pick the common name as the most likely to pass the five actual naming WP:CRITERIA. COMMONNAME gives us a first choice to run through the CRITERIA tests, nothing more, and we quite often do not use the most common name, because it fails one or more of them, as is the case here (fails WP:PRECISE and, since it's confused even WP editors into writing about the wrong topic, also WP:RECOGNIZABLE; they're mis-recognizing it as something else. Either way, the present name is wrong and has to go.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – I agree with Egsan Bacon that "generic trademark" is not an oxymoron, and is more common. However, a quick look at definitions of "generic trademark" in books shows that it does not mean the same thing as "genericized trademark". Based on a quick look at the lead, the latter is the intended topic of the article. Compare the definition of genericized in this book. The only sources that compare or equate these terms appear to derive from our wikipedia article. The whole point of the "ize" is to denote the transition from trademark to generic. Dicklyon (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
    • If AjaxSmack's summary below is correct ("term not afforded trademark protection because it is generic"), then it is in fact an oxymoron, just an apparently intentional and slightly wry one, like "deceased patient", "advanced beginner", "casual intimacy", "dress-casual", etc., or maybe just unintentionally funny like "crisis management" and "humanitarian invasion". :-)  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  09:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per User:Dicklyon. I was going to sit this one out but after reading some of the sources linked in User:Dicklyon's Google Books search, I realize that a genericized trademark is a subset of a generic trademark. As this source points out, a generic trademark is any term not afforded trademark protection because it is generic. The example given is there is the company "Imported Auto Parts"; another is "24 Hour Fitness". Neither of these has been genericized but both are generic. Based on sources, "genericized trademark" better represents the narrower scope of this article. —  AjaxSmack  01:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Rename to Trademark genericization since that is what this article is about, the process, including covering trademarks that have been genericized -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
    • That would work, too.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
      • But genericization is a bigger mouthful than genericized; so I like your first proposal better. Dicklyon (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Rename to Trademark genericization per the argument made by the IP. CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Page history:
  • Oppose. I'd rather the article be written to be clear that a genericized trademark is a kind of generic trademark. Generic trademarks need coverage here too and I doubt it needs to be covered in two separate articles. I'll take a stab at it when I get a chance. Options like "Trademark genericization" seem to be unnecessary (and less common) variants of the phrase "genericized trademark", so they don't seem any better either.--Cúchullain t/c 04:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per common name, comments above, and that the name is understood and clear to people. When someone reads 'generic trademark' they know what it means. 'Genericized trademark', not so much. A case of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Randy Kryn 10:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Generic trademark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.


You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


Confusing sentence[edit]

I would like the people interested in this page to consider clarifying the following sentence: "Thermos,[5] Kleenex, Sellotape, Dumpster, Elastoplast, Band-Aid, Velcro and Realtor are examples of trademarks that have become generalized in the US and elsewhere." Elastoplast is not a genericized name in the US. Apparently, it is in the UK and Australia. The other examples in the sentence are indeed all genericized in the US. Perhaps Elastoplast should be removed from the list, or 'US and elsewhere' should be removed or changed. Pdienstm (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)