Comments on: Are You Guilty of Genericide?

By: AE

AE — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:13:34 +0000

what happens when the company’s trademark name is the same as the product trademark that is getting “genericided” by the public? The product diversification under the company’s trademark becomes an uphill challenge. Imagine Kleenex corporation launching Kleenex gloves (for dishwashing), Kleenex steelwool pad, etc. How does the “genericided” product trademark impact the company’s ability to brand new product categories diversification? Should the company still use the company’s “corporate” trademark on new product extensions despite the fact that the public is genericiding the original well-established product? Is that a good leverage or a heavy luggage for product diversification?

By: Lamanai

Lamanai — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:44:32 +0000

I don’t agree on this suggestion of “non-genericiding” pointed out in the article. I’m in the same boat with those of you who think that this phenomenon serves label owners as a natural and remarkably strong effortless marketing tools, albeit unintentional it is. Genericided brand names associate a well-established product. It is not a degradation of the company or weakening of the product, it is an honour directly expressed to the label owner by public (unless the genericided brand name is used in negative connotations of course), not speaking of the fact that this behaviour recruits potentional customers and product users.

Anyway, I am a bit suspicious of some famous writers having even signed a kind of contract with some companies to point out their products in their successful or expected-to-be-successful books.

I would also like to thank LGW for their interesting post.

And sorry for my English I am not a native speaker.

By: LGW

LGW — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 06:53:53 +0000

Aspirin and heroin are actually special cases, perhaps unique – Aspirin wasn’t “genericided,” and is still under trademark in much of the world.

Bayer made chemical weapons in WWI. As part of the treaty that ended WWI, Bayer lost the trademark on Aspirin and Heroin in the US as punishment.

By: NJMark

NJMark — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:01:25 +0000

“Why wouldn’t a brand want their name used as a verb?”

It doesn’t help the Kimberly-Clark corporation if people call it a kleenex, but then buy Marcal tissues.

And when a brand name becomes accepted in language as though it were the generic name of the product, the company can lose the trademarking, and along with it, the exclusive right to use that name. (Examples, from aspirin to zipper, were cited in the article above.)

There’s not a whole lot the companies can do about it, but they can try. It’s why the Band-Aid song was reworked as “I am stuck on Band-Aid Brand” and Robert Young recommended “Sanka Brand,” as though it were one word.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:25:09 +0000

I agree with Cassie. I would think having the brand name become part of the language would help keep it in the public’s mind. Sort of like free advertising. Especially if it is a product used for a processing – xeroxing, photoshopping. Sort of aces the competitors for free publicity.