An anti-genericism ad from this month’s ABA Journal:
“If you use ‘Xerox’ the way you use ‘zipper,’ our trademark could be left wide open. There’s a new way to look at it.
“No one likes to leave their name open to misuse. Which is what happens when you use our name in a generic manner. Basically you’re putting it in a compromising position which could cause it to lose its trademark status. That’s what happened to the name ‘zipper’ years ago. So when you use our name, please use it as an adjective to identify our products and services, such as ‘Xerox copiers.’ Never as a verb: ‘to Xerox’ in place of ‘to copy,’ or as a noun: ‘Xeroxes’ in place of ‘copies.’ Now that you’re aware of all this, that should just about zip things up. Thanks.”
These anti-genericism ads fascinate me. If they’re actually effective, why don’t we see more of them? And why are they run on page 27 of publications like the ABA Journal? On the other hand, if they’re not effective, why do owners of famous marks bother running them at all?