NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/usage/english/8511

Text File | 1992-11-16 | 5.0 KB | 98 lines

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Path: sparky!uunet!news.centerline.com!noc.near.net!news.Brown.EDU!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!baron.english.uiuc.edu!baron
From: [e-mail] (Dennis Baron)
Subject: Re: pop &c.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:59:42 GMT
Lines: 86

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
>Path: news.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.columbia.edu!cunixa.cc.columbia.edu!gmw1
>From: [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener)
>Subject: Re: pop &c.
>Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
>Sender: [e-mail] (The Network News)
>Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
>Reply-To: [e-mail] (Gabe M Wiener)
>Organization: Columbia University
>References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
>Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:20:10 GMT
>Lines: 19
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Tracey Dianne Layng) writes:
>>Yes, Coke is a trademark, but people will say it anyway. It's just like
>>kleenex. Kleenex is a trademark, but I never hear people say "Give me a facial
>>tissue."
>
>You don't watch enough television then:
>
>    "Gee mom, what's for dessert?"
>    "We're having Jell-o brand Gelatin."
>
>    "Would you like some coffee, ma'am?"
>    "Yes, thank you.  I'll have Sanka brand decaffeinated coffee."
>
>
>--
>Gabe Wiener - Columbia Univ.     "This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings
>[e-mail]       to be seriously considered as a means of
>N2GPZ in ham radio circles        communication. The device is inherently of
>72355,1226 on CI$                 no value to us." -Western Union memo, 1877

In case you hadn't noticed, television is scripted writing.  And you are
quoting commercials, which are clearly protective of trademarks.  Every
once in a while a company will go on a binge to protect a trademark it
fears is in danger of becoming a generic.  Thus Xerox Corp. will take out
large ads in the NY Times reminding/warning writers that Xerox is a
proper adjective, that it can only occur in such phrases as a Xerox
machine or a Xerox photocopy, that it must be capitalized or otherwise
set off in distinctive typeface, and that you will die if you do not do
as they say.  SONY did a campaign a couple of years ago reminding us all
that Walkman was really a Walkman personal stereo (sounds more like a
hygiene product to me), and noting that trademarks cannot be inflected,
so the plural of Walkman is Walkmans, not Walkmen.  Kimberley-Clark puts
out a pamphlet advising writers on how to treat trademarks.  Apparently
when Webster's Third went to print, in 1961, Phil Gove, the editor,
decided that there would be no initial capitals in the dictionary at
all.  The Trademark Assn. threatened to sue, exerted pressure on
Merriam, and forced all the trademark entries to be reset at an undisclosed
but huge cost to the publisher.

Of course the list of words that once were trademarks but are now generics
is large, and it includes, besides such terms as zipper and shredded wheat
and linoleum, Webster's itself, though no English dictionary is comfortable
enough with this clear fact of English usage to acknowledge that Webster's
is a generic for `English dictionary.'  [G&C Merriam lost several lawsuits
earlier in the century when they tried to prove their Webster's was a
protected term under trademark law]

By the way, Coke itself was very active in pursuing trademark protection
in the courts, and though Pepsi survived, a number of competing Colas
lost to the Atlanta Giant and went out of business.  Coke was unable to
oust Tacola Cola from the marketplace, but was successful in trademark
protection suits against Chero-Cola, Clio-Cola, Coca and Cola, and
El-Cola.  Rule to be non-infringing were sodas/pops named Koke, Dope,
Cherry-Cola, Roxa-Cola, and Dixie-Cola.  Moxie won a case against
Noxie, but Pepsi lost against Pep, as did Seven-Up against Cheer-Up.

Trademark law, by the way, is insane, and trademark decisions in the
courts often seem whimsical, as the above should demonstrate.

--
Dennis


d

[e-mail]               (\                   217-333-2392
                               \'\             fax: [phone]
Dennis Baron                    \'\           __________
Department of English           / '|         ()_________)
Univ. of Illinois               \ '/          \ ~~~~~~~~ \
608 S. Wright St.                 \             \ ~~~~~~   \
Urbana IL 61801                   ==).            \__________\
                                 (__)             ()__________)