Re: Grammar and usage

[Jan Boomsliter <boom -at- CADENCE -dot- COM>]

Seems logical, doesn't it?  Free advertising.

However, their stand is that when their name becomes a generic for a
group of products, not only do they they lose their trademark, they
lose all possibility of claiming the qualities a mgf claims in selling
a specific product.  Besides, when you call your broken-down,
unreliable copier a "xerox," well, you get the picture.

==============================
 When I first met my husband back in 1978, he just finished a year with
 Xerox Corp.  He corrected me when I used phrases similar to "I'm going to
 xerox the paper" or "use the xerox machine" (especially when the copier was
 not made
 by that manufacturer).  At that time, he said it was incorrect to use the
 name as a general term, and that the company was using all types of measures
 to prevent the usage (I guess that included brainwashing their employees,
 too).

 To tell you the truth, I, too, would think that a company name that became a
 general term MIGHT mean free advertising, unless surveys show that there is no
 correlation between household names and increased sales!
 Laurie

 > I'm glad you brought this up as I was unaware of this until now.  It would
 > seem to me that if a term has become so common as to be a household word
 > (Kleenex being a case in point) that the publicity would offset legal
 > restrictions in the eyes of the producer.  IMHO, this takes things to the
 > point of the ridiculous!
 >