May 14, 2007
"Ignore the trademark prescriptivists."
Says Language Log. How can the International Trademarks Association push a rule like "NEVER use a trademark as a verb" when companies use their own trademark as verbs in ads -- even when it's entirely ungainly and stupid, like "OK, so I Zappos at work"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Not sure I follow, Ann. Using a trademark as a verb is heading down the road toward genericide. That's why you see companies like Tivo and Google trying to prevent verb-usage of their names. Just because some business foolishly use their marks as verbs does not mean it is a good idea.
From whose perspective are you speaking, Christopher? Obviously, the companies have their interests. The question is why we are supposed to serve them.
Zappos?
It's spring.
I suspect we'll see shoe pics before long...
And yeah, the trademark as a verb thing is probably the marketeer's dream - their brand name embedded in the language as not only a verb, but also THE word to describe the activity.
I do not know this to be true, but I'm reasonably sure the use of "googling" in place of "internet search" hasn't got the Chi-Com embracing execs at Google up late at night - nor have I read of Google-launched lawsuits to stop the practice.
Actually, as recently as 2003 Google was sending out cease and desist letters to prevent the usage of the term "to google" as a generic form of searching. Not sure if they are still practicing it because they caught a lot of flack from the internet community who does not understand the first thing about what Google was trying to do - protect their ability to source identify under their name. Tivo has done likewise. Tivo, in fact, brands their systems as Tivo DVRs and prefers usage of the term DVRing, rather than Tivoing.
To Ann's question, while I do not necessarily think it is the consumer's obligation to serve them, I completely support the rights of businesses to protect their marks from becoming this era's Xerox or Kleenex. You seem to be saying, it's not my problem, so why should I care, which is your right.
I just do not see what one has to do with the other in your original post. The ITA has an interest in ensuring that trademarks are used correctly. It is because some companies use their marks as verbs, not appreciating the significance of it, that the ITA pushes rules like this.
Zuh?
Actually, as recently as 2003 Google was sending out cease and desist letters to prevent the usage of the term "to google" as a generic form of searching.
They were? To whom? That doesn't sound plausible.
Never mind, I found it myself. They did send letters in 2003 to "various media outlets" says The Guardian.
It was pretty easy to confirm. I just executed an internet search on the topic using the popular search engine Google.
Post a Comment