Genericide is the funniest myth copyright enforcement agencies ever invented. Common use has not "genericided" anything after the 50s except for intentionally litigious naming ("flip phone") or things comprised of hypergeneric terms like videotape. Kleenex and Hoover have not lost their trademarks despite widespread generic use by millions.
I mean in most cases where a term becomes "generic" it has been long time generic before at some point someone bothers to make a study/lawsuit which declares it as generic as result.
For example pretty much everyone I know uses Lego as a generic term and knows about not Lego produced bricks. Currently Lego still managed to defend the trademark but IMHO it's just a matter of time until it becomes generic because it already defacto is and the only reason they still avoid it becoming generic is protectionism.
Maybe. It’s an uphill battle, but if they start now at least they’ll be generating evidence in their favor for the inevitable trials to come. But it may be too late. Most companies that have done this successfully have started a bit earlier.
I live in a region where lots of people refer to most colas as "coke", but you bet if I start selling cola in a red can with "Coke" on it I'm going to have some lawyers showing up at my door.
This. I don't think that "coke" on its own can be trademarked because it's an actual common word (a form of coal). The trademark would have to be the word in combination with other aspects that make it distinctive. The color scheme, or font, or associated decorative elements, for instance.
"Coca-Cola", however, is distinctive on its own and is trademarkable as such.
> I don't think that "coke" on its own can be trademarked because it's an actual common word (a form of coal).
That wouldn’t be relevant unless you were actually talking about the form of coal.
Although many people say in shorthand that "[word] is trademarked.", trademarks are not “on a word” they’re on a particular use of a word. “coke” when referring to a beverage is mostly not a generic word. (Except maybe in the southern US :) )
For example "Apple" is trademarked in reference to computer hardware/software, etc. It isn't in reference to the fruit.
Trademarks are all about context. Exxon used to have a cartoon tiger as a mascot who sometimes looked a bit like Tony the Tiger. This was usually fine because the contexts were pretty different, one was for foods and one was for gasoline, radically different product markets. However, once Exxon started using their cartoon tiger mascot to sell the foods in the TigerMart convenience stores Kellog sued them and won.
If I go to a restaurant and ask for "Coke" they're not going to get confused and grab me some coal. I'd be pretty confused to open a red 12oz can that says Coke on it and find it full of coal dust. Nobody is confusing these products.
Yes. Xerox is one example of a company that succeeded with their marketing campaign in a lot of the world. I understand that in Australia one used to xerox documents, but now you certainly photocopy them. In India they still xerox documents.