[jasode]

>But who is calling just any theater "IMAX"?

I'm not saying any theater but I have noticed that some visitors to Epcot refer to the Canada and China 360-degree movies as "IMAX". The actual designation is "CircleVision 360". But people don't remember that 7-syllable trademark. The first word that comes to the tip of their tongue is "IMAX" because that word has become a placeholder for "any immersive large screen experience".

>Something else you have to consider is intent.

Yes, but society's casual use of "Escalator" to "escalator" and "Kleenex" to "kleenex" didn't have any kind of mastermind conspiracy to dilute the trademark. It just happened. I'm guessing most trademarks erode without malicious intent.

Could Otis Escalator and Kleenex lawyers have done anything to stop the trademark erosion?

[chinpokomon]

Kleenex could have rebranded as Snot Rag. "Hand me a Snot Rag?, I need to clean my glasses."

The difference is that Kleenex facial tissues and Otis Escalators (moving staircases?) are unique terms that have no other well known counterparts or alternative generic terms. It is unlikely that IMAX is going to replace the generic term movie theater, and even less likely that the general public is going to distinguish between movie theater and large screen format movie theater -- it's just a bigger screen for what is otherwise the same.

Do people make a distinction between THX and Dolby Digital sound systems in theaters and say let's go see something at the THX or Dolby Digital? That doesn't happen because those technologies only contribute to the experience, they don't define it as something unique.

[morganvachon]

I still think IMAX is barking up the wrong tree. If anything they should have sent the letter to the person who made the comparison, not Ars who simply quoted the person. Though that would be wrong as well, it would be slightly less wrong than attacking a news site for reporting the news.