Hubbry Logo
Generic trademarkGeneric trademarkMain
Open search
Generic trademark
Community hub
Generic trademark
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Generic trademark
Generic trademark
Generic trademark
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
A sign in a Giant in Lancaster, Pennsylvania supermarket using "Jell-O" to refer to gelatin dessert
Intellectual property
Related topics
Higher categories:
Property and Property law

A generic trademark, also known as a genericized trademark or proprietary eponym, is a trademark or brand name that, because of its popularity or significance, has become the generic term for, or synonymous with, a general class of products or services, usually against the intentions of the trademark's owner.

A trademark is prone to genericization, or "genericide",[1][2] when a brand name acquires substantial market dominance or mind share, becoming so widely used for similar products or services that it is no longer associated with the trademark owner, e.g., linoleum, bubble wrap, thermos, and aspirin.[3] A trademark thus popularized is at risk of being challenged or revoked, unless the trademark owner works sufficiently to counter and prevent such broad use.[4][5][6]

Trademark owners can inadvertently contribute to genericization by failing to provide an alternative generic name for their product or service or using the trademark in similar fashion to generic terms.[7] In one example, the Otis Elevator Company's trademark of the word "escalator" was cancelled following a petition from Toledo-based Haughton Elevator Company. In rejecting an appeal from Otis, an examiner from the United States Patent and Trademark Office cited the company's own use of the term "escalator" alongside the generic term "elevator" in multiple advertisements without any trademark significance.[8] Therefore, trademark owners go to extensive lengths to avoid genericization and trademark erosion.

In subpopulations

[edit]

Genericization may be specific to certain professions and other subpopulations. For example, Luer-Lok (Luer lock),[9] Phoroptor (phoropter),[10] and Port-a-Cath (portacath)[11] have genericized mind share among physicians due to a lack of alternative names in common use: as a result, consumers may not realize that the term is a brand name rather than a medical eponym or generic term.

In pharmaceuticals

[edit]
Aspirin with and without trademark
Four boxes of medication on a store shelf above price tags. The two on the left are yellow with "Aspirin" in bold black type and explanatory text in English on the top box and French on the bottom. The two on the right are slightly smaller and white with the word "Life" in the corner inside a red circle. The text, in French on top and English below, describes the medication as "acetylsalicylic acid tablets"
Aspirin for sale in Canada, next to generic store equivalent described as "ASA (acetylsalicylic acid) tablets", since the trademark is still recognized there
Four plastic bottles of medication on another drugstore shelf above their price tags. The two on the left are yellow with the word "Bayer" prominent in black type; above small type describes the product as "genuine aspirin". On the left are two clear plastic bottles with the Rite Aid drugstore chain logo on their yellow labels, which describe the product as "pain relief aspirin".
Aspirin for sale in the U.S., where the store brand can also be sold as aspirin since the trademark was ruled generic in 1921

Pharmaceutical trade names are somewhat protected from genericization due to the modern practice of assigning nonproprietary names based on a drug's chemical structure.[12] This circumvents the problem of a trademarked name entering common use by providing a generic name as soon as a novel pharmaceutical enters the market. For example, aripiprazole, the nonproprietary name for Abilify, was well-documented since its invention.[13][14][15] Warfarin, originally introduced as a rat poison, was approved for human use under the brand name Coumadin.[16]

Examples of genericization before the modern system of generic drugs include aspirin, introduced to the market in 1897, and heroin, introduced in 1898. Both were originally trademarks of Bayer AG. However, U.S. court rulings in 1918 and 1921 found the terms to be genericized, stating the company's failure to reinforce the brand's connection with their product as the reason.[17]

A different sense of the word genericized in the pharmaceutical industry refers to products whose patent protection has expired. For example, Lipitor was genericized in the U.S. when the first competing generic version was approved by the FDA in November 2011. In this same context, the term genericization refers to the process of a brand drug losing market exclusivity to generics.

Trademark erosion

[edit]
Main article: List of generic and genericized trademarks
Kawasaki Jet Ski

Trademark erosion, or genericization, is a special case of antonomasia related to trademarks. It happens when a trademark becomes so common that it starts being used as a common name,[18][3][19] most often occurring when the original company has failed to prevent such use.[18][19] Once it has become an appellative, the word cannot be registered any more; this is why companies try hard not to let their trademark become too common, a phenomenon that could otherwise be considered a successful move since it would mean that the company gained exceptional recognition. An example of trademark erosion is the verb "to hoover" (used with the meaning of "vacuum cleaning"), which originated from the Hoover company brand name.

Nintendo is an example of a brand that successfully fought trademark erosion, having managed to replace excessive use of its name with the term "game console", at that time a neologism.[18][20]

[edit]

Whether or not a mark is popularly identified as genericized, the owner of the mark may still be able to enforce the proprietary rights that attach to the use or registration of the mark, as long as the mark continues to exclusively identify the owner as the commercial origin of the applicable products or services. If the mark does not perform this essential function and it is no longer possible to legally enforce rights in relation to the mark, the mark may have become generic. In many legal systems (e.g., in the United States but not in Germany) a generic mark forms part of the public domain and can be commercially exploited by anyone. Nevertheless, there exists the possibility of a trademark becoming a revocable generic term in German (and European) trademark law.

The process by which trademark rights are diminished or lost as a result of common use in the marketplace is known as genericization. This process typically occurs over a period of time in which a mark is not used as a trademark (i.e., where it is not used to exclusively identify the products or services of a particular business), where a mark falls into disuse entirely, or where the trademark owner does not enforce its rights through actions for passing off or trademark infringement.

One risk factor that may lead to genericization is the use of a trademark as a verb, plural or possessive, unless the mark itself is possessive or plural (e.g., "Friendly's" restaurants).[21]

However, in highly inflected languages, a tradename may have to carry case endings in usage. An example is Finnish, where "Microsoftin" is the genitive case and "Facebookista" is the elative case.[22]

Avoiding genericization

[edit]

Generic use of a trademark presents an inherent risk to the effective enforcement of trademark rights and may ultimately lead to genericization.

Trademark owners may take various steps to reduce the risk, including educating businesses and consumers on appropriate trademark use, avoiding use of their marks in a generic manner, and systematically and effectively enforcing their trademark rights. If a trademark is associated with a new invention, the trademark owner may also consider developing a generic term for the product to be used in descriptive contexts, to avoid inappropriate use of the "house" mark. Such a term is called a generic descriptor and is frequently used immediately after the trademark to provide a description of the product or service. For example, "Kleenex tissues" ("facial tissues" being the generic descriptor) or "Velcro-brand fasteners" for Velcro brand name hook-and-loop fasteners.

Another common practice among trademark owners is to follow their trademark with the word brand to help define the word as a trademark. Johnson & Johnson changed the lyrics of their Band-Aid television commercial jingle from, "I am stuck on Band-Aids, 'cause Band-Aid's stuck on me" to "I am stuck on Band-Aid brand, 'cause Band-Aid's stuck on me."[23] Google has gone to lengths to prevent this process, discouraging publications from using the term 'googling' in reference to Web searches. In 2006, both the Oxford English Dictionary[24] and the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary[25] struck a balance between acknowledging widespread use of the verb coinage and preserving the particular search engine's association with the coinage, defining google (all lower case, with -le ending) as a verb meaning "use the Google search engine to obtain information on the Internet". The Swedish Language Council received a complaint from Google for its inclusion of ogooglebar (meaning 'ungoogleable') on its list of new Swedish words from 2012. The Language Council chose to remove the word to avoid a legal process, but in return wrote that "[w]e decide together which words should be and how they are defined, used and spelled".[26]

Where a trademark is used generically, a trademark owner may need to take aggressive measures to retain exclusive rights to the trademark. Xerox Corporation attempted to prevent the genericization of its core trademark through an extensive public relations campaign advising consumers to "photocopy" instead of "xerox" documents.[27]

The Lego Company has worked to prevent the genericization of its plastic building blocks following the expiration of Lego's last major patents in 1978.[28] Lego manuals and catalogs throughout the 1980s included a message imploring customers to preserve the brand name by "referring to [their] bricks as 'LEGO Bricks or Toys', and not just 'LEGOS'."[29][30] In the early 2000s, the company acquired the Legos.com URL in order to redirect customers to the Lego.com website and deliver a similar message.[31] Despite these efforts, many children and adults in the United States continue to use "Legos" as the plural form of "Lego," but competing and interchangeable products, such as those manufactured by Mega Brands, are often referred to simply as building blocks or construction blocks.[32] The company has successfully put legal pressure on the Swedish Academy and the Institute for Language and Folklore to remove the noun lego from their dictionaries.[33]

Adobe Inc. has experienced mixed success with preventing the genericization of their trademarked software, Adobe Photoshop. This is shown via recurring use of "photoshop" as a noun, verb, or general adjective for all photo manipulation throughout the Internet and mass media.[34]

Protected designation of origin

[edit]

Since 2003, the European Union has actively sought to restrict the use of geographical indications by third parties outside the EU by enforcing laws regarding "protected designation of origin".[35] Although a geographical indication for specialty food or drink may be generic, it is not a trademark because it does not serve to identify exclusively a specific commercial enterprise and therefore cannot constitute a genericized trademark.

The extension of protection for geographical indications is somewhat controversial. A geographical indication may have been registered as a trademark elsewhere; for example, if "Parma Ham" was part of a trademark registered in Canada by a Canadian manufacturer, then ham manufacturers in Parma, Italy, might be unable to use this name in Canada. Wines (such as Bordeaux, Port and Champagne), cheeses (such as Roquefort, Parmesan, Gouda, and Feta), Pisco liquor, and Scotch whisky are examples of geographical indications. Compare Russian use of "Шампанское" (= Shampanskoye) for champagne-type wine made in Russia.

In the 1990s, the Parma consortium successfully sued the Asda supermarket chain to prevent it using the description "Parma ham" on prosciutto produced in Parma but sliced outside the Parma region.[36] The European Court ruled that pre-packaged ham must be produced, sliced, and packaged in Parma in order to be labeled for sale as "Parma ham".[37]

Scale of distinctiveness

[edit]
Main article: Trademark distinctiveness

A trademark is said to fall somewhere along a scale from being "distinctive" to "generic" (used primarily as a common name for the product or service rather than an indication of source). Among distinctive trademarks the scale goes from strong to weak:[38]

"Fanciful" or "coined"
original words with no meaning as to the nature of the product
"Arbitrary"
existing words with little if any reference to the nature of the product or service
"Suggestive"
having primarily trademark significance but with suggestion as to the nature of the product
"Descriptive"
not just suggesting, but actually describing the product or service yet still understood as indicating source
"Merely descriptive"
having almost entirely reference to the product or service but capable of becoming "distinctive".

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Generic trademark

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A generic trademark is a term originally registered as a distinctive identifier that has entered such pervasive common usage as to become the everyday name for an entire category of products or services, thereby forfeiting its as a protectable . This loss of exclusivity, known as genericide, occurs when consumers cease associating the mark exclusively with a single source and instead apply it descriptively to all comparable goods, rendering it ineligible for under . The process undermines the mark's secondary meaning as a source indicator, often resulting from the trademark holder's own success in popularizing the term without sufficient policing of its generic deployment by competitors or the public. Classic instances include "aspirin," which AG originally trademarked for acetylsalicylic acid but lost in the United States after courts determined it had become generic following wartime asset forfeitures and broad imitation; "," deemed generic by the U.S. in 1950 against Otis Elevator's claims; and "thermos," which similarly devolved into a commonplace descriptor for flasks. Trademark proprietors mitigate this risk through vigilant , corrective —such as urging "Kleenex brand tissues" over mere "kleenex"—and legal challenges to preserve distinctiveness, as seen in ongoing defenses by entities like and against similar erosion. Genericide exemplifies the tension between incentives for innovation and the in free linguistic evolution, where unchecked commoditization can dissolve once-valuable monopolies into the .

Core Characteristics

A generic trademark refers to a term that functions as the common name for a category of products or services rather than identifying a specific source or . Such terms lack inherent distinctiveness and cannot qualify for protection, as they describe the genus or class of goods themselves. For instance, words like "" for bicycles or "aspirin" in certain jurisdictions exemplify generics, where the public perceives the term primarily as denoting the product type. The core legal characteristic is ineligibility for registration or enforcement, positioning generics at the weakest end of the trademark spectrum. Courts and the and (USPTO) apply the primary significance test to assess genericness, evaluating whether the term's main meaning to relevant consumers signifies the product category over any brand association. This test draws on evidence such as entries, consumer surveys, media references, and competitor uses, requiring clear proof that the term has entered the as a necessary descriptor for competition. Once deemed generic, the status is irrevocable, preventing owners from monopolizing language essential for describing goods. Unlike descriptive terms, which can gain protectability through acquired secondary meaning via extensive use, generics offer no such pathway, emphasizing their fundamental role in denoting product essence without source indication. This distinction underscores the rationale: trademarks exist to avoid about origins, but generics inherently fail this function by becoming synonymous with the product itself.

Distinction from Other Mark Types

Generic marks, by definition, fail to distinguish the source of goods or services and instead function solely as common descriptors of the itself, rendering them ineligible for any form of protection. Under the , which governs federal registration in the United States, such terms enter the and must remain available for competitors' use to avoid monopolizing basic language necessary for commerce. This contrasts sharply with protectable trademarks, which are evaluated on a spectrum of distinctiveness where inherent source-identifying capacity determines registrability and enforcement scope. At the strongest end of the spectrum lie fanciful and arbitrary marks, which possess immediate distinctiveness without requiring evidence of consumer association. Fanciful marks consist of invented words, such as "" for photographic film, offering maximal protection due to their lack of descriptive content. Arbitrary marks repurpose existing words unrelated to the product, exemplified by "Apple" for computers, similarly affording broad exclusivity as they do not convey product attributes. Suggestive marks, while requiring some consumer inference, remain inherently distinctive; terms like "" for video streaming subtly evoke qualities without direct description, thus meriting protection akin to fanciful or arbitrary marks. Descriptive marks occupy a weaker position, directly conveying ingredients, qualities, or features—such as "Vision Center" for eyeglasses—but may achieve protectability only through proof of secondary meaning, where extensive use builds consumer recognition of source origin. Unlike generic marks, descriptive ones retain potential for monopoly rights if this acquired distinctiveness is demonstrated via surveys or sales data, as affirmed in cases like Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc. (1985), where the upheld protection for a descriptive term with established secondary meaning. Generic marks, however, preclude even this pathway; no amount of promotion can confer exclusivity, as courts prioritize in free competition over proprietary claims, per the doctrine originating in Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc. (1976). Beyond word marks, generic terms also diverge from specialized categories like certification marks (e.g., "UL" for safety standards, verifying compliance rather than source) and collective marks (used by association members to indicate membership, not product genus). These maintain distinctiveness by signaling attributes beyond mere categorization, whereas genericization erodes any source-indicating function entirely, as seen in judicial refusals to enforce terms like "escalator" post-genericide. This legal barrier underscores that generic marks are not "types" of trademarks but anti-trademarks, antithetical to the core purpose of mark law: preventing consumer confusion via source identification.

Historical Development

Origins in Common Law

The principle that generic terms—those denoting the product category itself rather than a specific source—cannot form the basis of exclusive trademark rights emerged from English doctrines of unfair competition and , which prioritized preventing while avoiding monopolies over descriptive language essential for commerce. Courts refused to enforce claims where a term merely identified the genus or class of goods, as granting exclusivity would hinder competitors' ability to describe their offerings and deprive the public of , a stance rooted in equity rather than statutory mandate. This approach ensured that protection served source identification, not product description, aligning with broader aims of fostering fair market access without undue restrictions on speech or trade. In the United States, where federal trademark legislation did not exist until 1870, these English principles were adopted and expanded through state , with courts consistently denying protection to generic descriptors to promote competition and access. A foundational case, Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Co. v. Myers (1868), illustrated early judicial reluctance to allow appropriation of terms like "pearl starch" for a , deeming them unprotectable absent secondary meaning as a source indicator. Similarly, the U.S. in Canal Company v. Clark (80 U.S. 311, 1871) ruled that no party could monopolize a generic name for an article of trade, as such terms belong to the public and competitors must be free to use them descriptively, reinforcing that rights derive from use preventing confusion, not inherent property in words. This framework laid the groundwork for recognizing "genericide," where even originally distinctive marks could lose protection if public usage shifted their primary significance to the product category, as seen in evolving equitable remedies against . Pre-statutory decisions emphasized evidentiary burdens on claimants to prove source association over generic connotation, often through witness testimony on trade usage, without formal surveys. By the late , cases like Singer Manufacturing Co. v. June Manufacturing Co. (163 U.S. 169, 1896) extended these origins post-patent expiration, holding that generic equivalents entered the , preventing extension of expired monopolies and solidifying the doctrine's anti-monopoly rationale.

Key 19th and 20th Century Cases

One of the earliest documented instances of a trademark becoming generic occurred in Manufacturing Co. v. , 7 Ch. D. 834 (1878), a British Chancery Division case that influenced jurisdictions including the . Frederick Walton had coined "linoleum" in 1863 for his oil-based floor covering, securing it as a . By 1878, widespread imitation and public usage had rendered the term descriptive of the product category rather than a source identifier, leading the court to deny exclusive rights and allow competitors like to use it freely. This ruling established a for genericide based on evidentiary proof of , emphasizing that even invented terms could lose protection through market saturation. In the United States, Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co., 272 F. 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1921), marked a pivotal 20th-century application of genericide doctrine following asset seizures. Bayer had trademarked "Aspirin" in 1899 for acetylsalicylic acid, but U.S. patents expired in 1917, and German-owned trademarks were vested in the Alien Property Custodian, auctioned to competitors. When Bayer sought to reclaim exclusivity , the court found "Aspirin" had entered common parlance as the generic name for the substance, evidenced by dictionary entries, competitor advertising, and public usage without association to Bayer. The decision affirmed that failure to enforce distinctiveness amid patent expiration and wartime disruptions causally led to loss of trademark status. Subsequent U.S. cases reinforced these principles. In Du Pont Cellophane Co. v. Waxed Products Co., 85 F.2d 75 (2d Cir. 1936), the Second Circuit held "cellophane" generic for regenerated cellulose film after Du Pont's monopoly practices and licensing to rivals diluted source identification, despite the term's in 1908; dictionaries and trade treated it as a product descriptor. Similarly, in Haughton Elevator Co. v. Seeberger, 85 U.S.P.Q. 80 (C.C.P.A. 1950), the court cancelled Otis Elevator's "Escalator" mark, registered in 1900, as it had become the standard term for moving stairways by the , proven by Otis's own generic usage in patents and widespread third-party adoption. These rulings highlighted causal factors like owner inaction and technological ubiquity in driving genericide, shaping federal tests for primary significance to consumers over mere descriptiveness.

Causes of Genericization

Linguistic and Market Dynamics

Linguistic dynamics of genericization entail semantic broadening, a semantic shift where a trademark evolves from denoting a specific source to referring to a at large, as seen in terms like "aspirin" applied to any acetylsalicylic acid. This process aligns with change mechanisms, including linguistic drift—subconscious adoption through repeated exposure—and the principle of least effort from , which predisposes speakers to favor succinct, familiar terms over cumbersome generics. Corpus linguistics quantifies these shifts by examining vast textual corpora, such as Google Ngram Viewer or historical newspapers, to measure the ratio of generic to source-identifying usages; predominance of the former signals genericide, as evidenced in "," where pre-1950 data revealed entrenched generic patterns despite ongoing enforcement. Such empirical tools reveal that linguistic entrenchment often precedes recognition, with frequency of use accelerating the loss of secondary meaning. Market dynamics amplify linguistic vulnerabilities when brands secure dominant positions, ironically elevating genericide risk through heightened visibility and competitor imitation; goods with substantial face greater descriptive appropriation, as consumers internalize the term as categorical . habits, including casual noun-ification (e.g., "trampoline" for any rebounding device), interact with competitive pressures to normalize generic reference, particularly absent viable alternatives, thereby eroding source distinctiveness via widespread adoption.

Role of Consumer Behavior and Media

Consumer behavior plays a pivotal role in trademark genericization, as widespread usage of a name as a for the erodes its distinctiveness as a source identifier. When s habitually refer to generic equivalents using the —such as employing "Kleenex" for any rather than solely the branded product—the mark shifts from denoting origin to describing the good itself, a process evidenced by consumer surveys that measure whether the perceives the term as a or a common descriptor. This linguistic drift arises from market dominance, where the brand's success leads users to default to its name for convenience, bypassing alternatives and fostering association with the category over time. Media amplification exacerbates this by normalizing generic usage through reporting, advertising, and cultural references that treat the mark as a commonplace or . For instance, journalistic conventions or promotional materials often substitute names for generic terms, as seen in historical cases like "," where pervasive media and dictionary inclusions reflected and reinforced public habits, ultimately contributing to judicial findings of generic status in 1950. platforms further intensify this dynamic in the , enabling rapid dissemination of casual usages—such as verblike applications (e.g., "to " for searching)—which surveys and legal analyses link to accelerated genericide risks by embedding the term in everyday discourse beyond branded contexts. Empirical assessment of these influences relies on multifaceted , including lexicographic records, competitor , and targeted polling, which courts weigh to determine if primary significance has transferred from source to genus. Failure to monitor and correct such behaviors—through owner-led education campaigns or enforcement—allows incremental shifts to culminate in loss of exclusivity, as inertia and media echo chambers prioritize familiarity over precision.

Prominent Examples

Pharmaceuticals and Medical Terms

In pharmaceuticals, "Aspirin," originally a AG trademark for acetylsalicylic acid, exemplifies genericization following . Bayer synthesized the compound on August 10, 1897, and registered the Aspirin on March 6, 1899, in . Marketed globally from 1899, its U.S. rights were seized in 1917 under the Trading with the Enemy Act as Bayer was a German firm. , Bayer licensed production but could not halt generic competition; by 1921, U.S. courts, including a ruling by Judge , declared "aspirin" generic for any acetylsalicylic acid, stripping exclusive rights. Bayer retains "Aspirin" as a in and about 80 countries but prefixes "Bayer" in the U.S. to denote its branded version. "Heroin," another , followed a parallel path for diacetylmorphine, introduced in 1898 as a suppressant and morphine substitute. Like Aspirin, its U.S. was revoked in 1917 amid wartime asset seizures, rendering "" a generic descriptor despite initial branding efforts. Subsequent regulatory bans on the substance in the early 20th century, including U.S. provisions by 1924, further entrenched its non-proprietary status, though lost commercial control earlier due to genericide. Certain terms exhibit partial genericization through professional usage, though retaining legal protection. "Luer-Lok," trademarked by Becton, Dickinson and Company since 1924 for secure syringe-needle connections, is commonly shortened to "Luer lock" in clinical settings, risking descriptiveness despite enforcement. Similarly, "Phoroptor" for refractive testing instruments and "Port-a-Cath" for implantable vascular ports see generic-like application among physicians, reflecting market dominance but not full legal forfeiture. These cases highlight how specialized terminology can erode distinctiveness without court-declared genericide, contrasting stricter pharmaceutical precedents.

Household and Consumer Products

Linoleum exemplifies early genericization in household flooring products. British inventor Frederick Walton developed the material in , deriving the name from Latin roots (flax) and (oil) to describe its -based composition of oxidized , cork dust, and other fillers pressed onto burlap. Despite Walton's intent to protect it as a term, lack of timely registration and widespread adoption by competitors led to its generic status by the 1890s; a British court ruled in the that the term had become descriptive of the , denying exclusivity. Cellophane represents genericization in consumer packaging materials. Swiss chemist Jacques E. Brandenberger invented a thin, transparent sheet in 1908, which de Nemours licensed and improved for moisture resistance in 1923, dominating the market for food wrapping and other household uses. However, by 1952, the U.S. District Court in DuPont v. American Viscose Corp. declared "cellophane" generic after evidence showed consumers and competitors used it interchangeably for any similar regenerated film, invalidating 's monopoly claims despite prior patent expiration. Thermos illustrates the process in insulated consumer goods. The vacuum flask technology originated with Scottish physicist Sir James Dewar in 1892, but German firm Thermos GmbH commercialized it under the "Thermos" mark from 1904, selling portable bottles for keeping beverages hot or cold. In the U.S., a 1963 ruling by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Aladdin Industries, Inc. (321 F.2d 577) held the term generic, citing surveys and dictionary entries where "thermos" denoted any vacuum bottle, not solely the brand; the court noted the company's inconsistent enforcement contributed to public perception of descriptiveness. Jell-O provides a case of resisted genericization in food products. Pearl B. Wait patented the fruit-flavored gelatin dessert formula in 1897, trademarking "Jell-O" for powdered mixes reconstituted with hot water to form wobbly molds popular in households. Acquired by , the mark remains protected, but colloquial use as a generic for any gelatin dessert prompted aggressive policing, including licensing requirements for "Jell-O brand" and lawsuits against misuse, averting full loss of distinctiveness unlike contemporaries.

Modern and Technological Instances

The term "Jet Ski," originally a trademark registered by Kawasaki Heavy Industries for its stand-up personal watercraft model introduced in the U.S. market in 1974, has undergone significant genericization. By the 1980s and 1990s, widespread consumer usage extended the term beyond Kawasaki's products to describe any personal watercraft, including competitors' sit-down models like Yamaha's WaveRunner. Despite Kawasaki's ongoing enforcement efforts, including licensing the mark for use in advertising, "Jet Ski" functions as a generic descriptor in common parlance for motorized water scooters, illustrating how technological innovations in recreational vehicles can lead to trademark dilution through market dominance. In the realm of non-lethal weaponry, "" provides another technological example, stemming from a trademark held by (formerly Taser International) for its conducted electrical weapons invented in 1974 by Jack Cover. The acronym stands for "Thomas A. Swift's Electric ," referencing a novel, but public adoption has transformed it into a generic verb meaning to deploy any electroshock device, prompting Axon to actively police usage through style guides and legal actions to avert full genericide. Courts have upheld the mark's validity when used as an adjective with generics like " device," yet pervasive media and colloquial references underscore the risks for tech-derived brands achieving near-monopoly recognition. Software and digital tools represent emerging fronts for genericide in modern technology. Adobe's "Photoshop," launched in 1990, faces persistent threats as users employ it as a verb for , a practice Adobe counters via public campaigns and guidelines to maintain source identification. Similarly, Alphabet's "Google" has endured challenges, such as the 2017 Elliott v. Google case, where the Ninth Circuit affirmed the mark's distinctiveness for search services despite verbal genericization, emphasizing that primary significance tests consider consumer perception of origin rather than mere linguistic . These instances highlight how rapid tech and internet-driven language shifts accelerate genericide risks, compelling owners to balance promotion with vigilant protection.

United States Doctrine

In , generic terms are ineligible for protection because they denote the product category itself rather than a specific source, failing the core requirement that trademarks distinguish the goods or services of one producer from others. The doctrine prohibits registration or enforcement of such terms to avoid granting monopolies over common descriptive language, as established under the of 1946. Courts determine genericness through the "primary significance" test, codified in 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3), which assesses whether the term's chief meaning to the relevant consuming public refers to the genus of the product rather than its origin. This test, first prominently articulated in King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (418 F.2d 31, C.C.P.A. 1969), requires evidence of consumer perception, often drawn from surveys, dictionary definitions, competitor usage without attribution, and media references treating the term as a product descriptor. For instance, in challenges to registered marks, the party alleging genericide bears the burden to prove that the term no longer functions primarily as a source identifier, a threshold heightened for marks previously deemed distinctive. A two-step applies: first, identifying the or category of ; second, evaluating whether the disputed term is understood as the generic name for that genus. The Patent and Office (USPTO) refuses registration for generic terms under Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) §1209.01, emphasizing that no amount of secondary meaning can salvage a purely generic designation. In enforcement actions, genericide serves as an , as seen in Elliott v. Inc. (2017), where the Ninth Circuit ruled that nominal or verb usage (e.g., "googling") does not alone establish genericness absent proof of primary product-class association. Historical precedents, such as the 1938 decision in Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., declared "" generic due to its descriptive prevalence in public understanding, allowing competitors to use the term post-expiration of process . Even descriptive terms combined with generic elements, like ".com" suffixes, may qualify for protection if surveys or other evidence show source-identifying significance, per the Supreme Court's 2020 ruling in USPTO v. B.V. (140 S. Ct. 2298), which rejected a categorical bar on such combinations. However, this does not extend to inherently generic terms without acquired distinctiveness, underscoring the doctrine's focus on empirical over mere linguistic form. The framework balances incentives against access to language, with genericide risks heightened for highly successful marks that permeate everyday .

International Variations and Challenges

In the , genericide occurs when a trademark's primary significance to consumers denotes the product category rather than the source, leading to cancellation under the , as evidenced by cases like King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Aladdin Industries (1962), where "thermos" was deemed generic based on consumer surveys and dictionary usage. In contrast, the assesses genericide under Article 51 of the Trade Mark (EU) 2017/1001, revoking protection if the mark has become customary in trade due to the proprietor's actions or the product's nature, with decisions varying by national courts or the EUIPO, such as in v. (2023), where private-label mimicry did not trigger genericide but highlighted descriptive drift risks. These frameworks differ fundamentally: U.S. law emphasizes empirical consumer perception via use-based evidence, while EU law leans toward filing-based registration with post-grant revocation, complicating cross-jurisdictional consistency. International challenges arise from trademarks' territorial nature, as affirmed by the Paris Convention (1883), which harmonizes priority and national treatment but leaves genericide determinations to domestic law, resulting in divergent outcomes for the same mark. For instance, Bayer's "Aspirin" trademark, registered globally by 1899, became generic in the U.S. after World War I asset seizures under the Treaty of Versailles (1919), yet Bayer retains exclusive rights in Canada, where competitors must use "acetylsalicylic acid" descriptors, and in Germany via continuous enforcement. This disparity stems from varying evidentiary standards: U.S. courts require proof of primary generic meaning across the public, while some jurisdictions like Canada prioritize historical registration and limited generic entry. Linguistic and cultural variances exacerbate enforcement hurdles, as the U.S. Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents translates foreign terms to evaluate genericness—e.g., rejecting marks equivalent to English generics— but this is absent in the , where demands case-by-case assessment under the Madrid Protocol's territorial extensions. Cross-border genericide risks intensify in first-to-file systems like the and , where non-use or rapid market saturation can accelerate descriptiveness claims, unlike the U.S. first-to-use priority. Owners face practical barriers in monitoring global media and consumer behavior, with weak enforcement in emerging markets allowing unchecked generic drift, as noted in WIPO-mediated disputes where national courts diverge on well-known mark dilution under Article 6bis. Despite (1994) mandates for minimum protection standards, the absence of unified genericide reversal mechanisms perpetuates fragmentation, compelling proprietors to pursue parallel national campaigns.

Prevention and Mitigation

Proactive Measures by Owners

Trademark owners implement proactive strategies to preserve the distinctiveness of their marks and avert genericide, focusing on consistent reinforcement of source-identifying function through internal policies, public education, and enforcement mechanisms. These efforts typically involve guidelines from organizations like the International Association (INTA), which in 2019 outlined best practices emphasizing proper trademark presentation and consumer awareness. A core tactic is stylistic and linguistic differentiation in all communications, such as capitalizing the mark, using distinctive fonts or colors, and avoiding its use as a , , or generic descriptor. Owners pair the mark with its generic equivalent—e.g., "Kleenex® facial tissues" or "® brand copiers"—to underscore that it denotes a specific source rather than the product category itself. This practice extends to licensing agreements, where terms mandate correct usage by licensees to prevent dilution. Educational campaigns target consumers, media, and retailers to correct misuse, often via advertisements or direct outreach. For example, Corporation has run print and broadcast ads since the 1970s with slogans like "You can't Xerox a Xerox on a Xerox copier," explicitly reminding users to employ alternatives like "copy" while associating the mark with branded equipment. Similarly, owners monitor dictionaries, style guides, and publications, sending correction letters to editors— as did in the 1990s against generic references in media—to maintain proper attribution. Vigilant policing includes digital surveillance of , platforms, and third-party content for infringing or generic deployments, with prompt cease-and-desist demands to competitors or influencers. Internal training for employees and agents ensures uniform adherence, while periodic consumer surveys assess primary significance, providing evidence against genericide claims in potential challenges. These measures, when sustained, demonstrate ongoing efforts to control the mark's reputation and quality, bolstering legal defenses under doctrines like those in the United States Trial and Board proceedings.

Judicial and Regulatory Interventions

In the United States, federal courts intervene in genericide disputes primarily through cancellation proceedings under the Lanham Act or as defenses in infringement litigation, evaluating whether a mark's primary significance to consumers is as a source identifier rather than a product category. In Elliott v. Google, Inc. (9th Cir. 2017), plaintiffs petitioned to cancel the GOOGLE trademark, arguing its common use as a verb (e.g., "to google" meaning to search online) evidenced genericide; the court rejected this, holding that such verbal usage does not render a mark generic if surveys and evidence demonstrate consumers primarily associate it with Google Inc. as the source, not the generic activity. Similarly, in USPTO v. Booking.com B.V. (U.S. Supreme Court 2020), the Court reversed the USPTO's per se rule deeming "generic.com" terms unregistrable, ruling that consumer perception—evidenced by surveys showing association with a specific provider—can confer protectability, thereby preventing automatic loss of rights for such marks despite their descriptive roots. These rulings emphasize empirical consumer surveys and market data over anecdotal usage, enabling trademark owners to mitigate genericide risks by demonstrating acquired distinctiveness. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), via the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), provides regulatory intervention by adjudicating petitions to cancel registrations on genericide grounds, requiring petitioners to prove genericness by a preponderance of evidence, including dictionary definitions, competitor usage, and consumer surveys. TTAB proceedings have upheld marks against such challenges when owners present substantial evidence of source identification; for instance, between 2013 and 2017, the TTAB issued 10 precedential opinions on genericness claims, rejecting cancellation in cases where distinctiveness was substantiated, thus preserving rights without mandating reproof of non-generic status from registration. Post-Booking.com, the USPTO issued examination guidance in 2020 directing examiners to assess "generic.com" applications based on consumer perception rather than categorical denial, facilitating registration and preemptive protection against erosion into generics. Additionally, the Federal Circuit's 2025 rejection of a "once generic, always generic" doctrine allows formerly deemed-generic terms to seek federal registration upon showing current secondary meaning, offering a regulatory pathway for reclamation in evolving markets. Internationally, regulatory bodies like the (EUIPO) intervene similarly through opposition and invalidity proceedings, canceling marks proven generic via linguistic and usage patterns, but upholding them if owners demonstrate exclusive source association; for example, EUIPO has rejected genericide claims against marks like "Aspirator" when limited to specific classes. These mechanisms prioritize causal of over historical dominance, balancing innovation incentives against language monopoly concerns.

Economic and Societal Impacts

Incentives for Innovation and Property Rights

Trademarks function as a form of right that incentivize by allowing originators to exclusively associate their mark with a product, thereby recouping investments in research, development, and marketing through sustained consumer goodwill and . This exclusivity reduces the risk of free-riding by competitors, who might otherwise exploit the brand's established reputation without contributing to its creation or maintenance, fostering incentives for consistent quality improvements and . Economic analyses posit that such protections lower consumer search costs while enabling firms to internalize the benefits of branding efforts, indirectly supporting broader innovative activity beyond mere . Genericide undermines these incentives by transforming a protected mark into a generic descriptor, stripping the owner of enforceable exclusivity and committing the term to the , which allows unrestricted use by rivals. In cases of involuntary genericide, such as court-declared loss of distinctiveness, firms face diminished returns on prior branding investments, potentially deterring future expenditures in creating or promoting similarly vulnerable marks. For instance, Bayer's "Aspirin" , developed through extensive early 20th-century , was ruled generic in U.S. courts in 1921 following challenges that emphasized its widespread adoption as a product category term, resulting in permanent loss of monopoly control in the . From a property rights perspective, genericide represents an erosion of the limited monopoly granted under , akin to uncompensated expropriation that introduces into the reliability of such rights. This can shift firm strategies toward less ambitious branding or alternative protections like patents, where feasible, reducing overall incentives for trademark-dependent in consumer-facing . While proponents argue genericide promotes and follow-on uses, empirical reasoning rooted in deterrence suggests it disproportionately harms originators' motivations, as evidenced by firms' subsequent reliance on sub-brands or standards bodies to mitigate total loss, rather than risking full genericide exposure.

Debates on Language Evolution vs. Monopoly Loss

The debate centers on whether the genericization of trademarks represents a beneficial of or an unjust erosion of that diminishes economic incentives for . Proponents of the former view it as a natural linguistic process where successful terms integrate into everyday , enhancing communication efficiency and preventing perpetual control over descriptive . Critics, including trademark owners and legal scholars, contend that genericide undermines the exclusivity that provide, allowing competitors to free-ride on established goodwill and potentially reducing incentives for by transferring value without compensation. From a linguistic perspective, genericization aligns with how words acquire or shed meanings over time, as new coinages fill gaps in expression and eventually become commonplace if they prove useful. For instance, terms like "aspirin," which lost exclusive rights to in the United States following court rulings in 1917–1921 that declared it generic due to widespread usage, demonstrate how market dominance can lead to semantic shift without harming overall societal welfare. This process benefits s by standardizing terminology for products, fostering competition, and avoiding "language monopolies" that could stifle expressive freedom, as historically critiqued in early . Empirical linguistic analysis supports this, showing that perception drives genericide, reflecting genuine evolution rather than mere misuse, and courts have occasionally recognized that protecting overly entrenched marks could hinder inclusion and public discourse. Opponents argue that genericide causally erodes the economic value trademarks confer, as owners forfeit monopoly-like exclusivity on source identification after substantial investments—often millions in —to build associations. In the Aspirin case, Bayer's loss enabled generic competitors to capture , reducing the original brand's U.S. despite retained strength abroad, illustrating how genericide dilutes distinctiveness and complicates against infringers. Economically, this discourages future branding efforts, as firms anticipate uncompensated value transfer to rivals, potentially leading to underinvestment in quality signaling; studies of genericide cases, such as "" (genericized by 1940s rulings), show correlated declines in control without offsetting gains in incentives. Legal analyses emphasize that while trademarks are not full monopolies, their loss shifts costs to owners without enhancing in non-generic alternatives, prioritizing short-term linguistic fluidity over long-term causal incentives for development. Resolving the tension requires weighing empirical outcomes: while genericization has not empirically stifled language innovation—evidenced by persistent neologisms in —it has demonstrably impacted specific firms' valuations, as seen in post-genericide market fragmentations where original brands like retain premium pricing only through vigilant policing elsewhere. Critics of broad protection note antitrust parallels, arguing excessive monopoly fears overlook trademarks' limited scope to prevention, but from genericide disputes indicate higher litigation burdens on owners, suggesting policy reforms like for precise consumer surveys could better balance evolution with rights preservation.

Protected Designations of Origin

Protected Designations of Origin (PDOs) represent a regime in the , established under Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012, which grants exclusive rights to names of agricultural products and foodstuffs tied to a specific geographical area where production, processing, and preparation occur entirely within that delimited region. The inherent qualities, characteristics, or reputation of PDO products must derive essentially or exclusively from the natural and human factors of that origin, such as for wines or traditional methods for cheeses, ensuring the designation cannot be applied to identical or similar products produced elsewhere. This system contrasts with standard trademarks by embedding geographical specificity into the protection, thereby mitigating the risk of genericide—where a mark evolves into a common descriptor—through enforceable restrictions on use outside the origin. PDOs prevent dilution into generic terms by prohibiting imitation or evocation that could mislead consumers about origin, with EU law mandating that protected names be used only for compliant products and allowing civil actions for infringement. For instance, "Roquefort" PDO, registered in 1996, confines the name to cheese matured in caves, barring its generic application to analogous blue cheeses produced globally; violations have led to successful EU court rulings against non-origin producers. Similarly, "Champagne" PDO, protected since 1936 under French appellation laws and EU harmonization, restricts usage to sparkling wines from the Champagne region, with over 100 international disputes resolved to curb generic labeling in markets like the . As of 2023, the EU registers over 1,300 PDOs, predominantly for cheeses (e.g., Parmigiano-Reggiano) and meats, demonstrating sustained distinctiveness against genericide pressures from . In jurisdictions outside the , such as the , PDO equivalents face challenges from genericity doctrines under , where geographic terms lack protection if deemed primarily descriptive without secondary meaning; this has sparked conflicts, as seen in the 2020-2023 "Gruyère" dispute, where Swiss and French producers secured partial protection after arguing against U.S. generic status, though domestic producers retained rights for non-origin use. The Lisbon Agreement (1958) and Geneva Act (2015) extend international PDO-like safeguards via WIPO, requiring member states to refuse or cancel conflicting trademarks, yet enforcement varies, with the U.S. prioritizing tests that often classify long-used geographic terms as generic. PDOs thus exemplify a protective bulwark against genericide for origin-bound names, fostering economic value—estimated at €77 billion annually for EU GIs—by preserving causal links between place, method, and product identity, though critics argue overreach stifles innovation in descriptive language.

Spectrum of Trademark Distinctiveness

Trademark distinctiveness refers to the capacity of a mark to identify and distinguish the source of or services, categorized along a spectrum from least to most distinctive under law, primarily governed by the of 1946. Generic terms occupy the lowest end, incapable of serving as because they denote the product category itself rather than a specific source, such as "apple" for apples or "aspirin" when used generically for acetylsalicylic acid tablets after Bayer's trademark lapsed in 1917. Descriptive marks follow, directly conveying qualities, ingredients, or features of the , like "Whole Foods" for natural groceries, which require proof of secondary meaning—consumer association with a particular source—through extensive use and evidence like sales volume exceeding $1 billion annually in some cases—to gain protection. Suggestive marks, inherently distinctive without needing secondary meaning, evoke product characteristics through imagination, such as "Coppertone" implying tanned skin from or "Turbotec" suggesting high-speed ; these receive immediate protection upon use. Arbitrary marks employ common words in unrelated contexts, like "Apple" for computers or "" for cigarettes, offering strong protection due to no descriptive connotation. Fanciful marks, coined or invented terms like "" or "Exxon," provide the broadest scope of protection as they bear no inherent relation to the goods, with courts upholding exclusivity even against similar-sounding variants, as in the 1982 Kodak case defending against "Codak." The spectrum illustrates that protectability increases with inherent distinctiveness, with generic and descriptive marks weakest and fanciful strongest; the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejects generic applications outright, while descriptive ones face refusals unless secondary meaning is demonstrated via surveys showing over 50% consumer recognition in landmark cases like Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana (1992).
CategoryDescriptionExamplesProtectability
GenericNames the product category or genus itselfAspirin (for pain relievers), Escalator (after genericization)None; cannot function as a trademark
DescriptiveDirectly describes attributes, uses, or classes of goods/servicesVision Center (eyeglasses), Park 'N Fly (airport parking)Only with secondary meaning
SuggestiveRequires consumer imagination to link to product qualitiesCoppertone (suntan lotion), Netflix (online videos)Inherent; no secondary meaning needed
ArbitraryCommon words used for unrelated goodsApple (computers), Dove (soap)Inherent; strong protection
FancifulInvented words with no dictionary meaningKodak, RolexInherent; strongest protection
This classification, articulated in cases like Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc. (1976), ensures serve source-identification functions without monopolizing language, though genericides—where once-protectable marks like "" (from 1925 B. & M. patent) slip into common use—highlight the spectrum's dynamic nature, often contested via surveys measuring primary significance where over 50% generic perception voids protection.

References

  1. https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/strong-trademarks
  2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/genericide
  3. https://www.mandourlaw.com/genericide/
  4. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/create-your-brand_240721_accessible.pdf
  5. https://www.dictionary.com/e/genericized-trademarks/
  6. https://www.consumerreports.org/consumerist/15-product-trademarks-that-have-become-victims-of-genericization/
  7. https://www.marqvision.com/blog/genericide-how-an-excess-of-popularity-can-end-your-trademark
  8. https://gkh.com/trademark-genericide-how-bad-grammar-kills-a-brand/
  9. https://www.taftlaw.com/news-events/law-bulletins/lowering-the-bar-for-genercide-from-clear-evidence-to-reasonable-basis/
  10. https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1209_01_c_i.html
  11. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/BasicFacts_1.pdf
  12. https://www.seyfarth.com/news-insights/how-not-to-prove-a-mark-is-generic-use-of-google-as-a-verb-does-not-constitute-genericide.html
  13. https://sierraiplaw.com/generic-trademark/
  14. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/TM-ExamGuide-1-22.pdf
  15. https://aeonlaw.com/when-is-trademark-generic/
  16. https://www.lotempiolaw.com/2017/05/blog-2/generic-trademarks/
  17. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/generic
  18. https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/trademarks/strength-of-marks/generic-terms/
  19. https://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/degrees.html
  20. https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/trademark-strength/
  21. https://www.cohnlg.com/the-differences-between-descriptive-and-generic-trademarks/
  22. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1666&context=iplj
  23. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/20.500.13051/15969/2/68_89YaleLJ1323_June1980_.pdf
  24. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/169/
  25. https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1020&context=buffaloipjournal
  26. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1116914
  27. https://cyber.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tmcases/bayer.htm
  28. https://www.quimbee.com/cases/bayer-co-v-united-drug-co
  29. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/85/75/1490976/
  30. https://www.quimbee.com/cases/haughton-elevator-co-v-seeberger
  31. https://www.jonesipl.com/article/genericide-the-story-of-escalator/
  32. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3520&context=lawreview
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0007681312001589
  34. https://patentpc.com/blog/how-genericide-leads-to-trademark-dilution-and-infringement-risks
  35. https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/10/08/new-survey-methods-address-consumer-uncertainty-trademark-law/
  36. https://www.sternekessler.com/news-insights/insights/how-lose-mark-3-ways-part-2-genericide/
  37. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4876997
  38. https://www.redpoints.com/blog/how-to-avoid-loss-of-trademark-rights/
  39. https://bagchilaw.com/2021/09/09/selecting-a-strong-trademark-the-spectrum-of-distinctiveness-and-why-it-matters/
  40. https://www.inta.org/famous-and-well-known-marks-committee-develops-best-practices-to-avoid-genericide/
  41. https://www.dpma.de/english/our_office/publications/milestones/brandswithhistory/aspirin/index.html
  42. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-27026704
  43. https://www.caesar.law/news-resources/dont-let-trademark-become-generic/
  44. https://www.jonesipl.com/article/genericide-transformation-of-heroin/
  45. https://trademarks.justia.com/713/36/luer-71336590.html
  46. https://www.jonesipl.com/article/genericide-the-case-of-aspirin/
  47. https://www.jonesipl.com/article/genericide-the-evolution-of-linoleum/
  48. https://www.jonesipl.com/article/genericide-the-decline-of-cellophane/
  49. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/321/577/303217/
  50. https://www.thatsatrademark.com/blog/jell-o
  51. https://www.thatsatrademark.com/blog/jet-ski
  52. https://www.axon.com/taser-brand-information
  53. https://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2017/07/05/google-escapes-genericide-claim-in-ninth-circuit-decision/
  54. https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/19/21143794/photoshop-30th-anniversary-adobe-verb-origin-story
  55. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1051
  56. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1064
  57. https://www.thowardlaw.com/evaluating-genericness-at-the-time-of-registration
  58. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/305/111/
  59. https://www.vedderprice.com/supreme-court-rules-generic-trademarks-eligible-for-federal-registration
  60. https://sites.usc.edu/iptls/2021/04/07/2028/
  61. https://www.ac-legal.com/genericide-success-may-cancel-trademark/
  62. https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=jipl
  63. https://commonplacefacts.com/2019/03/21/aspirin-heroin-trademark/
  64. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/488/960/496835/
  65. https://www.ny-trademark-lawyer.com/the-trademark-doctrine-of-foreign-equivalents.html
  66. https://patentpc.com/blog/trademark-registration-in-the-us-vs-eu-key-differences-every-business-should-know
  67. https://jmbdavis.com/knowledgebase/8-key-strategies-to-prevent-genericide-and-loss-of-your-trademark-rights-genericide-part-3/
  68. https://smithhopen.com/2021/06/07/genericide-the-killer-of-trademarks/
  69. https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/Ie4a148e8927511e38578f7ccc38dcbee/Protecting-Trademarks-from-Genericide?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  70. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/15-15809/15-15809-2017-05-16.html
  71. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/19-46
  72. https://www.sgrlaw.com/how-to-overcome-the-genericness-hurdle-at-the-u-s-trademark-trial-and-appeal-board/
  73. https://patentlyo.com/patent/2025/03/federal-circuit-rejects-trademark.html
  74. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1048&context=njtip
  75. https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/sites/ilr.law.uiowa.edu/files/2022-10/Sui-Genericide.pdf
  76. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3392043
  77. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4372&context=uclrev
  78. https://www.yjolt.org/sites/default/files/linford_a_linguistic_justification_for_protecting_generic_trademarks_0.pdf
  79. https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/context/facscholar/article/1475/viewcontent/Lunney_1999_TrademarkMonopolies.pdf
  80. https://www.strategy-business.com/blog/An-Upside-to-Brand-Genericide
  81. https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/sites/ilr.law.uiowa.edu/files/2023-02/ILR-101-5-Tang.pdf
  82. https://www.exyip.com/2021/11/11/genericide-and-how-it-affects-trademarks/
  83. https://jipl.scholasticahq.com/api/v1/articles/70640-is-the-monopoly-theory-of-trademarks-robust-or-a-bust.pdf
  84. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1183&context=iplr
  85. https://www.euipo.europa.eu/en/gi-hub
  86. https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_952_2021.pdf
  87. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/gi_background_e.htm
  88. https://aglaw.psu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/20220817-Slides-NALC-Webinar-Geographical-Indications-CJM.pdf
  89. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/OPIA-Bulletin-Gruyere.pdf
  90. https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/offices/dcom/olia/globalip/pdf/gi_system.pdf
  91. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/geographical-indications/faq_geographicalindications
  92. https://www.interregeurope.eu/sites/default/files/2025-05/Geographical%2520Indications_SME_Origin_DG%2520AGRI_def.pdf
  93. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2923895
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.