What about when I go xerox a legal document? Or blow my nose with a kleenex? How come those trademarks haven't been lost? They are synonymous with the product.
Here's an article on Trademarks for Dunderheads that discusses the Kleenex and Xerox issues. Letters from lawyers is probably the straight and simple answer. I'm sure companies don't like feeding cash to lawyers to write letters to The Washington Post, but the result if they didn't might be like suicide.
Nice article, but it doesn't answer my question. It certainly doesn't "address the Kleenex and Xerox issues" just because it happens to mention them. My question, specifically, is why haven't the diluted names of Xerox and Kleenex (and Rolodex) become part of the public domain? It specifically mentions in the article how journalists are taught not to use the term Rolodex, for example, unless they are sure it _is_ a real Rolodex. Nevertheless the general public has come to use Rolodex as a generic term. If that is the case, why aren't other business card file makers allowed to call their products rolodexes? The name has clearly been diluted, talk to anyone in your office and ask them if you can get a business card file, and they'll think for a moment and then say, "Oh you mean a rolodex?" Kleenex and Xerox are the same way. It was asserted earlier in this thread (and in the article you referenced) that trademark holders have to continually target unauthorized references to their trademarks because if the brand becomes diluted to a generic term, they will lose the ability to retain control of the trademark. So the question still stands. Why has this not occurred to the Xerox, Kleenex, and Rolodex brands? They are CLEARLY diluted, they are a part of the general public's vernacular.
You know what I think is so funny about this post is all the people who stickup for Google's trademarking rights, but steal pics to use for their avitars.
Xerox and Kleenex: They have teams of laywers that write cease and desist letters to people. If they don't respond, they file a lawsuit seeking monetary damages. It's what you have to do to protect your trademark. Fact.
I'm waiting on a cease and desist letter. I'm not defending anyone. Simply stating how it works. Google has lawyers to defend them and don't need my help. If you own the site ApartmentsForRent.org, and had a trademark on it, and I put something bad up on ApartmentsForRent.US, you might feel different. It's sorta the 'my view on that depends on where I stand'.
I don't think I'm explaining myself very well. The legal argument is that if a trademark became a commonplace name for something, the lawyers of the owner wouldn't have a leg to stand on if someone did start blatantly using it as their own. And that is why they DO send cease-and-desist letters, etc, to protect their trademark from becoming diluted. Yes? But the rolodex name, the kleenex name, they are already diluted. They are commonplace words. You don't say, "Hand me a facial tissue" when you're about to sneeze. Well, most people don't hehe So what's to stop someone from labeling their product "a kleenex"? Or "a circular rolodex"?
It's the commercial use of the name that the PTO cares about. Not you and me. If you labeled a commercial product as Kleenex, Kimberly Clark would take you to the Kleeners.
How is that different from what is happening with Google? "Googling" is a commonplace word (or is about to be one) just like the aforementioned "kleenex". I'm not labeling my own product "Google", I'm merely describing what I'm doing with their services. I'm not even using "googling" instead of "searching" in general, like "I'm googling my name on Yahoo", I'm only refering to Google's services. That is also why I don't understand your argument regarding the monetary damages. Again, I'm not using the name to label my own product, I'm merely describing the use of THEIR services.