Can you xerox that for me must be the exception?https://twitter.com/david_perell/status/1269018249053777920 …
-
Because the product is not commoditized. When you search for Kleenex - you are looking for tissues When you search for Chapstick - you are looking for lip balm When you search for Peloton - you are looking for a Peloton bike, not generally a connected exercise bike.
Blake is right that if your brand is so strong that people associate it with the generic type of goods that is a win as he showed with Google (or Googling as it were 
).
Post is right that it is bad for your brand it it becomes the generic name for the goods in question. In
-
-
this case, you would lose your trademark. With these two things said, so long as customers who associate the type of goods with the brand don’t think the brand is a generic name for the goods, ie calling http://bing.com a google (and not knowing it’s a brand) or calling
-
all building blocks legos (and again not knowing it’s a brand), you are fine. And iirc there is a case which says that just because Google became a verb, it doesn’t mean it’s become a generic. Therefore they keep their TM.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Agree with
@Post_Market - should be closer to a both-and statement. Differentiation occurs when you are both a verb AND considered a premium product in your space. But being a verb isn’t necessary or sufficient. -
I get it and agree with
@Post_Market too on that. If the product is a commodity, you don’t want your name associated with others. Example: Kleenex/tissue If there’s differentiation and your product defines a category, then you’re probably happy about that. Example: Peloton/bike - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.