Hacker News Reader

Comment by runaway | Hacker News Reader

But the term realtor was invented by the association to describe its members, specifically to differentiate them from other real estate agents. It's more like a "genericized brand name", not a previously existing English word.

View on HN

To make things worse, they have to protect their trademark aggressively, else they do become generic:

"The courts read any failure to protect your trademark as good reason for the courts to not help you protect it later when you find the infringement significant. As the trademark attorney in the clip noted, Elevator, Thermos, Aspirin, and Trampoline all lost their rights to their trademarks, because they didn't "police" their trademarks."

From: http://stosselintheclassroom.org/video_activityMar08.html

(Important for startups:

http://blog.startupipservices.com/archives/top-startup-trade...

I'm sure you knew already, but it doesn't hurt to reinforce the importance of trademarks.)

Edit: dotBen made a similar point further down the thread

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2578717

To make things worse, they have to protect their trademark aggressively, else they do become generic

So what is the downside in this scenario? How is Bayer hurt by not owning an Aspirin trademark any longer?

Quick: Who made Kleenex?

The answer is Kleenex. Now try to tell someone in a general conversation that you when you're talking about Kleenex, you meant 1) the actual company Kleenex, not the 2) product nor the 3) other generic tissue paper products. Because now you have to explain to consumers why your Kleenex is better than your competitors Kleenex, when before you could just say 'Kleenex, the brand that works' or 'Kleenex, the brand you trust' or just plain 'Kleenex'. Even if it's just a name, if you reduce the number of ways for you to differentiate your product from others, it just makes it harder to do so.

I understand the confusion (here in the South Eastern US they use 'coke' instead of 'soda' as the generic term) but are there other ways for businesses to react? It seems kind of silly to fight against a brand name being subsumed into colloquial speech by frantically suing the pants off of everyone. And when the term finally becomes more widely known as a generic term instead of a brand, then what do you do? It doesn't make sense for "realator" or "entreprenur" to be trademarked. So what should the organizations that own these trademarks do? Hang on to them in desparation? How does that benefit anybody?

See? That's how well these companies did with their marketing. It was such a successful campaign that you, who I'll presume is an intelligent human being, see it as silly legal issue. Frankly speaking? No. There really isn't another way for businesses to handle it. You're talking about legal issues, and the way to resolve legal issues is through legal means.

It seems silly now, but to many of these companies, it's the way for them to be unique, to stand out among the crowd. Because they came up with the word 'realtor' and 'entreprenur' to describe themselves, not to describe others. And, rightly or wrongly in this case, the government said that the words they use to describe themselves was so unique that it was worth it to legally make it theirs.

(And all the past successes of these names being turned into generic terms (Kleenex, Xerox, Aspirin) is the other reason why these companies are fighting tooth and nail to make sure it doesn't happen to them. The government has basically stated that it's a use it or lose it situation. And they are determined not to lose it. Whether or not that's a good thing....)

I knew there was a reason I hated that word - it always sounded phony.

I generally refer to them as agents or brokers. Those terms are more specific because, at least in the U.S., there is a legal distinction between the two.

I think the only times I've ever said "realtor" has been when it was informal. Having researched the NAR, MLS, etc. before selling my house, it seemed fairly obvious that realtor was a trade name and something I just assumed was trademarked.

Trademark law does not seem to care how inherently generic a term is, or about the history of the term. All that matters is whether the term currently serves as a distinctive trademark and whether the alleged infringing use is as a competing trademark.

This is why it's ok to use the word "entrepreneur" in general, but not as the name of a magazine or "communication product".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com