Can I have some clarification please?

[wmdsch]

some sellers list for instance "Thermos" flasks (Registered Brand) when the item is a 'thermos' (generic term) but not a 'Thermos'. is this considered misleading?

[cherry*135]

Thermos still a valid trade mark in Australia

"Thermos (originally a trade mark of Thermos GmbH; declared generic in the US in 1963; still a valid trade mark in Australia);

Cullens Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys"


http://www.cullens.com.au/news-events/ideas-into-assets-r-blog/brand-aid-proactive-better-than-react...

[the_pooze]

............and just to throw a little grammatical fuel on to the fire of this discussion it would also depend on where in the sentence the word appeared.

"Thermos flask for sale" would be correct for either the genuine article or a generic version.

"Selling a Thermos flask" would only be correct for the genuine article.

Yes, yes, I can hear you all already, I can spell "smart-asre" (I'm just not allowed to spell it correctly on the forum)

[digital*ghost]

---

@am*3 wrote:
Thermos still a valid trade mark in Australia

"Thermos (originally a trade mark of Thermos GmbH; declared generic in the US in 1963; still a valid trade mark in Australia);

Cullens Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys"


http://www.cullens.com.au/news-events/ideas-into-assets-r-blog/brand-aid-proactive-better-than-react...

---

Yes, but if they don't police the use of the trademark and enforce their legal rights, they are contributing to the genericisation of the trademark .

I'm not saying people should be using a registered trademark etc, but the company who owns it doesn't just have to pay to register it, they have to actively enforce and protect it in order to be able to maintain it. 

[modestbods]

---

@cq_tech wrote:
The registered owners of the "Thermos" brand are perfectly legally entitled to demand that anybody using that term to sell a generic vacuum flask either edit their listing or remove it altogether. The same thing applies to people selling generic coolers. Unless they are a genuine "Esky" brand, it is a breach of copyright to use that name in their listings.

Just because every man and his dog is currently doing it doesn't make it right, and if the registered owners of those iconic brand names decide to exercise their legal rights, there are going to be an awful lot of listings being hastily revised under the threat of prosecution.

---

An enlightened & forward thinking company might not be so quick to rush in to prevent others using their brand/trademark in a generic sense. They might just appreciate & understand the positive implications that having their brand used to genericise an entire type of product provides for them, ie. they will always remain the market leader in that type of product, and only they can legitimately claim to be the 'original' or áuthentic'. It's the type of positive exposure for their company & their authentic original product that no amount of money thrown at advertising could ever hope to bring them. Why would they choose to kill their golden goose?

[cq_tech]

I suppose it depends upon how much they value their brand. For example, if you were the CEO of Thermos and went into a shop and asked to buy a genuine Thermos flask, how would you feel if the shop assistant tried to sell you a generic brand of vacuum flask, especially if they then told you that the generics were every bit as good as the originals but a whole lot cheaper (which is completely untrue)?

Have you ever been to a Pizza Hut and asked for a Coke? All of their sales staff have been instructed to point out to the customer that they don't sell Coke, but can let you have a Pepsi instead. This became mandatory after Coca Cola sent several reps into Pizza Huts and specifically asked for Cokes but were served Pepsi without being advised that Pizza Hut didn't sell Coke. They were subsequently prosecuted and had to pay substantial fines for misleading the public.

Any large corporation with half a brain will actively protect their most iconic money-making brand names at all costs, rather than allowing their competitors to become wealthy at their expense, just as Coca Cola did with Pizza Hut several years ago, and it surprises me that Thermos doesn't act exactly the same way.

[horizon1907]

Makes me think of  Biro. May I use your Ballpoint pen ?  🙂 

[lyndal1838]

If you had ever had dealings with the Australian agents for Thermos you would know why the trade mark is not actively policed in Australia.

They really don't care about anything much, including customer service.

[modestbods]

---

@cq_tech wrote:
 and it surprises me that Thermos doesn't act exactly the same way.

---

Sorry to spoil the fun, but this might explain it... 

"Thermos" remains a registered trademark in some countries but was declared a genericized trademark in the US in 1963 since it is colloquially synonymous with vacuum flasks in general." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_flask)

[cq_tech]

I bet you wouldn't get away with selling generic coolers as Eskys though. 😉

[modestbods]

---

@cq_tech wrote:
I bet you wouldn't get away with selling generic coolers as Eskys though. 😉

---

Perhaps, at least not without Colemans permission,  but I could still sell them as eskys if I wanted to.

The term 'esky' has become a genericized trademark in Australia, being used colloquially to refer to any type of cooler. However, the use of the Esky trademark must be approved by the brand owner to avoid any liability.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esky)