News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:‘Give Away Your Legos’ and Other Commandments for Scaling... by MereInterest on Friday September 11, 2015 @08:48AM (#10203342)
It depends. In the US, trademarks are intended to protect the consumer, not the company. If consumers no longer associate a name with a particular brand, then the company loses control over the trademark. So long as a company continues to defend the trademark, they maintain control of it. That is why, for example, Xerox had a massive advertising campaign for the use of the word "photocopy". Previously, "Xerox" was used to refer to making a copy of a document, and Xerox (the company) was in danger of losing the trademark.

Wikipedia has a good list of names that are in the process of becoming generic, much to the dismay of the companies that hold the trademarks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericize...

Re:‘Give Away Your Legos’ and Other Commandments for Scaling... by column on Friday September 11, 2015 @09:08AM (#10203435)
While you are technically correct (at least in the USA) there are many examples in that least that are widely used as generics for decades while style maintaining trademark protection: 'Kleenex', 'Bubble Warp', 'Dictaphone'...
Re:‘Give Away Your Legos’ and Other Commandments for Scaling... by albedoa on Saturday September 12, 2015 @11:13AM (#10208296)
> In the US, trademarks are intended to protect the consumer, not the company.

They are meant to protect each in different ways.