It’s not entirely a myth, see a list of trademarks that have been “lost” due to insufficient protection or other reasons here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_generici...

There are definitely examples where brandnames have moved into common usage and then lose their trademark.

I can't recall seeing trademark aggression that had anything to do with genericism though. Some marketing copy maybe but not as challenges to other company's marks.

Genericism is within the user/audience/market rather than other businesses. The cause of genericism is total cultural domination - such widespread success that it becomes the noun. I wonder how close "iPhone" and "iPad" might be to genericide.

Is there a test for it? If you put an Android Tablet on a table and asked a test subject to pass you the iPad, I think we can predict the overwhelming outcome.

I mean, yeah, because they probably know what an iPad is and can infer what I meant. That just means the brand name is recognized, not that it’s generic. If you put a Coke on the table and asked the subject to pass the Pepsi, it would probably work too — as well as vice versa.

Well if another competitor starts using your protected term and you don’t protect it, it is more likely to become generic.

(Ie if Apple does not protect the word iPhone and then Google and Samsung use the term iPhone for 5 years unchallenged, it risks becoming a generic name for a smartphone)

No seller of apple fruits is “riding on apple logo/name bandwagon”, it won’t be genericized because of fruit existing as long as memory

Genericization is only for newly invented words/phrases, it’s apple that is actively stealing common words and makes trademarks out of them

Come to think of it, are there actually any anecdata or in the caselaw where companies that didn't litigate every potential infringement case sufficiently paid the hypothetical/mythical price of genericizatio. Or whatever the implied threat is...

They still do it as if it were not a myth is the problem.

> and "cant yell fire" are two of the most pervasive false legal statements on the internet.

IIRC, this one used to be true but was overturned.