See my comment below... branding is about owning a category...you can still make money with a generic name but it will never replace the category name.

I don't care about your comment below, in the one that I replied to you asked, "Can you find one brand using a generic and relevant to the category name dominate a category". I could and I did.

none of those brands own a category in my mind. They are successful for other reasons... Despite their names, not because of them.

This is just a No True Scotsman argument. You've been given at least a dozen examples but none of them are "dominating" enough for you.

Blogger, Dropbox, XVideos.

all three of these brands are brandable. I don't think you understand the objective of branding if you think no true scotsman applies here.

Branding is the battle for peoples perceptions, and follows the rules of how our minds perceive things. Your mind is not capable of assigning meaning to a generic term. You can know what they do, but you cant associate it with a category. "American Airlines" does not mean an American Airline in anybody's mind. Just as Buy.com doesn't mean anything other than a website that might have something to do with the word buy.

Generic domains have all sorts of other value, and you can make lots of money without a good brand. But... Branding is about one thing only... Associating your name as the "Go-To" folks in a category. That association is simply not possible with a generic name.

Why is buy.com a generic domain and therefore unbrandable but blogger.com brandable?

Both are words in common usage and very relevant to their respective fields.

And then there's mammals.org...