Change You Can Photocopy

Hillary Clinton's "change you can xerox" crack from last night got me wondering how the people at the Xerox Corporation feel about the use of their corporate name as a generic verb. It turns out they don't like it at all:

Xerox is a famous trademark and trade name. Xerox as a trademark is properly used only as a brand name to identify the company's products and services. The Xerox trademark should always be used as a proper adjective followed by the generic name of the product: e.g., Xerox printer. The Xerox trademark should never be used as a verb. The trade name Xerox is an abbreviation for the company's full legal name: Xerox Corporation.

Apparently the concern is that if too many people start talking about how Brother's multifunction printers not only print and fax, but make xeroxes, too, that the Xerox trademark becomes diluted. Thus, in public at least, they need to vigorously contest the little-x "xerox" usages. In private, you've got to imagine that this is good PR.

Comments

Worse than diluted-- unprotected by law. Anyone could build and market a "xerox," same as they can an escalator, if it were ruled to have become a generic term.

So Xerox has to run ads every now and again, reminding us that "it's not a verb for chrissakes people!," because such efforts to protect the trademark are one aspect of the legal test for whether or not a term has become generic.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 22, 2008 1:53 PM

It's not good PR. It destroys the value of the brand and actually results in the corporation losing control over the name for copyright purposes if it is deemed by the government to be a word in common usage.

Same thing applies to Kleenex (tissues), Band-Aid (adhesive bandages), Rollerblade (in-line skates), etc.

If people start saying "hey, got a kleenex?" and receiving a different brand, or "I need a band-aid for this cut" and using a different brand, or "going rollerblading" using skates made by a different company, you no longer have a brand at all.

Posted by TH | February 22, 2008 1:57 PM

Kleenex, for example, is now a noun, not a name.

Posted by Patrick | February 22, 2008 1:58 PM

this is good PR>

I'm trying to figure out what facial expression, gesture, or sexual act that emoticon is supposed to convey.

Not getting it.

"It's good ..."

Nope, I don't get it at all.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | February 22, 2008 1:59 PM

Interesting, "Change you can photocopy" would have been a better line.

Given that Xerox is a major corporation based in NY State (in Rochester, where I live), I figured it was actually a PR Plug of sorts.

Posted by sdh | February 22, 2008 2:01 PM

In an effort to assume the mantle of FDR, Hillary clearly should have said, "Change you can gestetner".

Posted by Pesto | February 22, 2008 2:02 PM

Elvis has it right.

This happened to aspirin. It used to be a Bayer(?) trademark, but it's generic now.

Read the Straight Dope.

Posted by KEn | February 22, 2008 2:02 PM

they've been fighting this since the 70's and they're not happy about it..in public or in private.

trademark dilution means that you can actually LOSE your trademark. as happened with Thermos and Kleenex. Ping-Pong too.

it's a BAD thing.

Posted by Nathan | February 22, 2008 2:03 PM

Change you can Brother does not sound as good as change you can xerox.

I thought it was a clever line though.

Whatever deficiencies Hillary may have in her qualifications to be the President, she is definitely raising a good point that Obama's campaign is based too much on appealing to the emotions of white liberals. Good emotions, perhaps, but emotions nevertheless.

Posted by gregor | February 22, 2008 2:03 PM

Band-Aid brand adhesive bandages and Kleenix brand tissues have similar problems. They are actually good problems to have, unless like Bayer you actually lose your trademark.

Posted by Njorl | February 22, 2008 2:04 PM

Actually, Hillary's "Xerox" joke simply dates her.

Back in the 70s and early 80s, people commonly talked about using a "xerox machine" or making a "xerox copy" -- because 90% of the machines were made by Xerox. But by the mid-80s, "xerox" was falling out of favor....I suppose that's because photocopiers were much more common, and most of them were made by companies that weren't Xerox.

What will be her next pop-culture reference? "It's not live, it's Memorex?"

Posted by Uncle Mike | February 22, 2008 2:06 PM

When Paul Simon's hit song 'Kodachrome' came out in 1973 Kodak was similarly unhappy, but they changed their tune when it turned out to have boosted sales.

Posted by John | February 22, 2008 2:06 PM

It's called "genericide," and it happened to Yo-Yo's, too.

Posted by Samuel Brainsample | February 22, 2008 2:08 PM

Newsflash! Politics entails emotion. And the Democratic Party has a lousy track record of winning elections when it nominates candidates who seem like emotionless technocrats. Mysteriously, for some reason no one is able to understand, the rest of America doesn't vote for 'em.

Posted by Ted | February 22, 2008 2:08 PM

Google must really be sad that everyone uses their name as a noun and a verb and, so far as I can tell, will forever when referencing an internet search on the tubes.

Posted by abject funk | February 22, 2008 2:10 PM

Google doesn't seem to think of "googling" as a problem. I think they were the ones who invented it as a verb.

Similarly, you guys think Obama's name is in danger of brand dilution? Obamamania, Obamanomics, etc.? Heh.

Posted by Brent | February 22, 2008 2:11 PM

How about "change you can mimeograph"?

Remember in school when you'd get those mimeographed sheets hot off the machine with that weird blue ink and everyone would huff the fumes?

No? OK, I'm old. I bet Hillary knows what I'm talking about, though.

Posted by huffy | February 22, 2008 2:13 PM

At least she's never enhanced any images using Adobe® Photoshop® software.

Posted by Alexander Dietz | February 22, 2008 2:14 PM

"This happened to aspirin. It used to be a Bayer(?) trademark, but it's generic now."

Actually, 'Heroin' was once a Bayer trademark too (the generic is diacetylmorphine), but I doubt they want it back.

Posted by John | February 22, 2008 2:14 PM

If I made copiers, I sure wouldn't want to be confused with Xerox. These days Xerox copiers are teh suck.

Posted by bobbo | February 22, 2008 2:16 PM

Serves them for having such a good name, or such a catchier name than 'photocopy'.

But 'Change you can copy?' Rinnng to it.

Posted by M | February 22, 2008 2:16 PM

It's great PR until you lose your trademark. That's pretty much the long and the short of it.

Posted by mpowell | February 22, 2008 2:17 PM

I think the "xerox" line falling flat demonstrates Obama teflon. The audience simply didn't want anybody to say anything mean about him, which is understandable since he's a likable guy. The problem is that it is difficult to knock out a front runner without going negative. And let's be clear about what going negative is: it's drawing contrasts in a way that doesn't put people to sleep. Going negative is an important part of politics. Otherwise all we're hearing about are either laundry lists of promises for every problem, or platitudes about amorphous change.

As canned lines go the "xerox" remark wasn't bad. It wasn't as good as the Mondale "where's the beef?" canned line (which was very effective as you will all recall). I'm skeptical that even a better line would work against Obama at this point. I don't think many Democrats are listening, or even want to listen to the arguments against an Obama candidacy. We're almost at the point of no return for an Obama nomination.

The danger in this is that the general election electorate is not going to be so squeamish.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 2:17 PM

Or maybe it was technically a "spirit duplicator."

Posted by huffy | February 22, 2008 2:17 PM

Remember in school when you'd get those mimeographed sheets hot off the machine with that weird blue ink and everyone would huff the fumes?

Transformation you can peelapart™!
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | February 22, 2008 2:20 PM

"From 1898 through to 1910 heroin was marketed as a non-addictive morphine substitute and cough medicine for children. Bayer marketed heroin as a cure for morphine addiction before it was discovered that heroin is converted to morphine when metabolized in the liver, and as such, "heroin" was basically only a quicker acting form of morphine. The company was somewhat embarrassed by this new finding . . ."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#History
(which has a photo of a cute little Bayer Heroin bottle)

Posted by Bloix | February 22, 2008 2:21 PM

"Google doesn't seem to think of "googling" as a problem. I think they were the ones who invented it as a verb."

It helps that people who google things are almost always actually using Google, though.

Posted by ML | February 22, 2008 2:25 PM

I don't know, the whole "might lose one's trademark" business is a little overblown. Yes, Joe's Photocopier Co. could start producing "xeroxes." But it would still be illegal for anyone to attempt to mislead the public into thinking their product was produced by Xerox Corporation. As long as Xerox continued to promote their brand successfully, they wouldn't be seriously hurt. In any case, it's not going to happen -- its use as a generic term has never been that pervasive.

Posted by Glenn | February 22, 2008 2:27 PM

I too used to huff mimeograph fumes. Let's be old together!

Obama's campaign is based too much on appealing to the emotions of white liberals.
Wait, wait, I thought he was just pandering to black people and white men. It's so hard to keep track....

Posted by Persia | February 22, 2008 2:27 PM

Remember in school when you'd get those mimeographed sheets hot off the machine with that weird blue ink and everyone would huff the fumes?

Oh, yeah! "What happened to your missing brain cells?" "I destroyed them in 4th grade social studies."

Except the blue ink was from a Ditto machine. The mimeograph was something else (and probably trademarked). You had these stencils made from paper coated with some kind of wax. A typewriter punctured letter shapes into the wax and let ink through when you put the stencil on a drum and fed paper past it.

I don't know how the Ditto worked. Somebody must remember.

Posted by roac | February 22, 2008 2:29 PM

I think the Tivo people have a similar problem with the verb-ing of their brand name.

Posted by Matt M | February 22, 2008 2:29 PM

I never knew Rollerblade was a company, no kidding.

Posted by novakant | February 22, 2008 2:30 PM

It's not good PR. It destroys the value of the brand and actually results in the corporation losing control over the name for copyright purposes if it is deemed by the government to be a word in common usage.

Trademark, not copyright. You can't lose copyright (generally speaking) which is why, say, Paramount don't have a major issue with fanfic in the Star Trek universe. If I create something using the Star Trek setting (whether fiction, video, 3D model, whatever), the company has discretion on whether they want me to stop or not. There's also no need to actually use the copyrighted material.

A trademark, on the other hand, usually has to be defended and other people prevented from using it in a generic way otherwise the company loses their exclusive right to it. They also lose it if they don't use it, which is why Marvel comics has to put out a "Captain Marvel" comic every few years. If they didn't, DC would instantly grab the trademark so they could use it for their (better known) Captain Marvel character.

They also

Posted by Keith | February 22, 2008 2:32 PM

saw this on another forum:

Furthermore this is clear lobbyist pandering and I WILL NOT STAND FOR IT

http://data.state-machine.org/committees/C00207258

$29,000 : XEROX CORPORATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (X-PAC) of DC

sponsor: XEROX CORPORATION

pac contributions: $29,000 total
$5,000 on 2005-03-24 to LIEBERMAN, JOSEPH I, D of CT
$5,000 on 2006-11-02 to CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM, D of NY
$5,000 on 2006-08-07 to SHAYS, CHRISTOPHER, R of CT
$5,000 on 2006-09-21 to JOHNSON, NANCY L., R of CT
$3,000 on 2006-09-07 to SLAUGHTER, LOUISE M, D of NY
$1,000 on 2005-10-21 to ENZI, MICHAEL B, R of WY
$1,000 on 2006-09-20 to KUHL, JOHN, R of NY
$1,000 on 2005-03-18 to SLAUGHTER, LOUISE M, D of NY
$1,000 on 2006-09-21 to REYNOLDS, THOMAS M, R of NY
$1,000 on 2005-05-06 to BOEHNER, JOHN A, R of OH
$1,000 on 2006-11-06 to DAVIS, THOMAS M III, R of VA

Posted by john b | February 22, 2008 2:33 PM

Brent, that's incorrect. "Google" as a verb is only acceptable when it's applied to searches done using the Google search engine. When someone refers to the act of googling on another engine, Google gets kind of bent out of shape over it.

Posted by jhupp | February 22, 2008 2:34 PM

I don't know how the Ditto worked. Somebody must remember.

Wikipedia to the rescue.

Posted by huffy | February 22, 2008 2:34 PM

$5,000 buys a plug in prime time in front of millions?

Get real.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 2:37 PM

Tim K: I think the "xerox" line falling flat demonstrates Obama teflon.

Dupont's legal department on line 1 for you!

Posted by Tom | February 22, 2008 2:41 PM

Tim,

The reason the line fell flat is because everyone knows the argument she is making is absurd. Obama nailed it in his answer, everyone knows politicians use speech writers and that they don't personally come up with every thing they say.

A person who has had two books by ghost writers on the best seller list under her name and stole her crowd pleasing closer should be careful about throwing stones...

Posted by Eric k | February 22, 2008 2:43 PM

(tim k. -- it's called a joke. look it up.)

Posted by john b | February 22, 2008 2:43 PM

Although, 'xerography' is the term given to the process of photocopying used in all flatbed photocopiers (xeros, dry + graphos, writing), so Xerox corporation's claim to the term seems somewhat dubious ...

Posted by en_dash | February 22, 2008 2:47 PM

Uh Tim, you need a humor transplant, I think it is pretty obvious he was joking with mock outrage about the $5k donation buying her plug

Posted by Eric k | February 22, 2008 2:49 PM

Actually, marketers don't like it when their official product name becomes completely synonymous with the product itself. Xerox and Kleenex both have this problem.

It's a problem for the companies because when people refer to all copy machines as xeroxes and all tissues as kleenexes, they stop noticing what brand they actually buy. People buy whatever tissues the store has, and calls them a kleenex. The advertisements become advertisements for generic products instead of whatever brand.

Posted by Henry | February 22, 2008 2:56 PM

Once, when I was a baby reporter for an alternative paper, I referred to something as "styrofoam" when it wasn't. The styrofoam people sent me a letter and a big old chunk of real styrofoam, so I wouldn't make that mistake again.
I should have referred to a generic sedan as a "cadillac" in my next piece, but I forgot.

Posted by charles pierce | February 22, 2008 2:59 PM

Just out of curiosity, who "xeroxes" anything anymore? "Change you can Copy & Paste" would have been a bit more 21st century. But hey, it's tough to be a baby-boomer candidate in a post-baby boomer world.

Posted by evie | February 22, 2008 3:10 PM

I used to write ads for Fender guitars. Their most popular model is the Stratocaster, universally known to musicians as a "Strat".

But every time I wrote something like "buy this new Strat," the lawyers would have a hissy fit: "You can't call it a 'Strat'! You have to call it a 'Stratocaster-brand electric guitar'!"

Yeah, right. Imagine how hip that would sound in an ad aimed at the hippest-of-the-hip: rock musicians!

Posted by Rob Lewis | February 22, 2008 3:17 PM

Erik:

I don't agree with you. Barack Obama is running on the strength of his eloquent and inspirational prose promising fundamental change to Washington, the country, and even the world. He is clearly not running on the strength of his experience or record of noteworthy accomplishments. Very soon Obama is likely to be the presumptive nominee and his defenders will no longer be able to hide behind Hillary Clinton's flaws in order to deflect attacks against him. This is about Obama and he must stand on his own merits. How is it not fair to ask how authentic his message is if it's essentially the same message of Deval Patrick? Another politician who promised change and hasn't been able to deliver on the goods. Unless casino gambling counts.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 3:48 PM

Do you think we could get around this problem if we assume the following?

The word "Xerox" goes into the Russian language meaning 'copy'.

The comes back into English as a cognate "Xerox" meaning 'copy'.

Language is emergent, no trademarks allowed on usage such as this!

Posted by Richard Pointer | February 22, 2008 3:53 PM

... his defenders will no longer be able to hide behind Hillary Clinton's flaws in order to deflect attacks against him ...

... it's essentially the same message of Deval Patrick

Ludicrous. Why don't you get some sleep?

Posted by hello | February 22, 2008 3:54 PM

In the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont I used to know some older folks (45+ years ago) who referred to all automobiles as "ford cars". They would say, with a straight face, that they drove a "Chevrolet ford car."

Posted by jb | February 22, 2008 3:59 PM

I'll only ride in a Pullman car if it's made by Pullman, dammit

Posted by thompsaj | February 22, 2008 4:13 PM

Tim,

No, the strawman that the Hillary cmapaign constructed and loyal deadenders like you tout on Blogs is that Obama is running a campaign based entirely on his speaking ability.

The actual Obama campaign is based on his political judgement and ability to lead.

If you like that argument, keep making it, it hasn't wokred for 11 contests in a row now, but who knows maybe it will someday....

Posted by Eric k | February 22, 2008 4:16 PM

Erik:

If Obama's campaign is indeed based on his "political judgment" then we should be able to have a discussion about that. I'm happy to talk about Obama's political judgment.

Was it sound political judgment to buy property with a Chicago political fixer under and ethical cloud, and who now is sitting in jail?

Was it sound political judgment to pledge to taking military action inside the sovereign territory of an ally like Pakistan? A country whose government is unstable and vulnerable to the forces of political Islam?

Was it sound political judgment to commit to public financing in the general election if your opponent would agree, then change his mind when it was no longer opportune?

Was it sound political judgment to promise to meet with a Cuban dictator without preconditions when Florida is a must-win state in the general election?

These are not examples of sound political or strategic judgment.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 4:30 PM

Tim,

Seriously, keep it up, re-running the same arguments that haven't worked is a great strategy.

The only error in Judgement Obama has made in your list is with Resko and that is so minor compared to the numerous skeletons in Both Clinton and McCain's closets that he will do fine if that is the standard we want to use.

Calling for Military strikes against Al-Queda was absolutely correct.

If your going to continue to wank off on distortions like the public financing misquotes then seriously just fuck off already.

Meeting with Raul Castro is absolutely a good idea. The change in power from Fidel to him is an opening to start a dialogue. Sheesh your acting like the doofuses at the Corner with that argument. The Cuban exile deadenders in Miami are voting for McCain anyway, so why pander to them with a stupid policy?

Posted by Eric k | February 22, 2008 4:58 PM

Eric K:

I think I'll ignore the vulgar parts of your response and just move to the substance instead.

Everyone knows what any president - Democrat or Republican - would do if there was "actionable intelligence" on Al-Qaeda being in Pakistan. That's not the issue. The point is that one should not be discussing those kinds of hypothetical as they concern potential military action into the sovereign territory of an ally. Those kinds of very specific instances involving military action are not fodder for political campaigns. That's irresponsible.

On campaign finance, Obama misled the voters into thinking he intended to agree to public financing if his opponent would agree. The presumption Republican nominee has agreed, and Obama has waffled.

Meeting with Raul Castro may or may not be a good idea. Committing at this juncture to meet with him with no preconditions is irresponsible, presumptuous, and perhaps even a bad idea on its merits. Not to mention political risky for an important swing states the Democrats must win in November.

Posted by Tim K | February 22, 2008 5:12 PM

Microsoft word will automatically capitalize the x when you try to type "xerox" - at least it did that to me on my 1999 Gateway laptop.

Posted by Phoebe | February 22, 2008 6:00 PM

I think the "xerox" line falling flat demonstrates Obama teflon.

I think it demonstrates that people don't like having their intelligence insulted to their face.

Posted by Golza | February 22, 2008 7:29 PM

Best former trademark ever: Heroin. "The sedative for coughs."

Posted by Audax Major | February 22, 2008 11:24 PM

Tim K,

First: I never though I'd find myself defending Bush on anything, but W. himself told Wolf Blitzer in an interview that he would absolutely go after high value actionable targets in Pakistan, with or without permission. No hesitation whatsoever in his answer. I do not remember the cries of outrage or claims of irresponsibility when Bush said it.

CNN was replaying this clip yesterday or the day before.

Second: Here is the actual Obama response to the Public Finance questionaire:

OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.

I'm having a hard time finding how Obama's recent comments contradict this in any way, other than adding detail - reining the the 527's, and compensating for McCain spending between now the the time the nomination is locked up.

Posted by Mark | February 23, 2008 12:49 AM

Here is the link to the transcript of the Blitzer/Bush interview

Posted by Mark | February 23, 2008 12:53 AM

Mark:

I don't exactly think George W. Bush should be our example for wise strategic decisions, should he be? Everyone knows he rattles the saber better than anyone.

On public financing, the three elements of Senator Obama's plan seem to basically be what McCain has already agreed to. In order to qualify for the FEC grant the campaigns cannot spend over the prescribed limit (I think it's somewhere near 85 million for the general election this cycle), so that third element is redundant. And fund-raising would be pretty pointless if the campaign cannot spend what it has raised. Any fund-raising or spending by either party between now and the nominating conventions are impertinent to this question.

Outside spending by 527's should be part of this discussion, but given that Democratic 527's outspent Republican 527's $177.8 million to $57.8 in 2004, the Obama campaign surely cannot be worried about being outspent.

Posted by Tim K | February 23, 2008 1:02 AM

Given Hillary's age, it should have been "change you can carbon-copy"...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 23, 2008 4:30 AM

BTW, those who point out that Xerox has to defend their trademark are correct.

Even Linux, the open source operating system, is trademarked, and if you set up your own distribution and call it "Yglesias Linux", you have to register that with the Linux Mark Institute, exclusive licensor of the Linux trademark on behalf of its owner, Linus Torvalds, the inventor of Linux.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 23, 2008 4:34 AM

So what were yo-yos called before the genericide? I mean kleenex is "facial tissue" - Puffs doesn't call their product kleenex. What is a yo-yo - or what was it when yo-yo was the brand name?

Posted by Phoebe | February 23, 2008 5:46 AM

Tim K, apparently you prefer a candidate who would bomb high value Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, but never admit to it. That kind of duplicity is not only transparent to the rest of the world, it demeans the American electorate's intelligence too. People in and outside of America already know why America has military advisors and CIA staff in Pakistan. Trying to say one thing and do another is exactly what George W. Bush did with U.N. Resolution 1441 - he said it wasn't authorization to invade while promoting the resolution, then after the fact he claimed it was.

Posted by Kiran D | February 23, 2008 1:17 PM

Kiran D:

In politics - as in life - it isn't always responsible to say everything that is on one's mind.

In the conduct of foreign affairs it's even more important to choose one's words carefully and to avoid answering hypothetical questions about topics as sensitive as bombing an ally. Obama shouldn't be speculating about what he might do in that situation. That's naive.

Posted by Tim K | February 23, 2008 3:12 PM