WIPR survey: Readers say Xerox should not be a generic term
WIPR readers overwhelmingly believe that Xerox should not be a generic term, our latest survey has shown.
Last week, April 20, WIPR reported that Margaret Walker, a counsel at Xerox, is confident that the company will not suffer the same fate as other marks that have become generic including ‘Aspirin’ and ‘Zipper’.
Walker told us: “When you look at the factors that courts consider when determining if a trademark has become generic, I don’t think we will face too many problems.
“Courts will look at how the company itself is using its mark and whether it is used in a way that suggests it’s a generic term or in a way that sets it apart. We could convince a court that we are doing the best we can.”
After we asked our readers whether they thought Xerox should be a generic term 85% disagreed.
Though many responses simply stated “it’s clearly a trademark”, others went into more detail.
One said: “Photocopiers or the machinery to do so have a specific generic term with which they can be identified without using the trademark. A trademark becomes generic when there is no other word to describe a service or a product, and such does not occur here.”
Another added: “Xerox is not a generic term, it is company/brand name, and I think people (even those who do their 'Xeroxing' on a Canon copier) know this. We have a perfectly good generic term available, in ‘photocopy’.”
One reader even suggested Xerox should become a famous mark as it has “become synonymous with printers and scanners”.
“It should be considered a famous mark, therefore, entitled to greater protection, certainly not generic. Further, Xerox has done a good job of always using the mark as a trademark, marking it appropriately and not using it in a generic way,” they added.
Other readers praised the steps the company has taken educate the public about the brand and protect it.
"Xerox's trademark enforcement practices are practically a case-study for how to combat genericide. Moreover, Xerox as a company offers more products and services beyond its copiers and copy-making capabilities," one said.
“Xerox is a well-known mark. The risk of genericism exists but the company has been aware of it for a long time and has always fought against it,” one said.
Another said: “Xerox had made enormous effort to educate the public - no one refers to making a ‘Xerox’ anymore, the public says they will copy or photocopy.”
But not everyone was in agreement.
One reader noted that “everyone calls a photocopy a ‘Xerox’”.
“I feel for the company, but reality is what it is,” they added.
"like Q-tips (cotton swab) or Band-Aid (adhesive bandage), Xerox has become another way to say 'copy'" another reader said.
Walker’s full interview with WIPR will be published on worldipreview.com at a later date.
For this week’s survey, we ask: “Last week we reported that oral arguments in Cuozzo v Lee had revealed that Supreme Court justices were concerned by the fact that the USPTO and the courts reach different results when construing patent claims depending on the standard used. Do you think the BRI and Phillips standards should be harmonised?”
