From my understanding, the issue is when the general public does decide what to call building bricks, and if they are referred to simply as ‘legos’, then the Lego company can lose the right to use their name to any company selling what the public refers to as ‘legos’, as it would become a Genericized Trademark.

I was doing work for a company who’s lawyer had all of the collateral written so that the brand name was always used as an adjective instead of as the product name because of this reason. Other examples that were noted at the time was that Tabasco is always referred to as ‘Tobasco Pepper Sauce” and Kleenex is known as “Kleenex Facial Tissue”.

The Lego company, without being careful with things like this, really could lose their name to anyone making bricks.

First off, that isn’t just Lego’s stance on the purpose of a trademark — protecting consumers is why trademarks exist. It is a mark to show the origin of a product or service so that consumers can gauge the quality of the goods they buy.

What bothers me about your post, though, is that it sounds like the whole proper adjective thing is news to you. A trademark is always a proper adjective. Trademarks have always been proper adjectives.

Lego isn’t being oppressive — they are doing what every Trademark owner is required, legally, to do in order for their trademarks to be enforcable in the future. If they couldn’t demonstrate that they made efforts to protect their trademarks, there would be nothing preventing you or I from calling our own building blocks something that could confuse customers as to the origin of the product.

This is why all designers should be required to take IP law courses… we should practically breathe trademarks, copyrights and patents.

I have often wondered if a genericized trademark is really such a bad thing.

This is definitely a bad thing for a brand. Ubiquity and omnipresence in the market is good, but your brand name being acceptable usage for any product in the category is not. Think about those genericized trademarks that you use all the time. Kleenex. Xerox. Even FedEx, to some degree. I’ve heard Coke used as a generic even. “What kind of Coke would you like? A sprite, please.”

When the brand name no longer refers to a specific product, that brand loses its relevant differentiation that allows it to command higher prices. It’s no longer regarded as a “must-have”. If I go to Kinko’s to get something xeroxed, I could care less if they actually use a Xerox machine or a Kodak copier to accomplish the task. That hurts Xerox’s marketability because they’ve lost that consumer demand. Kinko’s can buy any copier they want, because their customers won’t be asking specifically for Xerox-produced copies. There’s no relevant differentiation to their brand. A copier is, essentially, a copier. Consider how upset Apple would be if iPod became a catch-all for all mp3 players. They’d freak because it meant telling someone you own an iPod no longer carried any caché and their sales would plummet.

Lego may be being a bit overzealous in wanting its customers to refer to “Lego blocks” and not “Legos”, but they are absolutely correct in trying to reinforce that they are the only producers of a “Lego” product.

The fact is, Lego is too late in demanding that consumers call them Lego Bricks. They may have had it on their packaging in the ’80s, but the fact is that it is mere trivia. They failed to clearly communicate their message in the very beginning and it is going to take a mere branding miracle to change the way people perceive their blocks. Hardly anyone knows that this is what you should call their blocks. The only people that do correct others, are those that like to correct people because they know a little trivia (sorry DC1974).

As a kid that got stuck with Lock Blocks, I do respect the Lego brand. The fact that I call them Legos does not mean that I get them confused with competitors.

The issue isn’t solely the brand name becoming the generic standard bearer. What happens is that the word becomes so generic, that it no longer refers to the actual brand it came from. So, when I say, “I want to buy some kleenex,” what I’m really saying is, “I need some tissues.” In fact, I put “kleenex” on my shopping list, but I buy “Puffs Plus” because I like them better. That’s where the problem lies. You no longer equate the brand name with a specifc product. Yes, there are other failures that contribute to this, including not making a better product, but we’re talking about the end result, and that’s a genericized trademark.

Regarding “podcast”, I think that would be an interesting term to study. It’s too late for Apple to change the term. The best defense is simply continuing the make a relevant and superior product. That’s always the best plan of action. Complacency isn’t a recipe for overnight disaster, but long-term will harm the brand. As long as Apple continues to make iPods that are the best, coolest, easiest-to-use mp3 players, they’ve got little to worry about.

Just a side note: I was in the Sony Metreon yesterday and happened upon two books, The Brick Testament: Stories from the Book of Genesis, and The Brick Testament: The Ten Commandments? I found this discussion rather interesting because of these books. I hear a lot of relevant information but the fact remains that I have never heard the term Lego Bricks and I’ve had them for as long as I can remember. I don’t know how Lego would be able to reach me and change my language when I don’t watch TV and I don’t have children. They seem to have a hug problem on their hands. I think it is good that they are trying to protect their brand but it might be too late. As for the ipod discussion I hate to say this but I am around teenagers a lot and they use the ipod name to talk about other mp3 players they own. I think the reason is that mp3 is difficult to say and the other companies have not done a good job at branding their name. This could be really bad for apple. But like JoSel said, “As long as Apple continues to make iPods that are the best, coolest, easiest-to-use mp3 players, they’ve got little to worry about.”

I thought it might be worth noting that the LEGO brand isn’t ‘forced’ as such onto its consumers. It seems rather irresponsible of you to portray it in such a way that makes the LEGO Group seem cruel and unjust in controlling kids.