
Ask HN: Has 'facebook' become an un-genericized trademark? - jawns
We're all familiar with genericized trademarks -- terms that once were trademarks but have become the generic term for a certain product, like aspirin and escalator.<p>I'm wondering whether the word "facebook" -- which was once the generic term for a directory of names and faces -- has become the reverse: an un-genericized trademark.<p>I would define an un-genericized trademark as a term that is so strongly associated with a particular product (in this case, the social networking website Facebook) that anyone who encounters it assumes you're talking about the particular product, rather than the generic term.<p>This has practical consequences.  Typically, a company can't exclusively claim the right to use a word that it did not create; in the case of "facebook," the term had been in use well before Facebook's founding.<p>But might Facebook be able to claim that "facebook" has become un-genericized, and thus argue that no other site or product should be able to use the term?<p>What do you think, HN?
======
jasonlotito
Not in the original context, but in the realm of social networks, it's
trademarked. Apple and Windows are good examples of this. I can start a
company called Apple Miniatures and sell plastic miniature of soldiers, but
I'd have trouble starting a company called Apple Computers.

You seem to make the case for this as well: "the social networking website
Facebook" as opposed to the other facebook, which was commonly an actual book
of pictures.

IANAL

------
michael_dorfman
In my experience, the generic term was "face book" (two words) but that could
vary geographically. (Actually, where I went to school, it was known as the
"frog book"-- don't ask.)

