On 7/29/98, Carol Cricow <carol[_at_]yujean.com> wrote:
>
> Pat Sloane <patsloane[_at_]aol.com> commented:
> >
> > In the grocery store, if a cover for a Kleenex box has the name
> > "Kleenex" imprinted on it, I doubt that the company sues.
>
> Bad example, actually. Kleenex would probably be extremely upset as
> it's worked very hard to protect the term "Kleenex" from losing its
> trademark status and becoming generic like "elevator" and other former
> brand names. They've worked hard to keep any other "tissue" from
> calling itself "Kleenex" and why it's referred to as "Kleenex brand"
> tissue.
As long as we're nit-picking, I should point out that the trademark owner in this case is not Kleenex, but Kimberly-Clark Corporation. (http://www.kimberly-clark.com/)--it's the one fighting to keep KLEENEX from becoming generic (not to mention KOTEX brand feminine hygiene products and DEPENDS incontinence diapers).
M.
S. Martin Keleti
<keleti[_at_]manifesto.com>
Received on Fri Jul 31 1998 - 19:54:13 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:31 GMT