Re: Transactions: good or bad?

"Todd Bandrowsky" <anakin_at_unitedsoftworks.com> wrote in message news:af3d9224.0306181043.3b891386_at_posting.google.com...
> >
> > "Coke" is a trademark. Read some trademark law. Prepare to be
> > surprised.
>
> There's a famous thing that says that once a term is in popular use,
> it's not really a trademark any more because it describes a product
> category. I don't think you can actively make a Coke product, but you
> can call something Coke in third party writings all you want, as long
> as it refers to the collective class of products rather than the
> actual product.

Coke is one of the world's strongest brands and trademarks. I doubt that the folks at KO would agree with your assertion. I doubt they have any objections to good product placement in works of art and entertainment, but if you call something a Coke, I bet they would object if you were referencing anything but their product.

And even product placement is not a sure thing, they objected to product placement in a little song called Lola. Perhaps, you have heard the song? Nobody sips Coca Cola in it; they sip "Cherry Cola" instead. The lyrics were changed due to trademark issues.

I assume the song's subject matter did not meet the wholesomeness requirements of KO's marketing plan; although, I am sure many people found the song refreshing when it first came out.

"Zipper" lost its trademark status because the original trademark owner made careless use of the indefinite article in its advertising. Coke has never fallen into the same trap. They have spent a lot of money developing their brand, and they protect their investment in all of their trademarks. Received on Wed Jun 18 2003 - 22:35:44 CEST