In the midst of heavy popularity and cult-like fan base, Apple’s iPad brand is now considered virtually synonymous with the tablet PC category and experts say that it may be bound to join brand names like Kleenex, Photoshop, Xerox, Rollerblade, Google, Yo-Yo and Band-Aid based on an article in the Associated Press. When a brand name becomes so closely tied to the item, it becomes what is recognized in the American lexicon as a ‘generic’ or ‘genericized’ trademark. While a lot of people think this is a good move for the company that has started selling iPad 1, financial experts think this is bad news for Apple.
Apple’s iPod and iPhone have reached that status, with the great following it has created. Now, no other tablet computer system has been in a position to touch the said tablet, let alone threaten its dominance in the marketplace since Apple launched and started selling ipad 1. While the idea of getting genericized seems flattering because it goes to show how popular the brand has become, it is also very problematic for the company.
Theoretically, if iPad becomes almost the same as the term ‘tablet computers, ’ rivals could in fact sue to have Apple stripped of its trademark. See what occurred to the brand name ‘aspirin. ’ Bayer, a well-known pharmaceutical company, lost trademarks for the names ‘aspirin’ and ‘heroin’ during the 1920s. So did B. F. Goodrich for its trademark of the word ‘zipper’ during the same year when the brand name (yes, Zipper was a brand name) joined a globe of typical nouns in the American dictionary. There were also the brand names: ‘Escalator’ which became generic in 1950; ‘thermos’ that was genericized in 1963; and ‘yo-yo’ made generic in 1965. Xerox has taken an equivalent route. Xerox Corporation, which introduced the very first automatic copier in 1959, has been on a public crusade for decades to help keep its brand from becoming generic. The machine's achievement has led everyone to begin utilizing ‘xerox’ to refer to any copying machine, copies created from a single original and also the act of copying.
It really is challenging to quantify just how much income a certain company loses when its brand is deemed linguistically generic. But businesses are usually most concerned that it breeds confusion among buyers. Meanwhile, some firms embrace when their brands turn into typical nouns.
The most effective example of this really is Google, an organization produced in 1998. Google, which developed a formula that returned a lot more correct outcomes than its competitors, became so common that individuals began saying ‘Google’ to refer generally to an internet search. Branding specialists say Google has benefited from its name becoming an element in the lexicon. Jessica Litman of the University of Michigan Law School says, “You do not say ~Why don’t I Google it’ and go to Yahoo or Bing. “
Apple also has gotten an increase in revenues not just from selling iPad 1 but also because its brand names became almost synonymous with the merchandise. The iPod, which was the initial digital music player when it came out in 2001, is the name folks use for a ‘digital music player’ or ‘MP3 player. ’ And it appears Apple's iPad is headed down an identical path.