FRIGIDAIRE and KLEENEX (was ICE BOX)

[Douglas G. Wilson]

> >Neither "Frigidaire" nor "Kleenex" is "the generic." "Refrigerator" is
> >clearly "the generic" and has a shorthand form, "fridge" (cf.
> "televison" and
> >"telly"). "Frigidaire" is a brand name that is found on all manner of major
> >appliances, not just those that keep things cold.
> >
> >"Kleenex" is a trademark, not a "generic," though people do indeed use it as
> >a shorthand for the generic "(paper) tissue." Surely there are very few
> >people
> >who would not understand a request for a "tissue," or would be mystified
> >about such phrases and sentences as "a box of tissues" or "She used a
> >tissue to
> >dry her eyes." Likewise, few people would be confused if asked to purchase
> >"Kleenex rubber panties" or "Kleenex cocktail napkins."
>~~~~~~~~~~
>You're talking technically, legally.

Let me propose a thought-experiment. Assume (I think this is true) that
"fridge" is generic = "refrigerator", whatever its etymology. Suppose that
it is shown in dictionaries with this generic sense (this is true). Now
suppose that (through error or otherwise) the USPTO allowed someone to
register the trademark "Fridge" for refrigerators and other appliances.
Would it be correct to say that "fridge" no longer exists as a generic
word? Would it be reasonable for a dictionary to delete its previous
generic interpretation and replace it with "trademark for refrigerators",
even if the new Fridge trademark never got far off the ground and even if
hardly anyone ever used the word in the trademark sense?

[This would be an extreme form of prescriptivism, maybe. (^_^)]

[This is apparently what happened with "skivvies" in MW recently. Or am I
missing something again?]

-- Doug Wilson