Not to mention, you run the risk of getting a cease-and-desist type of letter from Dow. That happened to a friend of mine, and I had the same experience when I made the mistake of referring to tailgaters playing Frisbee, rather than with a "flying plastic disc." Considering I was working at a tiny 5,000 circulation daily at the time, I was impressed that the Frisbee folks were so on the ball!

I would never use "xerox" or "kleenex" as a generic! (not even "Xerox" or "Kleenex"--and lower-casing the capital is not a defense)

And in fact, it would surprise me today to see any writer, no matter how lazy, try to use them.

I don't think most of the people I converse w/ use these terms exclusively. "Copier" and "tissue" are not weird or awkward, and are in common, widespread use.

I have some sympathy w/ people who use the trademarks Styrofoam, Frisbee, and Velcro, bcs often there isn't a really easy, readily recognizable generic.

Polystyrene is too long and implies a scientific accuracy that might not be there--there are other chemical compositions for those hard foams (maybe "styrene" would work, I'd have to research; if it were OK scientifically, that would be my generic of choice--"styrene foam").

Frisbee has "flying disk" or "flying saucer," but I think people need a beat or two before they recognize it.

Velcro's "hook and loop fastener" is just long and unwieldy, though it is very accurate, and useful if you start to talk about the two halves separately (as in how-to copy). Time was, Velcro was the only brand (or the only one I ever saw), so there was sort of an argument that you were actually referring to the real Velcro. But now, many other companies make this sort of product.

My biggest objection to using trademarks when you should use a generic is that I don't like implying an *endorsement* of these brands. They're usually the largest, most well-known brand, and I feel it's unfair to "the little guy" to imply that only the brand-name version will do.

Plus, if they want me to build their brand for them, they can pay for an ad!

On the cease-and-desist letters: I was told by someone who at the time ran the Trademark Hotline that the cease-and-desist letters were basically a formulaic response required by the courts to prove that the company is "policing" its trademark; they company is very unlikely to pursue further legal action, but being able to produce copies of all those letters in court would bolster their argument should they ever need to sue ANYBODY over a trademark issue. They hire a clipping service, and a paralegal or a secretary to skim through for improper usage, and they fire them out automatically)

Indeed. Have a look at an ealier post on lawyer letters:

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/mcintyre/blog/2007/01/lawyer_letters.html

A few years ago, Dow sent us a nice ceramic coffee mug with "There is no such thing as a Styrofoam cup" written on it. That was a nice way to remind us to use Styrofoam correctly.

A trademark we're always changing on the desk is "Dumpster" to "trash bin."

And one of our writers got a nice cease-and-desist letter for using "Snap, Crackle and Pop" in a column without referencing Rice Krispies.

Not to mention that terms like 'xerox' to mean photocopying and 'kleenex' to refer to tissues really have little coin over here in Europe. So if you try to reach an international crowd you're very likely to confuse your readers.

I worked at a small weekly that got a nice lawyer letter for using "Jaws of Life." Didn't know that was a trademark.