| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Miller wrote:
> <http://slumbering.lungfish.com/>, top story today.
>
> Attention Lego fanatics: you are missing the point when you claim that
> the word "Lego" can't be pluralized into "Legos," but should instead be
> "Lego bricks." If your concern is trademark protection, then plurality
> doesn't enter into it. In other words, if you can't say "Hand me some
> Legos," you also can't say "Hand me that Lego."
>
> I know that the Lego trademark page says to never say "Legos." That
> doesn't mean that the plural of "Lego" is "Lego," it means that they
> don't want you to use the term generically. Get it straight.
>
> Also, for consistency's sake, you should also apply this rule to other
> companies. If you don't always say "Hand me that Kleenex tissue" and "I
> need a Band-Aid adhesive bandage," then you should keep quiet. If you do
> always say "Kleenex tissue" and "Band-Aid bandage," you should keep quiet
> for a different reason.
The problem with legos, as I see it, is there really isn't any other term for
them besides "legos". Sure the company would like you to call them Lego bricks
or Lego toys, and I try to do so in formal writing--only because I am a fan.
But no average consumer of legos will care.
"Bricks" doesn't work because the word refers to much more than the unique toy
that Lego created. When I think of "bricks", I think of masonry.
Also "toys" doesn't work. I know Lego wants to be a "toy" company, and that is
great, but it doesn't help what I call the bits. "Toy" covers everything you
can play with, so is far too generic for this. In fact the only descriptive
name that I have ever heard is the origianl "automatic binding bricks" which,
frankly, is too cumbersome.
So, what Lego needs to do if it really cares strongly about the issue (and
really feels threatened) is to come up with a very generic descriptive name that
can catch on. They need to come up with the name that we call the whole class
of these "construction toys" - Megablocks, Legos, Built-to-rule.. whatever.
Then we can distinguish the Lego ones from the rest.
In fact, no other manufaturer seems to have been able to come up with a general
term. Even stores don't always know what to call the section that has legos in
it. I continually hear parents pick up boxes of megablocks, and call them
legos. It makes me sad, but what can I do. There really isn't another more
appropriate word.
Its really the only solution. Xerox and Hoover both had severe problems in this
area, but it seems to be solved. "Xerography" is no longer a common word, as we
prefer to say "photocopy." I read once that "Hoovering" was a popular word, and
that Hoover (maybe?) lost their trademark status because of it. But who says
"Hoovering" now? Noone. We say, "vaccuming." and these terms are much better
for the language for being descriptive of what is going on. Of course, maybe we
will never find such a term, because legos are really quite unique. Vaseline
never really found a popular one, thoa "petroleum jelly" at least works for the
competitors.
Every drug company comes up with the brand name _and_ the generic name of the
drugs they are making. Sure the generic name is based on chemical compounds,
but not entirely. Sometimes they are shortened, and the inventor usually gets
to decide.
So, Lego, tell me what to say. I'll say it. If it makes sense, and it is easy
to say.
-Alfred
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
| (URL), top story today. Attention Lego fanatics: you are missing the point when you claim that the word "Lego" can't be pluralized into "Legos," but should instead be "Lego bricks." If your concern is trademark protection, then plurality doesn't (...) (20 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
35 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
