Romex

rick

Due to the many forum threads mentioning the brand Romex, I've been asked by their lawyer to include this note on our forum site:

ROMEX® is a registered trademark of Southwire Company.

niel

Re: Romex

now that's interesting that they would do that. do they pay them to monitor all websites for this? they actually pay people for this? maybe we should stop all reference to them so as to stop all indirect free advertising for them.:roll: it sounds like somebody is getting paid too much $ in that company to shoot that company in the foot by complaining we make reference to their registered brand name too much.

Cariboocoot

Re: Romex

So in future Moderators must edit out the "R" word?
And people wonder why there are so many derogatory remarks made about lawyers.:roll:

rick

Re: Romex

No, Romex® can still be used now that I've added this note. Southwire Company would prefer we add the ® symbol when we post, but the word Romex® is used so frequently, I don't think we can be expected to catch them all. So if you're posting something about Romex®, lets include the registered symbol if you think about it. But if someone posts Romex without the symbol, it's ok.

Cariboocoot

Re: Romex

rick wrote: »

No, Romex® can still be used now that I've added this note. Southwire Company would prefer we add the ® symbol when we post, but the word Romex® is used so frequently, I don't think we can be expected to catch them all. So if you're posting something about Romex®, lets include the registered symbol if you think about it. But if someone posts Romex without the symbol, it's ok.

That symbol doesn't appear on most keyboards, so we'll have to take our chances.

Personally I think the use of the term on this forum is more as Niel says, free advertising (and endorsement), rather than degrading of trademark. (if anyone is wondering, that is when a trademarked name is used so much in popular culture that it becomes a generic term for all products of the type rather than a specific one. "Aspirin" used to be a brand name.)

BB.

Re: Romex

Actually, I think they have to do this because of trade mark law... If they do not prevent Romex® from becoming a common/generic term for any jacketed cable--they could lose their trademark...

I think Kleanex (tissue), make a Xerox (photocopy), Formica, etc. have all had these issues.

As long as they can show they have enforced their trade mark (such as this one post)--then they (the lawyers) are probably happy.

-Bill

niel

Re: Romex

in my own ignorance of what the wire type is called i looked it up.
http://homerenovations.about.com/od/electrical/a/artromexnm.htm

i won't have that circled r symbol readily available on my pc to use even though the thread here meets the requirement of their lawyers to cover those who fail to use the symbol.

to really make them happy i suggest we refer to this type of wiring as sheathed plastic electrical cable or spec for short. it seems they may not want their brand name to go along the same road as other products like frigidaire. if my idea catches on we can add it to the glossary. they should be happy to know that i will not refer to their name brand loosely again.;)

rgk1

Re: Romex

I work VERY close to one of their plants that manufactures it and I didn't know "Romex" was one of their trademark brands. I always thought it was a generic term. I guess I can see their wanting to prevent that.

halfcrazy

Re: Romex

You should be able to take in the forum software and use a function to edit words. I know on the MidNite forum I have used it to block a few key words basically it sees a word some one types and replaces it with another so any time some one types Romex you could have it display wire or any other word you prefer

BB.

Re: Romex

Don't worry about it... The lawyers are happy with this one post that will be quickly forgotten (or not if we keep posting about it :roll:;)).

-Bill®©℠

niel

Re: Romex

BB. wrote: »

-Bill®©℠

i like that one bill. are you going to throw some lawyers on us for calling you bill? or shall we properly call you william?:roll::cool::p

bmet

Re: Romex

So if we refer to a crescent wrench without using the capital C or a copyright symbol, does the forum get in trouble? What if we used the abbreviation for a pair of diagonal cutters? Is Apple going to threaten every time a poster refers to themselves in the first person?
How silly is it going to get?

halfcrazy

Re: Romex

bmet wrote: »

So if we refer to a crescent wrench without using the capital C or a copyright symbol, does the forum get in trouble? What if we used the abbreviation for a pair of diagonal cutters? Is Apple going to threaten every time a poster refers to themselves in the first person?
How silly is it going to get?

I completely agree what if I want to use my crescent wrench to tighten the nut on my channel locks after I tightened a romex connector holding my romex. The list goes on but if we start getting spanked for every time we use a common name for an item that happens to be a company that makes said item we are in for a tough ride.

Frxddy

Re: Romex

Ya learn something every day.... I always thought Romex was the generic term for sheathed plastic electrical cable. Scotch tape....Velcro.... there's a bunch of brand names that have become the generic term. Not many people ask for transparent adhesive tape or hook and loop fastener. I think if you went to buy sheathed plastic electrical cable they'd look at you like you had two heads.

I can't blame Romex for asking the Forum to mention that they are not generic. I do think that if you allow something to continue improper use for long enough, you can lose the rights to it.

Windsun

Re: Romex

Frxddy wrote: »

Ya learn something every day.... I always thought Romex was the generic term for sheathed plastic electrical cable. Scotch tape....Velcro.... there's a bunch of brand names that have become the generic term. Not many people ask for transparent adhesive tape or hook and loop fastener. I think if you went to buy sheathed plastic electrical cable they'd look at you like you had two heads.

I can't blame Romex for asking the Forum to mention that they are not generic. I do think that if you allow something to continue improper use for long enough, you can lose the rights to it.

That is the problem - and it is the mistake that Kimberly-Clark almost made when it allowed the word "Kleenex" to become almost generic and started fighting back. I can't blame the lawyers really, they are protecting trademarks, and once a trademark becomes too generic, it may not be able to protect the name at all and can lose it. Probably the biggest single example of a company failing to protect it's trademarks is aspirin, which once belonged to Bayer but is now generic.

techntrek

Re: Romex

Just one catch the lawyers didn't mention... the content of posts on a forum are legally considered to be owned by the posters. Forum owners, ISPs, etc, are thus shielded from liability by anything posted, so in this case the lawyers could demand that you add the circle-R to any mention of their trademarked name where it is mentioned by the site owner. On web pages, forum posts, etc. However, they have no grounds to demand that it be added by forum users - or added later by Admins or Mods.

1. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

2. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of –

a) Any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

b) Any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)

waynefromnscanada

Re: Romex

And here in Canada, it has pretty much happened with snowmobiles. The brand name Ski-Doo (by Bombardier) has become so generic that many people speak of "going Ski-Dooing", regardless the make of their snowmobile. In fact last year there was actually an add, someone was selling their "Yamaha Ski-Doo". Made me think that perhaps I'd advertise my Ford Toyota, or should that be Toyota Ford.

BB.

Re: Romex

I think the catch 22 (C) is that since NAWS moderates this forum, they can be held responsible for content.

-Bill

techntrek

Re: Romex

Nope, see #1 above. Active moderation doesn't matter.

Note, I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.

CDN_VT

Re: Romex

Glad I use Lumex , and have for years.
What Nonsense..
I know that Southwire has huge pockets , & the Lowier will Make this his work (Job Appreciative Acceptance ).

Been down this road helping and Battling these want-a-bee Lowier's.

VT

ZoNiE

Re: Romex

NM-B or "Non-metallic Electrical Cable" is the actual "generic" term for it. FWIW, company lawyers who do this ... have no clue that actions like these only polarize people against their products. My house is wired with "Dutrax"(R) I have no clue who makes it.

Then there's "greenlee" cable...

inetdog

Re: Romex

ZoNiE wrote: »

NM-B or "Non-metallic Electrical Cable" is the actual "generic" term for it. FWIW, company lawyers who do this crap have no clue that actions like these only polarize people against their products. My house is wired with "Dutrax"(R) I have no clue who makes it.

Then there's "greenlee" cable...

And both wire and cable with SimPul(l) (TM) coating on it. From Southwire, I believe. (It works great....)

BB.

Re: Romex

Don't get mad at the lawyers--It is how they protect their trademark.

It is simple, all they needed was a post on the forum that said that Romex was a registered trademark. We will never see/hear from them again.

Otherwise, it can become a common usage name (like Kleenex or Formica).

http://www.iplg.com/resources/articles/losing_trademark_rights.html

1. Non-Intentional Acts of the Owner
Uncontrolled Licensing of the Mark
The purpose of a trademark is to tell a consumer about the source and quality of a product. Trademark owners have a duty to control quality when they license their marks. When trademark owners do not monitor the products that bear their mark, the goods or services may not be "genuine" and the trademark loses its significance. Rights are given in trademarks to assist consumers in making informed purchases and to protect producers and sellers.
Dilution by Third Parties
The classic case of dilution is dilution by blurring, where the same mark is used more than one producer to identify different products. For famous marks, no likelihood of confusion is required. In these cases, there is not a likelihood of confusion, but the distinctiveness of the mark is diluted because consumers will associate the mark with more than one producer or product. The distinctiveness of a trademark is its value. If a mark is not distinctive, it cannot build goodwill for the name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_trademark

A few examples of trademarks that have lost their legal protection in the US are:

• Aqua-lung Aqualung, and Aqua Lung are registered trademarks for scuba diving breathing equipment owned in the United States by the firm formerly known as U.S. Divers
• Aspirin, originally a trademark of Bayer AG
• Escalator, originally a trademark of Otis Elevator Company^[6][7][8]
• Heroin, originally a trademark of Bayer AG^[9]
• Kerosene, originally a trademark of Abraham Gesner
• Phillips-head screw, named after Henry F. Phillips^[10]
• Pogo for the toy Pogo stick^[8][11]
• Thermos, originally a trademark of Thermos GmbH
• Yo-yo, originally a trademark of Duncan Yo-Yo Company
• Zipper, originally a trademark of B.F. Goodrich^[8][12]

While Linoleum, coined by its inventor and patent holder Frederick Walton, is the first product term ruled by a court as generic, it was never used as a trademark.^[13]

-Bill

ILFE

Re: Romex

[FONT=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]You would think they would appreciate the fact that their brand has become a household name.[/FONT]

Cariboocoot

Re: Romex

ILFE wrote: »

[FONT=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]You would think they would appreciate the fact that their brand has become a household name.[/FONT]

No, because they lose control over the brand name when that happens; other companies trade on it and make profit from the brand recognition the original company established (which is not done without cost).

Curiously, a couple of weeks ago I purchased some actual Romex. I could not tell this from the exterior retail packaging, but when I opened it there was the name stamped all along it along with the electrical descriptive info.