Can you use brand names?

Can you use brand names

Yes. You can. But you can't use song lyrics.

My only concern is that the character works there. That's a bit different than shopping or walking by. I guess if you have first hand experience with the "behind the scenes" of a particular store, that's fine. Otherwise, I'd invent a name --- something elegant that could be a competitor to N-M or L&T. Something like "Lansomes" or "Hardeth & James." Then you don't have to worry about it.

What they said.

Brand names

You can use brand names, but don't overdo it. Used too often, they come across poorly.

And you're also allowed to make up your own brand names, department stores, etc. This often works much better.

Brand names are fine -- they lend certain familiarity and realism to your story. However, yeah, don't overuse them and make your book a giant commercial.

Is there an accepted reference for brand names that have passed into common usage? I was surprised to realize that Thermos is a trademarked name, as well as a few others that I thought were just common nouns. We all treat Kleenex (tissues) as a common noun nowadays, does there come a time when it simply becomes 'a kleenex' and is part of the lexicon?

Maryn is absolutly right. Don't disparage any brand name, firm or company.

Brand names are trickier than a well known department store like Macey's.

I'm writing a book now in which the main chatacter gives a gift of perfume to his new found love. It's a Christmas present. This fellow is rather shy and not too schooled in the art of choosing scents. However while in Lord & Taylor he spies small sign positioined over a beautiful bottle of amber liquid. The ad reads: "Promise her anything but give her Arpège."



Now I knew I could used the Arpège name freely but not the slogan. I contacted Lanvin Paris via their website. I told them I was writing a novel. I included the scene and asked permission to use the slogan. Five days later I got a gracious letter granting my request and offering success and good wishes. They were very sweet and didn't pick on my poor French grammar.

Getting permissions isn't as difficult as it may seem.

Maryn said:

There are scads of words in the common lexicon that remain trademarked brand names, largely because the companies fight tooth and nail to keep them that way. No one with a terrible cold supplies herself with facial tissue, an insulating jug of hot tea, and quiescently frozen fruit-flavored bars, until she feels well enough to resume in-line skating. If you're going to write about it, you almost have to use Kleenex, Thermos, Popsicle, and RollerBlade. With capitalization.

A friend and former Xerox employee tells me that the company routinely contacts publishers seeking not only capitalization but elimination of the word Xerox as a verb.

Maryn, who'll go xerox this for you right away

Click to expand...

Yeah, the law requires companies to legally defend any trademark they own. If they don't defend it, they lose it.

Jamesaritchie said:

Yeah, the law requires companies to legally defend any trademark they own. If they don't defend it, they lose it.

Click to expand...

In marketing studies there are whole sections on avoiding using your product as a verb or anyone can steal it. Spinning insist we never "spin", Step should never be refered to as a "box" and should always be with a captial. I do believe that
RollaBlade did lose the rights to their name because of their own careless usage of their product as a verb - might be wrong but I think I am right.

This brings Google to mind and people's usage of googling something. But I guess no one can steal or copy the google website so perhaps they figure what can't hurt them only helps?

Anyways -- back to your usage of products, use the product name, but don't verb their nouns. Could you Starbucks or Coke anyways? We went starbucksing? Now that is something to try on a wet Sunday.

On a similar theme: I've heard some authors say they should be paid by the companies whose brand names they use, because of the free advertising. And then of course there's the story of Fay Weldon, who wrote a whole novel under contract for a jewellery company. There was a bit of a media furor when it happened a couple years ago, but I just found this on the subject, which I think, though true, is really just sour grapes:

http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/commercial-alert/2001/000094.html

What do you think?

expatbrat said:

In marketing studies there are whole sections on avoiding using your product as a verb or anyone can steal it. Spinning insist we never "spin", Step should never be refered to as a "box" and should always be with a captial. I do believe that
RollaBlade did lose the rights to their name because of their own careless usage of their product as a verb - might be wrong but I think I am right.

This brings Google to mind and people's usage of googling something. But I guess no one can steal or copy the google website so perhaps they figure what can't hurt them only helps?

Anyways -- back to your usage of products, use the product name, but don't verb their nouns. Could you Starbucks or Coke anyways? We went starbucksing? Now that is something to try on a wet Sunday.

Click to expand...

Turning something into a verb plays a part in losing a trademark, but not in the way you seem to think. The problem really comes when the general public starts using a brand name either as a verb, or much more commonly, as a generic item, and the company does nothing to defend their trademark.

At some point a brand name can fall over into the area of becoming a generic phrase, and this is when the company may lose the trademark.

But just because a company loses a trademark does not automatically mean anyone else can use than name to make a profit. A company does not necessarily even need a trademark to stop anyone else from using a name they claim.

Jamesaritchie said:

At some point a brand name can fall over into the area of becoming a generic phrase, and this is when the company may lose the trademark.

Click to expand...

I htink, in the UK at lest, Hoover has gone on to genericdom. People talk about hoovering the house all the time.

aruna said:

I htink, in the UK at lest, Hoover has gone on to genericdom. People talk about hoovering the house all the time.

Click to expand...

That's interesting. Hoover used to be a huge name here, though I don't hear it often at all now. I can't remember ever hearing anyone say "hoovering."

I think "Xerox" had the most problams here. For years, anyone making a copy said they were going to "xerox" something, no matter what make of copier they were using.

Jamesaritchie said:

I think "Xerox" had the most problams here. For years, anyone making a copy said they were going to "xerox" something, no matter what make of copier they were using.

Click to expand...

Over here, they talk about copying, not xeroxing.

Jamesaritchie said:

Turning something into a verb plays a part in losing a trademark, but not in the way you seem to think. The problem really comes when the general public starts using a brand name either as a verb, or much more commonly, as a generic item, and the company does nothing to defend their trademark.

At some point a brand name can fall over into the area of becoming a generic phrase, and this is when the company may lose the trademark.

But just because a company loses a trademark does not automatically mean anyone else can use than name to make a profit. A company does not necessarily even need a trademark to stop anyone else from using a name they claim.

Click to expand...

That sounds right.

aruna said:

Over here, they talk about copying, not xeroxing.

Click to expand...

It's the same here, but as James noted, there was a time, before the proliferation of print/copy technology, the buzz word was "xeroxing."

Trademark protection is a vicious multi-million dollar biz, these days.