# A critical question of language **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 12, 2002, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-critical-question-of-language/103250 "2002-04-12T15:45:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 50
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2021, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-critical-question-of-language/103250/50 "2021-02-14T20:21:35Z")
Trademark owners do not own words. They own trademark rights. They have no legal or moral control over language. We have addressed this many times. > [@O.S.U. wants to trademark the word "the"](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/o-s-u-wants-to-trademark-the-word-the/838662/51): > > Right, but is that the use of “The” as an indicator of source for the T-shirts? Does this use and significant uses like it make it impossible for “The” to function as an indicator of source for T-shirts? You’ll never get a definitive answer to that question just talking about it on the internet. Ultimately, trademark rights are about positioning yourself for a fight. And there are several stages at which a fight can happen. O.S.U. has an application before the P.T.O. Well, someone can challe… > Trademark law is not a regulation of speech in general. For example, the Lego company would love it if you said “Lego-brand toy blocks” all the time and only in reference to their legitimately branded blocks and avoided calling them “Legos,” and especially avoided calling someone else’s blocks “legos” in a generic sense. > But you can do it all day every day for the rest of your life. You can even write a book that does it. A newspaper can go around printing “Legos” and “legos” all it wants, and the Lego company will never get any relief for it. > That’s because there’s no use in commerce here. Nobody is selling goods or services using “Legos” or “legos” as a source indicator (i.e., brand name). They can send out letters and publish websites complaining about “trademark misuse,” but you know what? Trademark misuse isn’t a thing in the law. So tough shit. Ultimately, if the public decides that “legos” is more useful as a generic term rather than as a brand name, then the Lego company is screwed. > [@Bizarre Non-Trademark Infringing Names for Popular Products](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-non-trademark-infringing-names-for-popular-products/834627/51): > > Yes, it’s dumb, but it’s not a trademark issue. I have always called them Legos, and I’m not going to stop. [quote=“Acsenray, post:51, topic:834627, full:true”] > [@Bizarre Non-Trademark Infringing Names for Popular Products](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-non-trademark-infringing-names-for-popular-products/834627/50): > > > [@Bizarre Non-Trademark Infringing Names for Popular Products](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bizarre-non-trademark-infringing-names-for-popular-products/834627/41): > > > > > Lego is simply following its legal counsels’ advice to avoid genericide. They don’t actually hate the people they send such letters to. The people reading the letters are the ones overreacting. > > > [/quote] > > > > > > Yeah, but the whole Legos/Lego Bricks stuff is just dumb. I’ve had people bitch on this very board that the plural and singular are both Lego. > > > > > > Talk about being fanboys who need to get lives; getting butthurt about the pluralization of a children’s toy range is pretty much the epitome of toxic dorkiness. > > Yes, it’s dumb, but it’s not a trademark issue. > > I have always called them Legos, and I’m not going to stop. > [@Legos are\_\_\_\_\_](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legos-are _____ /119819/25): > > You sure about this? Companies ask us not to use their brand as a generic noun because common usage can cause them to lose their exclusive use of a trademark. I recall ads by the Xerox corporation asking people to use the term “photocopy” as the noun or verb, and only use “Xerox” when referring to Xerox brand products, specifically because they were worried about losing their trademark. From reading their ad, it sounded like what made the difference was common usage. The alt.usage.english FAQ … > [@Legos are\_\_\_\_\_](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legos-are _____ /119819/44): > > I don’t mean to hurt anyone’s feelings, but the only people who call them “Legos” are communists and thieves. They’re “Lego pieces” or “Lego blocks” or “pieces of Lego” or “Lego parts” or, if you really know what you’re talking about, simply “Lego,” as in “look at all that Lego.” Using the word “Legos” demonstrates that you are a worthless philistine. > > But again, no offense intended! Thanks for listening. Remember > [@Why no Brand Names in Sitcoms/TV Shows](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-brand-names-in-sitcoms-tv-shows/216948/7): > > Most likely to the Marx Brothers last movie, Love Happy. The producers ran out of money, so paid for the final sequence by featuring the logos of various companies. > [@Why no Brand Names in Sitcoms/TV Shows](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-no-brand-names-in-sitcoms-tv-shows/216948/8): > > > [@](#): > > > > In addition, as long is the brand name is used properly in the script\*, there is no grounds for a suit. … \*Basically, used as an adjective, not a noun or verb. > > There is no such standard of “proper” usage. A kid in a sitcom can say “I don’t want Legos for my birthday” or “I don’t want Lego blocks for my birthday.” The trademark owner might prefer the latter, but has no recourse (other than to send stern letters) if the line said is the former. > > Bottom line: We, as citizens, as writers, as broadcasters, as movie producers – basically as any kind of speaker – can use a brand name however we want. Trademark owners have absolutely no right or power to control our usage of language. It’s only when we slap that name on a product or service we’re selling that we can get into trouble. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-critical-question-of-language/103250)._