"I'm sending you an Xerox copy of that story you wanted to see," Chuck said to me.
"Whoa," I responded. "You can't send me a Xerox copy!"
"Why not?"
"Well," I explained, "Xerox is a brand name. It's not the correct phrase. If you had that in print, Xerox might sue you for using its name without permission. What you really want to do is send me a photographic reproduction of the story, perhaps using a Xerox machine."
We both laughed over that little exchange, which took place a few weeks ago. Chuck thought I was being a little technical. "It's the same thing," he said.
I disagree, and I told him as much. Maybe it was technical. Maybe it comes down to context. But making a photostatic copy and making a Xerox copy are not the same thing. You can't use the trademark in this way.
The more I thought about it, the more I realized that making Xerox copies might not even be the most misused trademark or brand name.
Nor is Kleenex.
Or Q-Tip.
No, as far as this writer is concerned, that honor goes to the trademark name Styrofoam, which is a brand of plastic foam. Rarely do you hear someone at the supermarket ask, "Where are the plastic foam cups?"
But that's OK. The market stockers are far too busy stocking the aisles with Jell-O, Kool-Aid, Band-Aids, Vaseline, Magic Markers and Coke (which can be drunk from those plastic foam cups).
Words.
The use and misuse of trade and brand names goes deep. Suppose you need a new window for your house, but don't want to put in glass. If you decide to replace the pane with plexiglass, you're doing fine. But if you choose Plexiglas, you're messing with a trademark.
And that new movie you wanted to see? You know, Teenage Ninja Rambos Have a Total Recall and Die Harder With a Lethal Weapon XVI? I understand it was filmed in Technicolor, which is also a trademark.
When the media referred to President Ronald Reagan's inability to grasp reality, they termed him the Teflon Man. Whoops, there's another trademark. Better, he should broadcast an All-Star Game played on AstroTurf (yep, there's another one).
All of these names come to mind because of a political rip session being waged on the television airwaves recently.
The hate campaign which brought the use of language to mind is being waged in Illinois. The issue, of course, is taxes. And one word, in one ad, could cause an uproar.
I noticed on WGN-TV last week that a political advertisement from the campaign of Jim Edgar, a Republican candidate for governor of Illinois, lashes back at his Democratic mud-slinging mate, Neil Hartigan, on the tax issue.
In an ad several weeks ago, Hartigan ripped Edgar for supporting higher taxes. In Edgar's reply, he points out that Hartigan and his "cronies" in the Illinois legislature supported th ehighest tax increase in state history.
My eyebrows raised at the word "cronies," which - to me - has that subtle implication of seediness, rather than friendship. In fact, in college I learned that "cronyism" was one of those so-called "red-flag" words which could lead to, among other things, a slander or libel suit.
Of course, how one perceives the word will decide whether "cronyism" is an attack on character or just making light of connections. As a reporter from The Chicago Tribune told me, the word crony "is a common term in Illinois politics."
Is Hartigan surrounded by corruptness, or just by a bunch of good ol' boys who back him up time and time again in the Illinois legislature?
Words.
If there were a slander suit, it would not involve WGN, or any other television or radio station. Broadcast outfits are covered by Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, which says stations may not alter the script in political advertisements. This was for two reasons: (a) to prevent station owners and executives from changing the words of candidates they might not find attractive, and (b) to prevent the stations from being sued if the possibility of slander existed.
Words. At least Edgar didn't try to Xerox anything.
This article originally appeared in the Ogemaw County Herald.
