I enjoyed the velcro video we watched in class and I was trying to think of other such examples, beyond things such as kleenex, xerox, and rollerblades discussed in class. One day, on my way to playing spikeball, a game involving a small trampoline-like thing and a ball, I was thinking of how spikeball potentially fits in here. I was thinking this given that I often here tournaments in which one plays spikeball as “Roundnet” tournaments and was wondering whether these terms were what the game was actually called, key manufacturers within the game, or other entities. As it turns out, even though the game was introduced to me as spikeball and I don’t know of anyone who would not call it by this name, Spikeball is actually the name of a company that manufactures equipment for what the sport is actually called, that being roundnet. The founder had purchased the rights to the product as the original inventor did not patent it, and began manufacturing. I think that this situation is analogous to rollerblades and inline skates, in which while most people do call it rollerblading, the technical terminology would be that they are inline skating. I wonder if this mark can potentially lose reputation/goodwill as it may become generic. Only time will tell.
Communications Law
Hi Rares, super interesting question you posted! It’s funny, I know of people formerly involved with the UBC Roundnet Club, which was initially known as the UBC Spikeball Club. As I understand it, the Club received communication from the company, which necessitated the name change. Clearly, there’s a push to maintain the mark!