Generic trademark

Last updated
A sign in a supermarket using "Jell-O" generically, rather than "gelatin" Jello sign.jpg
A sign in a supermarket using "Jell-O" generically, rather than "gelatin"

A generic trademark, also known as a genericized trademark or proprietary eponym, is a trademark or brand name that, because of its popularity or significance, has become the generic term for, or synonymous with, a general class of products or services, usually against the intentions of the trademark's owner.

Contents

A trademark is prone to genericization, or "genericide", [1] [2] when a brand name acquires substantial market dominance or mind share, becoming so widely used for similar products or services that it is no longer associated with the trademark owner, e.g., linoleum, bubble wrap, thermos, taser. [3] A trademark thus popularized is at risk of being challenged or revoked, unless the trademark owner works sufficiently to correct and prevent such broad use. [4] [5] [6]

Trademark owners can inadvertently contribute to genericization by failing to provide an alternative generic name for their product or service or using the trademark in similar fashion to generic terms. [7] In one example, the Otis Elevator Company's trademark of the word "escalator" was cancelled following a petition from Toledo-based Haughton Elevator Company. In rejecting an appeal from Otis, an examiner from the United States Patent and Trademark Office cited the company's own use of the term "escalator" alongside the generic term "elevator" in multiple advertisements without any trademark significance. [8] Therefore, trademark owners go to extensive lengths to avoid genericization and trademark erosion.

In subpopulations

Genericization may be specific to certain professions and other subpopulations. For example, Luer-Lok (Luer lock), [9] Phoroptor (phoropter), [10] and Port-a-Cath (portacath) [11] have genericized mind share among physicians due to a lack of alternative names in common use: as a result, consumers may not realize that the term is a brand name rather than a medical eponym or generic term.

In pharmaceuticals

Aspirin with and without trademark
Bayer Aspirin and store-brand generic on Canadian drugstore shelf.jpg
Aspirin for sale in Canada, next to generic store equivalent described as "ASA (acetylsalicylic acid) tablets", since the trademark is still recognized there
Bayer and store-brand aspirin containers on US drugstore shelf.jpg
Aspirin for sale in the U.S., where the store brand can also be sold as aspirin since the trademark was ruled generic a century ago

Pharmaceutical trade names are somewhat protected from genericization due to the modern practice of assigning nonproprietary names based on a drug's chemical structure. [12] This circumvents the problem of a trademarked name entering common use by providing a generic name as soon as a novel pharmaceutical enters the market. For example, aripiprazole, the nonproprietary name for Abilify, was well-documented since its invention. [13] [14] [15] Warfarin, originally introduced as a rat poison, was approved for human use under the brand name Coumadin. [16]

Examples of genericization before the modern system of generic drugs include aspirin, introduced to the market in 1897, and heroin, introduced in 1898. Both were originally trademarks of Bayer AG. However, U.S. court rulings in 1918 and 1921 found the terms to be genericized, stating the company's failure to reinforce the brand's connection with their product as the reason. [17]

A different sense of the word genericized in the pharmaceutical industry refers to products whose patent protection has expired. For example, Lipitor was genericized in the U.S. when the first competing generic version was approved by the FDA in November 2011. In this same context, the term genericization refers to the process of a brand drug losing market exclusivity to generics.

Trademark erosion

Kawasaki Jet Ski 1985 Kawasaki 550 Jet Ski(r).jpg
Kawasaki Jet Ski

Trademark erosion, or genericization, is a special case of antonomasia related to trademarks. It happens when a trademark becomes so common that it starts being used as a common name [18] [3] [19] and the original company has failed to prevent such use. [18] [19] Once it has become an appellative, the word cannot be registered any more; this is why companies try hard not to let their trademark become too common, a phenomenon that could otherwise be considered a successful move since it would mean that the company gained an exceptional recognition. An example of trademark erosion is the verb "to hoover" (used with the meaning of "vacuum cleaning"), which originated from the Hoover company brand name.

Nintendo is an example of a brand that successfully fought trademark erosion, having managed to replace excessive use of its name with the term "game console", at that time a neologism. [18] [20]

Whether or not a mark is popularly identified as genericized, the owner of the mark may still be able to enforce the proprietary rights that attach to the use or registration of the mark, as long as the mark continues to exclusively identify the owner as the commercial origin of the applicable products or services. If the mark does not perform this essential function and it is no longer possible to legally enforce rights in relation to the mark, the mark may have become generic. In many legal systems (e.g., in the United States but not in Germany) a generic mark forms part of the public domain and can be commercially exploited by anyone. Nevertheless, there exists the possibility of a trademark becoming a revocable generic term in German (and European) trademark law.

The process by which trademark rights are diminished or lost as a result of common use in the marketplace is known as genericization. This process typically occurs over a period of time in which a mark is not used as a trademark (i.e., where it is not used to exclusively identify the products or services of a particular business), where a mark falls into disuse entirely, or where the trademark owner does not enforce its rights through actions for passing off or trademark infringement.

One risk factor that may lead to genericization is the use of a trademark as a verb, plural or possessive, unless the mark itself is possessive or plural (e.g., "Friendly's" restaurants). [21]

However, in highly inflected languages, a tradename may have to carry case endings in usage. An example is Finnish, where " Microsoftin " is the genitive case and " Facebookista " is the elative case. [22]

Avoiding genericization

Generic use of a trademark presents an inherent risk to the effective enforcement of trademark rights and may ultimately lead to genericization.

Trademark owners may take various steps to reduce the risk, including educating businesses and consumers on appropriate trademark use, avoiding use of their marks in a generic manner, and systematically and effectively enforcing their trademark rights. If a trademark is associated with a new invention, the trademark owner may also consider developing a generic term for the product to be used in descriptive contexts, to avoid inappropriate use of the "house" mark. Such a term is called a generic descriptor and is frequently used immediately after the trademark to provide a description of the product or service. For example, "Kleenex tissues" ("facial tissues" being the generic descriptor) or "Velcro-brand fasteners" for Velcro brand name hook-and-loop fasteners.

Another common practice among trademark owners is to follow their trademark with the word brand to help define the word as a trademark. Johnson & Johnson changed the lyrics of their Band-Aid television commercial jingle from, "I am stuck on Band-Aids, 'cause Band-Aid's stuck on me" to "I am stuck on Band-Aid brand, 'cause Band-Aid's stuck on me." [23] Google has gone to lengths to prevent this process, discouraging publications from using the term 'googling' in reference to Web searches. In 2006, both the Oxford English Dictionary [24] and the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary [25] struck a balance between acknowledging widespread use of the verb coinage and preserving the particular search engine's association with the coinage, defining google (all lower case, with -le ending) as a verb meaning "use the Google search engine to obtain information on the Internet". The Swedish Language Council received a complaint from Google for its inclusion of ogooglebar (meaning 'ungoogleable') on its list of new Swedish words from 2012. The Language Council chose to remove the word to avoid a legal process, but in return wrote that "[w]e decide together which words should be and how they are defined, used and spelled". [26]

Where a trademark is used generically, a trademark owner may need to take aggressive measures to retain exclusive rights to the trademark. Xerox Corporation attempted to prevent the genericization of its core trademark through an extensive public relations campaign advising consumers to "photocopy" instead of "xerox" documents. [27]

The Lego Company has worked to prevent the genericization of its plastic building blocks following the expiration of Lego's last major patents in 1978. [28] Lego manuals and catalogs throughout the 1980s included a message imploring customers to preserve the brand name by "referring to [their] bricks as 'LEGO Bricks or Toys', and not just 'LEGOS'." [29] [30] In the early 2000s, the company acquired the Legos.com URL in order to redirect customers to the Lego.com website and deliver a similar message. [31] Despite these efforts, many children and adults in the United States continue to use "Legos" as the plural form of "Lego," but competing and interchangeable products, such as those manufactured by Mega Brands, are often referred to simply as building blocks or construction blocks. [32] The company has successfully put legal pressure on the Swedish Academy and the Institute for Language and Folklore to remove the noun lego from their dictionaries. [33]

Adobe Inc. has experienced mixed success with preventing the genericization of their trademarked software, Adobe Photoshop. This is shown via recurring use of "photoshop" as a noun, verb, or general adjective for all photo manipulation throughout the Internet and mass media. [34]

Protected designation of origin

Since 2003, the European Union has actively sought to restrict the use of geographical indications by third parties outside the EU by enforcing laws regarding "protected designation of origin". [35] Although a geographical indication for specialty food or drink may be generic, it is not a trademark because it does not serve to identify exclusively a specific commercial enterprise and therefore cannot constitute a genericized trademark.

The extension of protection for geographical indications is somewhat controversial. A geographical indication may have been registered as a trademark elsewhere; for example, if "Parma Ham" was part of a trademark registered in Canada by a Canadian manufacturer, then ham manufacturers in Parma, Italy, might be unable to use this name in Canada. Wines (such as Bordeaux, Port and Champagne), cheeses (such as Roquefort, Parmesan, Gouda, and Feta), Pisco liquor, and Scotch whisky are examples of geographical indications. Compare Russian use of "Шампанское" (= Shampanskoye) for champagne-type wine made in Russia.

In the 1990s, the Parma consortium successfully sued the Asda supermarket chain to prevent it using the description "Parma ham" on prosciutto produced in Parma but sliced outside the Parma region. [36] The European Court ruled that pre-packaged ham must be produced, sliced, and packaged in Parma in order to be labeled for sale as "Parma ham". [37]

Scale of distinctiveness

A trademark is said to fall somewhere along a scale from being "distinctive" to "generic" (used primarily as a common name for the product or service rather than an indication of source). Among distinctive trademarks the scale goes from strong to weak: [38]

"Fanciful" or "coined"
original words with no meaning as to the nature of the product
"Arbitrary"
existing words with little if any reference to the nature of the product or service
"Suggestive"
having primarily trademark significance but with suggestion as to the nature of the product
"Descriptive"
not just suggesting, but actually describing the product or service yet still understood as indicating source
"Merely descriptive"
having almost entirely reference to the product or service but capable of becoming "distinctive".

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Band-Aid</span> Brand name of adhesive bandages and related products

Band-Aid is a brand of adhesive bandages distributed by the consumer health company Kenvue, spun off from Johnson & Johnson in 2023. Invented in 1920, the brand has become a generic term for adhesive bandages in countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, the Philippines, and others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kleenex</span> Brand name for a variety of paper-based products

Kleenex is a brand name for a line of paper-based facial tissues. Often used informally as a genericized trademark for facial tissue, it is a registered trademark of Kimberly-Clark, applied to products made in 78 countries and sold in over 196.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Styrofoam</span> Trademarked brand for extruded polystyrene

Styrofoam is a trademarked brand of closed-cell extruded polystyrene foam (XPS), manufactured to provide continuous building insulation board used in walls, roofs, and foundations as thermal insulation and as a water barrier. This material is light blue in color and is owned and manufactured by DuPont. DuPont also has produced a line of green and white foam shapes for use in crafts and floral arrangements.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States trademark law</span>

A trademark is a word, phrase, or logo that identifies the source of goods or services. Trademark law protects a business' commercial identity or brand by discouraging other businesses from adopting a name or logo that is "confusingly similar" to an existing trademark. The goal is to allow consumers to easily identify the producers of goods and services and avoid confusion.

Mind share relates to the development of consumer awareness or popularity, and is one of the main objectives of advertising and promotion. When people think of examples of a product type or category, they usually think of a limited number of brand names. The aim of mind share is to establish a brand as being one of the best kinds of a given product or service, and to even have the brand name become a synonym for the product or service offered. For example, a prospective buyer of a college education will have several thousand colleges to choose from. However, the evoked set, or set of schools considered, will probably be limited to about ten. Of these ten, the colleges that the buyer is most familiar with will receive the greatest attention.

A collective trademark, collective trade mark, or collective mark is a trademark owned by an organization, used by its members to identify themselves with a level of quality or accuracy, geographical origin, or other characteristics set by the organization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Otis Worldwide</span> American elevator and escalator manufacturer

Otis Worldwide Corporation is an American company that develops, manufactures and markets elevators, escalators, moving walkways, and related equipment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prosciutto</span> Italian dry-cured ham that is thinly sliced and served uncooked

Prosciutto crudo, in English often shortened to prosciutto, is uncooked, unsmoked, and dry-cured ham. Prosciutto crudo is usually served thinly sliced.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Industrial property</span> Intellectual property applied to industry

Industrial property is one of two subsets of intellectual property, it takes a range of forms, including patents for inventions, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, layout-designs of integrated circuits, commercial names and designations, geographical indications and protection against unfair competition. In some cases, aspects of intellectual creation, although present, are less clearly defined. The object of industrial property consists of signs conveying information, in particular to consumers, regarding products and services offered on the market. Protection is directed against unauthorized use of such signs that could mislead consumers, and against misleading practices in general.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Geographical indication</span> Indication of a products source

A geographical indication (GI) is a name or sign used on products which corresponds to a specific geographical location or origin. The use of a geographical indication, as an indication of the product's source, is intended as a certification that the product possesses certain qualities, is made according to traditional methods, or enjoys a good reputation due to its geographical origin.

A wordmark or word mark is a text-only statement of the name of a product, service, company, organization, or institution which is used for purposes of identification and branding. A wordmark can be an actual word, a made-up term that reads like a word, or an acronym, initialism, or series of letters. In some jurisdictions a wordmark may be trademarked, giving it legal distinction, and potentially additional protection of any artistic presentation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Spinning (cycling)</span> US brand of indoor bicycles

Spinning is a brand of indoor bicycles and indoor cycling instruction classes distributed and licensed by the American health and fitness company Mad Dogg Athletics. Launched in 1993, the brand has become a popular term for indoor bicycles and indoor cycling fitness classes in the United States and worldwide.

Trademark distinctiveness is an important concept in the law governing trademarks and service marks. A trademark may be eligible for registration, or registrable, if it performs the essential trademark function, and has distinctive character. Registrability can be understood as a continuum, with "inherently distinctive" marks at one end, "generic" and "descriptive" marks with no distinctive character at the other end, and "suggestive" and "arbitrary" marks lying between these two points. "Descriptive" marks must acquire distinctiveness through secondary meaning—consumers have come to recognize the mark as a source indicator—to be protectable. "Generic" terms are used to refer to the product or service itself and cannot be used as trademarks.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Koozie</span> Sleeve designed to insulate a beverage container

A koozie (US) or stubby holder (Australian) is a fabric or foam sleeve that is designed to thermally insulate a beverage container, like a can or bottle.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trademark</span> Trade identifier of products or services

A trademark is a type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression that identifies a product or service from a particular source and distinguishes it from others. A trademark owner can be an individual, business organization, or any legal entity. A trademark may be located on a package, a label, a voucher, or on the product itself. Trademarks used to identify services are sometimes called service marks.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Brand</span> Identification for a good or service

A brand is a name, term, design, symbol or any other feature that distinguishes one seller's good or service from those of other sellers. Brands are used in business, marketing, and advertising for recognition and, importantly, to create and store value as brand equity for the object identified, to the benefit of the brand's customers, its owners and shareholders. Brand names are sometimes distinguished from generic or store brands.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Escalator</span> Moving staircase

An escalator is a moving staircase which carries people between floors of a building or structure. It consists of a motor-driven chain of individually linked steps on a track which cycle on a pair of tracks which keep the step tread horizontal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trademark infringement</span> Violation of trademark rights

Trademark infringement is a violation of the exclusive rights attached to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner or any licensees. Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, especially in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers. An owner of a trademark may commence civil legal proceedings against a party which infringes its registered trademark. In the United States, the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 criminalized the intentional trade in counterfeit goods and services.

Ugg boots trademark disputes are the disputes between some footwear manufacturers, as to whether "ugg" is a protected trademark, or a generic term and thus ineligible for trademark protection. In Australia and New Zealand, where "Ugg" is a generic term for the style of footwear, 702 registered trademarks include the term "Ugg" in various logos and designs. By contrast, UGG is a registered trademark of the California-based company Deckers Outdoor Corporation in over 130 countries worldwide, including the U.S., the European Union, and China.

References

  1. ↑ Shenker, Israel (1972-11-20). "Trade Names Come and Go and Now There's — Exxon". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2023-12-18.
  2. ↑ "genericide". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2023-12-19.
  3. 1 2 "15 Product Trademarks That Have Become Victims Of Genericization". Consumer Reports. 19 July 2014. Retrieved 20 August 2018.
  4. ↑ Fisher, William (n.d.). "Overview of Trademark Law". Harvard Law School. "Under some circumstances, terms that are not originally generic can become generic over time (a process called "genericity"), and thus become unprotected."
  5. ↑ Hyra, Clifford D. "How Long Does a Trademark Last?". Patents 101. Hyra IP, PLC. Archived from the original on 25 January 2010.
  6. ↑ "Invalidity and revocation (cancellation)". European Union Intellectual Property Office. Retrieved 2023-12-21.
  7. ↑ "Entertainment Title Duplication Cases: A Process of Evolution". Indiana Law Journal. 39 (110). 1963-10-01. ISSN   0019-6665.
  8. ↑ "Haughton Elevator Company v. Seeberger". The Trade-Mark Reporter. 40: 326. 1950. (Thus, in the Architectural FORUM for March 1946, appears an advertisement beginning as follows: "Otis elevators Otis escalators." From this it is seen that the word "escalators" is used generically or descriptively and without any trademark significance just as is the word "elevators." Also, in the same magazine for January 1946, on page 184 thereof, appears the advertisement of the Otis Elevator Company with the name "OTIS," in a circle, prominently displayed near the middle of the page, beneath which is this notation in bold letters "THE MEANING OF THE OTIS TRADEMARK." Beneath this, in part, is the following: "To the millions of daily passengers on the Otis elevators and escalators, the Otis trademark or name plate means safe, convenient, energy-saving transportation. To thousands of building owners and managers, the Otis trademark means the utmost in safe, efficient economical elevator and escalator operation." It is obvious to me from this advertisement that the trademark emphasis is on the word "Otis" and its significant mark because here, again, the word "escalator" or "escalators" is written in small letters and in the same manner and same context as the word "elevator" or "elevators" which obviously has no trademark significance.)
  9. ↑ "The Life and Death of the Luer". www.mddionline.com. Retrieved 2023-12-19.
  10. ↑ "Phoroptor® by Reichert®: Celebrating 100 Years of Making Vision Clearer". AMETEK Reichert. Retrieved 2023-12-19.
  11. ↑ "Implantable ports". www.macmillan.org.uk. Retrieved 2023-12-19.
  12. ↑ "International Nonproprietary Names Programme and Classification of Medical Products". World Health Organization. Retrieved 2023-12-21.
  13. ↑ Temple, Robert (November 15, 2002). "NDA 21-436: Letter to Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd" (PDF). Food and Drug Administration, United States Department of Health and Human Services.
  14. ↑ "U.S. Food and Drug Administration Approves Abilify® (aripiprazole) as the First Medication for Add-On Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD)" (Press release). Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. November 20, 2007.
  15. ↑ Greenaway, Masa’il; Elbe, Dean (August 2009). "Focus on Aripiprazole: A Review of its use in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry". Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 18 (3). Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: 250–260. PMC   2732733 . PMID   19718428.
  16. ↑ Lim, Gregory B. (14 December 2017). "Milestone 2: Warfarin: from rat poison to clinical use". Nature Reviews Cardiology. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2017.172 . PMID   29238065.
  17. ↑ Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co., 272F.505 , p.512(S.D.N.Y1921)("Disregarding this, however, it was too late in the autumn of 1915 to reclaim the word which had already passed into the public domain. If the consuming public had once learned to know 'Aspirin' as the accepted name for the drug, perhaps it is true that an extended course of education might have added to it some proprietary meaning, but it would be very difficult to prove that it had been done in 17 months, and in any case the plaintiff does not try to prove it. [...] Yet, had it not been indifferent to the results of selling to the consumer, it could have protected itself just as well at the time when consumers began to buy directly as in 1915. Nothing would have been easier than to insist that the tablet makers should market the drug in small tin boxes bearing the plaintiff's name, or to take over the sale just as it did later. Instead of this, they allowed the manufacturing chemists to build up this part of the demand without regard to the trade-mark. Having made that bed, they must be content to lie in it. Hence it appears to me that nothing happening between October, 1915, and March, 1917, will serve to turn the word into a trade-mark.").
  18. 1 2 3 Marsden, Rhodri (10 June 2011). "'Genericide': When brands get too big". The Independent. Retrieved 20 August 2018.
  19. 1 2 Schofield, John (26 January 2017). "Sometimes a trademark is too 'successful'". The Lawyer's Daily. LexisNexis Canada. Archived from the original on 20 July 2021. Retrieved 20 August 2018.
  20. ↑ "Generic Trademarks". The Lingua File. 29 November 2012. Archived from the original on 30 August 2017. Retrieved 29 August 2017.
  21. ↑ "Trademarks and Brands". 3Com Legal. 3Com Corporation. Archived from the original on 10 February 2009. Retrieved 28 March 2010.
  22. ↑ Microsoft Oy (10 November 2011). "Nokia Lumia 800 ensiesittelyssä Microsoftin Hello Helsinki! -tapahtumassa". Microsoft TechNet (in Finnish). Microsoft. Retrieved 2 January 2013.
  23. ↑ "A cost effective way to protect against genericide" . Retrieved September 28, 2020.
  24. ↑ Duffy, Jonathan (20 June 2003). "Google calls in the 'language police'". BBC News . Retrieved 20 August 2018.
  25. ↑ "Google". Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated . Retrieved 20 August 2018.
  26. ↑ Fanning, Sean (26 March 2013). "Google gets ungoogleable off Sweden's new word list". BBC News . Archived from the original on 17 June 2019. Retrieved 13 April 2024.
  27. ↑ Carton, Bruce (30 June 2010). "Xerox Ad Pretends We Care About Its Trademark Rights to Term Xerox". Legal Blog Watch. Law.com. Retrieved 20 August 2018.
  28. ↑ Austen, Ian (2005-02-02). "Building a Legal Case, Block by Block". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2023-12-15.
  29. ↑ Cooper, John (2023-08-18). "Susan Williams: The Most Famous LEGO Employee That Never Existed". BrickNerd - All things LEGO and the LEGO fan community. Retrieved 2023-12-15.
  30. ↑ Retroist. "1985 Lego Catalog". www.retroist.com. Retrieved 2023-12-15.
  31. ↑ "Please -- it's LEGO, not Legos". The Globe and Mail. 2005-09-06. Retrieved 2023-12-19.
  32. ↑ "How Mattel Is Challenging Lego's Building Brick Dominance". Fortune. Retrieved 2023-12-19.
  33. ↑ Svensson, Anders (2024). "Orden som försvinner i tysthet" [The words that silently disappear]. Språktidningen[The Language Magazine] (in Swedish). No. 3. ISSN   1654-5028.
  34. ↑ "General trademark guidelines". Adobe. Adobe Systems Incorporated. Retrieved 2 January 2013.
  35. ↑ Rovamo, Oskari (August 2006). Monopolising Names? The Protection of Geographical Indications in the European Community (PDF) (Pro Gradu). Faculty of Law, Helsinki University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 September 2018. Retrieved 28 March 2010.
  36. ↑ Owen, Richard; Elliott, Valerie (21 May 2003). "'Barmy' ruling bans Asda from undercutting its Parma ham". The Times. Retrieved 5 October 2009.[ dead link ]
  37. ↑ "Asda slams 'ham-fisted' Parma ruling". BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation. 20 May 2003. Retrieved 20 August 2018.
  38. ↑ Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "Abercrombie Classification" (last visited Feb. 3, 2024)

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.