From today's Newsday, from a story titled "Smokers ignited over tax hike":
And I see that the Texas Administrative Code recognizes this term:
"Cigarette Nicotine Yield Rating Reporting Requirements," Title 25, park 1, chapter 101, rule 101.5: "if the brand styles within a private label or generic cigarette brand family are identical "
How about this complete and total contradiction:
"Miami-based generic cigarette maker Trademark Holdings Corp. faced a tough choice recently: Cease production of its new and profitable Cowboys brand cigarettes -- which are packaged with the image of a cowboy astride a horse -- or shoot it out with Philip Morris U.S.A. in an intellectual property lawsuit."
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1032128783264
I mean, jeez, they're repositioning an existing brand, and *calling* it a generic?
The NYTimes recognizes the term. There's a reference in a law journal to a "branded 'generic' cigarette."
This term is all over the place--it's making my head hurt. I'm glad I don't smoke.
What's with this? is there some basic standard that all these companies are following, and that is what makes it generic? But even then, if they put ANY sort of name on it, isn't it no longer a generic?
Frank Steigerwal, 60, a school custodian who lives in West Sayville, reeled when he paid $19.34 for two boxes of Mavericks and one box of Naturals at Jim's Smoke Shop in Patchogue. On Monday, those three packs would have cost $14.90. Mavericks, a generic brand, cost $5.35 a pack at Jim's.
Ummmmmm, how can you possibly have a generic brand? You can have a generic THING, but once it becomes a brand, well, it's a brand. It might be an incredibly inexpensive brand. It might be brand that is sold at the same price as something that doesn't carry a brand name.
But if you are giving it a name that is not "Cigarette," it's a brand.
I think "generic brand" is an oxymoron--is it not?
I see from this website
www.discountcigaretteshop.comthat people in the industry do indeed have a category called "generic brands."
And I see that the Texas Administrative Code recognizes this term:
"Cigarette Nicotine Yield Rating Reporting Requirements," Title 25, park 1, chapter 101, rule 101.5: "if the brand styles within a private label or generic cigarette brand family are identical "
How about this complete and total contradiction:
"Miami-based generic cigarette maker Trademark Holdings Corp. faced a tough choice recently: Cease production of its new and profitable Cowboys brand cigarettes -- which are packaged with the image of a cowboy astride a horse -- or shoot it out with Philip Morris U.S.A. in an intellectual property lawsuit."
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1032128783264
Or this one, from May 11, 1984:
"n a re- positioning of Doral, a cigarette first introduced in 1968, Reynolds is entering the no-image, low-cost generic end of the cigarette business for the first time."
I mean, jeez, they're repositioning an existing brand, and *calling* it a generic?
The NYTimes recognizes the term. There's a reference in a law journal to a "branded 'generic' cigarette."
This term is all over the place--it's making my head hurt. I'm glad I don't smoke.
What's with this? is there some basic standard that all these companies are following, and that is what makes it generic? But even then, if they put ANY sort of name on it, isn't it no longer a generic?
We ought not to let them get away with this.
