[carcus3]

If Ewanick understands "range anxiety" to be so confidently real, shouldn't he advise GM to it lay in wait while the competition makes a costly example -- allowing for an heroic surge by the volt?

/no trademarks required

 

[twist]

It's best to present a positive image on the Volt and on future plug-in vehicles produced at GM. Rather than state the Volt doesn't have range anxiety. Simply state the car can be driven all day.

On the topic of education. Keep it simple and basic.
1>Yes you can plug the car into the same outlet you have in your home.
2>First 40 miles uses no gasoline.
3>Drives under smooth, quiet, electric power all of the time.
4>This car can go 300 miles between gas station stops.

=D-Volt

 

[Gary P]

This may be off topic, but it's almost 11 PM Pacific Time Wednesday night and the text above says that "This post has been viewed 0 times", but there are two comments before me.

Huh?

 

[flmark]

Whoa, what were they thinking?


I own a business and have researched registered trade marks, service marks, etc. From the article, “GM has applied to trademark “range anxiety” in order to promote “public awareness of electric vehicle capabilities”. A trade mark is used so that people cannot invade your territory and perhaps confuse your product with a competing product. You are granted a trade mark for one business application. In other words, it is expected that no one will be confused by the same phrasing if used in tires as in baked goods. If you coin a phrase that you want to use exclusively, you apply for a trade mark. You can do it with a font style or an image. THE POINT OF A TRADEMARK IS SO THAT A CONSUMER IS NOT FOOLED INTO BUYING THE WRONG ITEM. If GM is expecting to 'educate' via the trademark system, they are not going to get very far.

However, once granted a trademark, you gain COMPLETE rights to it in many different venues. GM is applying to be the ONLY ONE allowed to use the phrase ‘range anxiety’ in ANY article related to selling automobiles? It is like Tylenol trying to preserve ‘head ache’ for itself. To be granted a trademark, the phrase needs to be unique enough that it is not an everyday statement, but still not be a single universally understood concept. Gillette- “The best a man can get”. Avis- “We try harder”. Bounty- “The Quicker Picker Upper”. Tylenol could try, “Headaches Begone”, but they would never get away with “Headache” alone.

As stated, I believe ‘Range Anxiety’ alone would never cut it or be approved. GM could try “Range Anxiety Begone”. I am ALL for that. It would be approved and I like the Volt because of this reason. But if GM is really trying to trade mark the phrase ‘Range Anxiety’ by itself, they are out to lunch and we (as GM fans) should tell them they are NOT helping themselves in the public eye (as the news article is indeed focusing on). GM did NOT originate (?? see next paragraph) this phrase and it is already in public lexicon. It is no different than ’sprained ankle’ or ‘God bless you’. Let’s hope GM’s lawyers and marketing folks didn’t smoke something funny (like DonC alluded to) and if they did, we here should speak up about it before they go too far.

According to WSJ http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2010/09/01/general-motors-wants-trademark-for-range-anxiety/
GM may claim they did originate phrase 'range anxiety' and it started with EV-1. WHY ON EARTH would they want to keep reminding people ‘who killed the electric car?’ Back to DonC’s comment, what are they smokin’?

I do think it smart to capitalize on the Volt's advantage via 'range anxiety'. However, its exclusive claim on the phrase via trade mark is a PR nightmare and on the flipside, what do they do when THEY want to market a pure BEV a few years from now?

I have a GM credit card and have been a GM supporter, but I see nothing but bad things coming from this move to make a legal claim to this phrase.

Of course, there is ONE positive thing you can note. For anyone who thought this vehicle was purely for 'halo' effect, boy were they wrong. GM is DEFINITELY behind the success of this vehicle, even if they have chosen a horrible way to show it.

[And for those who commented to me on the previous thread, copyrights, patents and trademarks are all different animals. The terms cannot be used interchangably]

 

[flmark]

My last addition about copyright, patent and trademark was put in with edit and I ran out of time for extrapolation.

As mentioned, a trademark is to help consumers distinguish products from each other.

Copyrights protect intellectual property, including software and songs. Note that you CANNOT COPYRIGHT A TITLE, only the lyrics. So Lyle's mythical 'Range Anxiety' movie poster title wouldn't gain any protection from copyrights. GM's 'range anxiety' argument wouldn't work if they tried a copyright concept to gain exclusivity.

A patent is for protection on the workings of a device or a method of operation. The garbage behind the patent process is a whole 'nother topic and way beyond the topic at hand.

 

[evnow]

If GM is planning to play dirty - shame on them. A fledgling industry doesn't need this FUD campaign ...

 

[WopOnTour]

Oh great. Now were gonna get ALL of the crazies in here spoutin off on this thread.
Kortoff will be here tomorrow a preachin' about the Great Volt-Hoax mark my words.

Who cares why GM wants to copyright the term?
If they find a way to use it in their advertising so what?
Saying it doesnt exist is just plain rediculous.
Its spectre remains THE strategic advantage the Volt has over cars like the Leaf, and other upcoming EVs.So what's so wrong with exploiting it?
NOTHING I say, as it certainly won't quell the tide of change that's already well underway.

If people who purchase a 100-mile BEV find that RA doesnt affect them, then GREAT!
All's well that ends well.
It's a non-issue IMHO.
WopOnTour

 

[DonC]

Uh-oh. Flmark, EVNow, and I are in complete agreement. Has that ever happened before? Probably. Anyhow, just looking around to see whether the term "range anxiety" is generic or suggestive of GM, I found this Wikipedia entry. It features a a quote by Toyota's Bill Reinert but nothing specific about GM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_anxiety GM probably needs a Plan B. Ba ha ha ha ha ha!

For those interested here's a cite to the AOL case. IMO AOL's claims to trademark protection for the terms "Buddy List" and "You've Got Mail" were about 100X stronger than GM's claim to the term "Range Anxiety", but maybe that's just me. http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/243/243.F3d.812.99-2138.html

I think this says it all: The court concluded that "when the common word or phrase is used as a mark for its ordinary meaning, the mark is generic." Accordingly, it ruled that AOL could not enforce "You Have Mail" as a trademark.

 

[DonC]

WopOnTour : Who cares why GM wants to copyright the term?
If they find a way to use it in their advertising so what?
Saying it doesnt exist is just plain rediculous.
Its spectre remains THE strategic advantage the Volt has over cars like the Leaf, and other upcoming EVs.So what’s so wrong with exploiting it?
Since we normally agree:

1. GM is not trying to copyright the term. It's trying to trademark it. A trademark is uniquely associated with a product or company -- like Pepsi or Cadillac. The problem is that "range anxiety" is a term like "candy bar" or "detoxification". It isn't really associated with GM or the Volt. Plus the weird thing is that "range anxiety" is what you shouldn't think of when you think of the Volt. So in a sense the term "range anxiety" would be an anti-trademark.

E-REV would be a different story.

2. GM can use the term all day and all night in advertising without trademarking it.

3. No one is saying it doesn't exist. It's that no one company should be the only ones able to use the term.

4. Nothing wrong with exploiting it, though I don't think a negative fear message is a good way to sell a product like the Volt. Alarm systems maybe, or even Onstar, but not the Volt. CorvetteGuy mocked up an ad that had a picture of a Volt with the text: "Because Grandmother lives over the river and through the woods." Clever way to get the point across.

My personal view is that marketing would be a whole lot easier if the Volt was $37K rather than $41K. That extra $4K means you've got lots of extra "splainin" to do, as Ricky Ricardo would say.

But you guys are gonna sell all you make so no big deal. Just MAKE MORE!

 

[WopOnTour]

DonC : Since we normally agree:1. GM is not trying to copyright the term. It’s trying to trademark it. A trademark is uniquely associated with a product or company — like Pepsi or Cadillac. The problem is that “range anxiety” is a term like “candy bar” or “detoxification”. It isn’t really associated with GM or the Volt. Plus the weird thing is that “range anxiety” is what you shouldn’t think of when you think of the Volt. So in a sense the term “range anxiety” would be an anti-trademark. E-REV would be a different story.2. GM can use the term all day and all night in advertising without trademarking it. 3. No one is saying it doesn’t exist. It’s that no one company should be the only ones able to use the term.4. Nothing wrong with exploiting it, though I don’t think a negative fear message is a good way to sell a product like the Volt. Alarm systems maybe, or even Onstar, but not the Volt. CorvetteGuy mocked up an ad that had a picture of a Volt with the text: “Because Grandmother lives over the river and through the woods.” Clever way to get the point across. My personal view is that marketing would be a whole lot easier if the Volt was $37K rather than $41K. That extra $4K means you’ve got lots of extra “splainin” to do, as Ricky Ricardo would say. But you guys are gonna sell all you make so no big deal. Just MAKE MORE!   (Quote)
No , I hear ya.
I for one would be VERY surprised if they were successful in copyrighting/trademarking the term. Common EV language and all. I actually think they are more concerned with preventing the term being used AGAINST them than exploiting it themselves (and they obviously already use the term in various marketing)

Funny I still think they have priced the car right. $40K certainly (and unfortunately) puts the college kids out of the prospect (unless thy have a loaded daddy) but considering what you are getting it certainly isn't out of line IMO. Lot's of value added content in things like the 5-years D&C Onstar (a $1500 value) knee-bolster airbags, deluxe audio with hard-drive. automatic climate control, all the bells and whistles PLUS all the connectivity, and all that BESIDES the innovative powertrain of course.

BTW I still consider the price $40K as destination charges of $750-$1500 are NEVER included in MSRP. The Leaf's price is certainly + destination but you never hear those numbers.
Not sure why they decided to lump them into the Volt's base price.
That was a huge mistake IMO.

But I agree it will probably be academic. They will sell out 11-12 MY but will need to bring more to the table for Gen 2 should the car take off as expected.
But they know that and are already makin' hay!
Gnite All
WopOnTour

 

[Jim_Johnson]

I can totally understand wanting to trademark the term "Range Anxiety"

GM will put millions of dollars into marketing this car. I'm sure what they would like is for when people think electric car they think "range anxiety! range anxiety!" Having this in their heads, the majority of Americans will decide to go with the Volt over an all electric car. If range anxiety is a real thing, and I think it is if one can only afford or have space for one car such as myself, then why would GM want any other company to use the term that they have marketed and firmly placed in the psyche of the majority of Americans.

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Mark Z]

No question that low range EV's will cause anxiety. I hope the VOLT buyers will relax about using gasoline and not have "oil anxiety" worrying about how to get maximum distance from a kWh! Enjoy the drive knowing you have saved a couple of gallons of fuel for each charge no matter how fast you travel.

When Tesla advertises their 300 mile range Model S, they might try to woo the VOLT driver to a BEV (battery electric vehicle) by saying they have the EV with zero tail pipe emissions and range to equal a tank full of gas. However, the BEV will most likely always be a city car while the VOLT is a country car, perfect for vacations and huge metropolitan areas where range is important.

 

[twist]

John W (Tampa) : GM will put millions of dollars into marketing this car.

GM will easily sell 45,000 Volts per year with no marketing at all. Let the car magazines and special interest web sites do this for free. Look at the 2011 Volt. Nearly all are sold on pre-order @ $4000 above the expected MSRP.

GM should either lay low with advertising and run lean. Or manufacture more Volts per year, with advertising, for volume profit.

=D-Volt

 

[mark_yates]

I'd also mention that fueling the car on electricity is 4x cheaper than petrol(gasoline as you americans call it).
Have a slogan - "imagine going 40 miles a day for less than $1 a gallon - imagine no longer!"

 

[twist]

A good example of free advertising is the 2009 MSN UK Ampera test mule review.

http://cars.uk.msn.com/reviews/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=149972479

=D-Volt

 

[nasaman]

Rx for Electric Vehicle 'Range Anxiety' ...The eREV*olutionary, all-electric Chevrolet Volt:

*eREV = Full-Time Electric Extended Range Electric Vehicle

 

[Tex-Arl]

How many millions of dollars of free advertising does GM get as everyone debates what range anxiety really is and who does or doesn't have it?

I think it's brilliant!!!!

 

[RRRB]

It seems to me that gm is basically trying to use fud marketing to keep people from buying the Leaf in the many places where Leaf will be available well before Volt. It might work for some possible customers, but a more effective strategy would be to get Volts to market in those places.

It also seems to me to be a distraction to focus on Leaf when the vast majority of potential customers who might be converted to Volt now drive ICE cars.