Loss of Distinctiveness

Generally, a mark can lose distinctiveness in two ways
Used by a competitor as a mark for a sufficient period of time that the public no longer associates the mark with the original owner
Unitel v Bell
Becomes used as the name of the wares – “genericide”
Aladdin v Thermos

It is very desirable in some ways for the mark to become the name of the goods
After any patent or other monopoly expires, consumers who ask for “a thermos” are likely to be given a Thermos brand vacuum bottle
It is difficult for competitors to compete if they cannot name the wares they are selling by the common name

The early UK / Canadian Acts did not have an equivalent to s 18(1)(b), providing for invalidity if the trade-mark is not distinctive at the time proceedings bringing the validity of the registration into question are commenced,
Only grounds for abandonment were (a) not registrable at the date of registration or (c) abandonment
Therefore owner could register novel mark, advertise widely and hope to have it become generic

Now, three routes to genericide
Use of the mark as the name by:
The owner of the mark
Internal policing
Competitors of the owner
External policing
Consumers and the general public
Brand awareness

Thermos was both generic and distinctive
Does this make sense?
In the result, can the defendant use the term "thermos" in Canada?
In US trade mark was also saved but competitors were allowed to use thermos so long as they did not capitalize it, they added their own brand and did not use the words "genuine" or "original"

Can Cdn Thermos register the following mark in respect of vacuum bottles?
See Aladdin Industries Inc v Canadian Thermos Products Ltd 15 CPR (2d) 75 (1974) 
TMA201340

The marks in issue (WATS) etc, were found not to be descriptive at the time of registration
However, the marks were found to have lost distinctiveness
How did this occur?
How could it have been prevented?

None of the directory pages filed in evidence exhibit trade mark designations for the marks WATS, INWATS and OUTWATS 
Whatever might have been the reason, I am satisfied on the evidence before me that in respect of all of the marks, unauthorized use was of such an extent by the time these proceedings were commenced as to render the trade marks not distinctive of the services of the respondent and those entitled to use the trade marks under registered user arrangementsained by the Registrar
1 Surnames, marks descriptive in French English
12(a)(b)
2 Generic: the name of the wares
12(c)
3 Mark / Quasi-mark owned by another
12(d) - (h)
4 Functional marks
Case-law