Talk:Velcro

Name

AFAIK the name if from "velour - crochet". can someone confirm? -- Tarquin 16:42, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC) [Done. --Heron 08:34, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC).]

Yes. (Source: "Die Sache hat einen Haken. Die Geschichte vom Klettenverschluss." p. 35. ISBN 3-9500505-8-2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.184.131 (talk) 09:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Picture

Is there a reason the picture is an external link, as opposed to an in-line picture? Illuvatar 22:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The picture being linked to is presumably under copyright. If someone finds an uncopyrighted picture and uploads it, it'll be included.

Verb

There should be some mention about the fact that "velcro" is now used as a verb in the english language (much like "fax" and "email"). In fact, the article itself uses velcro as a verb in one section... --Prujohn 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree; I added in the use of the word as a verb. (I wasn't signed in for the edit) --Grant M 07:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Velcro is not actually a product

Although Velcro is used by many to refer to 'hook and loop fastener', it is not actually the name of any product, just the name of a company that produces hook and loop fasteners (see Velcro UK Site)

To quote from Velcro's "About us" web page:

Velcro is the name of our companies and the registered trademark for our products. It is not the generic name of the product that fastens shoes, pockets, and hundreds of other things. That product is "hook and loop fastener" or "touch fasteners".

I made some changes to reflect that fact. — Loadmaster (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Like hell. Velcro is what the fastener was called by its creator, and remains at least as proper a term as "hook-and-loop fastener".157.139.9.155 (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Those facts are stated in the article. However, the company itself that produces the Velcro fasteners says it's not the name of a specific product, but rather the trademark for a line of products. — Loadmaster (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If you make a product including some hook and loop fastener and describe it in the product's sales material as velcro, then Velcro Industries will send you a letter threatening to sue (I have personal experience of this). I think that the main page should just talk about Velcro Industries and let the wiki page on hook and loop material cover everything else. At the moment you have two separate wikipedia pages which say the same kinds of thing - which is a bit daft - I'd even guess that it breaks some wiki policy because it duplicates effort. Reissgo (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I just checked on the word "hoover" - I notice that there *isn't* duplication of information about vacuum cleaners in Wikipedia. Why should wikipedia treat Hoover and Velcro differently? Reissgo (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

George's curiosity and his daily walk

The company Velcro Inc. has the information on its website incorrectly stated about the walk with the dog.

I was present at a dinner where the then president of Velcro, Mr. Theodore Krantz explained the reason that George's curiosity was peaked.

This was before the company had a web site, and before those who maintained the web site got it wrong, and basically cast it in stone.

George was curious because his pants, (Hunting pants with the large towel like loops) caught the cockle burrs, and his dog did not have any cockle burrs on it.

That is why George was "Curious George" because they had both walked in the same area, and he had to remove burrs from his pants, and there were none on his dog's fur.

He wanted to know why the dog escaped from the need to removed the burrs, and he had to spend time pulling the things off of his pants.

He cut some of his dog's fur and looked at it under a microscope, and it was straight, and he cut some of the affected pants, and saw that it had little loops. The cockle burrs had little hooks, and they stuck to his pants but not on his dogs fur.

He was thinking of a way to align a large number of small hooks in a row, to use as a fastener, because his wife was having trouble zipping and unzipping her clothing, or fastening the back of her blouses, with the tiny little buttons, so he thought that the weaving world already could make the loop side, the only thing he had to figure out was how to make the hook side.24.61.127.113 15:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The story about the cockle burrs sticking to de Mestral's pants and/or dog developed in the early stages of the product. It is not true (de Mestral's hunting dogs were Pointers with short hair, where the burrs would not stick anyway), but it was such a nice story that the manufacturers did not openly contradict it in the media because they found it useful. De Mestral was a chemical engineer with Brown Boveri at the time and had been in touch with the new Nylon fibers early on. (Source: "Die Sache hat einen Haken. Die Geschichte vom Klettenverschluss." ISBN 3-9500505-8-2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.184.131 (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ununderstandable

"For example, shoe closures can resist a large force with little bonding area by wrapping a strap through a slot which reduces the force on the fastener by ensuring the force is parallel to the plane of the fastener and by halving the force on the bond by acting as a pulley system."

I can not understand a single word in that above paragraph. Can someone dumb it down for me? (Note to self: No offence) --Homfrog^{Tell me a story!} 23:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

understanding the latter clause requires understanding how a pulley-block multiplies force (or conversely, halves the force needed to be applied by the person doing the pulling). In other words, you'd have to go to a youTube video explaining basic mechanical advantage in pulleys. The former part doesn't quite make sense; whether you slap the velcro strap plunk down on its destination, or pull the strap in a hairpin curve around a slot (='pulley') back the way it was coming and then slap it down, its try-to-come-off-resistance is going to be along the plane of the two (mated, joined) surfaces. Yeah, it's badly written. Possible even wrong, ha. JohndanR (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Silent velcro

Does anyone know whether it was known before the movie? `'mikka 19:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Increasing Velcro Bond after long term usage

A disadvantage is mentioned in the article: "The hooks and/or loops can become elongated or broken, reducing the bond after a long time."

Other possible disadvantages is that some loops become torn off their strip and stuck onto the hooks causing the bond to weaken. One possible mention is that strong brown tape used over the hooks, can remove lint, dirt and broken hoops improving the effectiveness of the material once again, as long as there are adequate hoops left on the original strip to meld with the newly cleaned hooks.

Explosiveness

Apparently if velcro is placed in an environment composed of pure oxygen it explodes violently. There was an accident on a space shuttle (I can't remember the name to save my life) in which the velcro used to hold certain light equipment to the walls of the capsule exploded. The only gas inside the capsule was oxygen.

McTurkey 01:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick Google on this. The only reference I found was to Apollo 1, in which all members of the crew died in a fire in the capsule during a preflight test [1]. Apparently in a pure oxygen atmosphere, just about anything becomes potentially explosive. There was an ignition spark and the Velcro contributed to the ensuing fire as there was a lot of it. There was nothing to suggest that the Velcro spontaneously combusted. SilentC 02:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

After the Apollo 1 disaster Velcro was commissioned to develop fire-proof Velcro, which they did. 2 meters of the new material cost as much as a brand new Ford Mustang at the time! (Source: "Die Sache hat einen Haken. Die Geschichte vom Klettenverschluss." ISBN 3-9500505-8-2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.184.131 (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Back to the Future

Brown wearing velcro shoes may have been a costime error, but one reason is that since it was invented in 1941, he could have applied this new invention for his own footwear. "Doc" has been working on other inventions besides the time machine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.202.130 (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tautology?

"David Letterman leapt...onto the wall, where he stuck, and thus proved that with enough velcro a man could be hurled against a wall and stick". How about "David Letterman proved that with enough velcro a man could be hurled against a wall and stick, by performing this feat himself on TV"? Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 09:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Look good now? Loggie (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, cheers! Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 11:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I may have missed something here, but why is George De Mestral referred to as Eric in the second paragraph of History? Mjedmondson (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism in History Section

I'm going to go ahead and suggest that the line "It was made by a guy called banna raaana." at the end of the history section is vandalism and should be removed?-Asia1281- (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that line from the history section, if for any reason you disagree please let me know.-Asia1281- (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Velcro jumping

This was removed and replaced with "Hi" at 15:33, 23 April 2009 by an anonymous user at 209.250.185.77. The "Hi" was subsequently removed, but the original content not restored. Since there was no explanation for the removal and it appears to be vandalism, I've added it back. AntiStatic (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hook and Loop?

calling it 'hook and loop' throughout this article reads a bit daft, given Velcro is a genericized trademark and other such pages on wikpedia use genericized trademark names (see Escalator, Cellophane, Dry Ice, Aspirin for other examples), i've changed 'hook and loop' to velcro (common noun) throughout this article.

since 'dry ice' is not refered to as 'carbon dioxide in solidified form' throughout it's article or or an 'escalator' 'movable transportation stairway', or aspirin (in the many hundreds of articles in which it is used!) 'acetylsalicylic acid' this seems a sensible move.

in addition, "hook and loop" may mean other variants of fastners outside this context and is hence misleading. 129.11.76.229 (talk) 07:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Trivia template on 'In popular culture' section

The trivia template says: "Lists of miscellaneous information should be avoided. Please relocate any relevant information into appropriate sections or articles." Yet that section is not a list, has some sources, and seems to me to be closer to "a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions", which is what the relevant MOS page says we want, than a "list of isolated information", which we are told to avoid. Thoughts? Loggie (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As there have been no objections to this suggestion, and no justification of the trivia tag, I have removed it. Alexandria177 (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling it velcro vs. 'hook and loop' and the 'Genericized trademark' and 'Variations on Velcro' sections

If you ask someone what the stuff is, they don't say 'hook and loop fastener', they say velcro. It is a genericized trademark-as per the comment by IP address 129.11.76.229 above Wikipedia uses genericized trademarks in other articles, why not use velcro here? It is, among other things, much less cumbersome, more precise (no confusion with hook-and-eye closures), and the commonly used term. Also, there seems to be a move by some to both remove 'Genericized trademark' and 'Variations on Velcro' sections. I think they add something, and thus have been restoring them. Please explain why you think they should be removed before removing them-they are sourced and contain related info, so I don't see why they should be removed. Loggie (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And please keep Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) in mind. — QuantumEleven 15:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, the difference between when velcro is capitalized in the article and when it isn't is the difference between when the article refers to the brand-name Velcro vs a generic 'hook and loop fastener'. Or at least that was the goal. Loggie (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Velcro uses

This article on Velcro is good, but I feel that the sections "Velcro jumping" and "Velcro in popular culture" are out of place in an article about this so useful and important item. Yes, the material is interesting, but not of the importance of the remainder of the article. Maybe a separate article on the popular culture and only a link in this main article?? (Dumarest (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC))

Velcro was planned to be a replacement for conventional zip fasteners, but that never really worked out, except for children's clothing and shoes, as described. Velcro and similar products are today mostly used in automotive and airline seats. Each one of the latter contains 15-30 meters of Velcro. (Source: "Die Sache hat einen Haken. Die Geschichte vom Klettenverschluss." ISBN 3-9500505-8-2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.184.131 (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Date

The summary says it was invented in 1948, but the history section says 1942 (or some such). Can anyone fix this? -Anonymous guy who noticed an error — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.103.193.6 (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Emprical studies of durability, and strange examples

I came here looking for some information on or from any studies that scientifically measured the durability of velco straps vs. laces as a method of shoe fastening. I suggest it would be good to have some more quantitative and precise info. regarding the pros and cons of velcro versus its alternatives rather than the fairly unqualified statements here

The choice of example uses also struck me as a bit skewed towards the military or extraordinary - flight crews, camouflaged soldiers, pickpockets? Velcro is an ordinary consumer product now - these examples seem a bit contrived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.24.170 (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Velcro is NOT a genericized trademark!

There is an inordinate amount of nonsense being written both on this talk page and on the article page about the generic use of the word "Velcro" (or "velcro"—it makes no difference). Editors are failing to make a distinction—and it is a very important distinction—between how people use the word casually and what its legal status is.

We and everybody we know may use the word "velcro" generically for the kind of fastener Velcro developed, but that common usage alone does NOT mean that it is a genericized trademark. Genericization of trademarks is a legal, not a cultural matter. No other manufacturer can legally use the word "velcro" or "Velcro" on its products unless they have licensed the use of that word from Velcro Industries. That means that it is NOT a genericized trademark; even if a billion people use it that way, it is NOT, legally, a genericized trademark.

The section titled Genericized trademark (and the corresponding paragraph near the end of the lead section) is appalling in its irresponsibility and its sloppy use of cited material:

The Velcro brand is an example of a genericized trademark — a brand name that has become the generic term for a type of product. The Velcro company has forbidden its employees to use the term "Velcro",^[14] in an effort to stop this. Instead the employees must use the generic terms "hook and loop fastener", "hook tape", or "loop tape". The company is very protective, and refer to their product as "the Velcro brand hook-and-loop fastener". The company publishes detailed trademark guidelines designed to preserve the strength of the Velcro brand.^[19]

Besides being used as a generic term for hook and loop fasteners, the word "Velcro" has also become a verb, as in "Velcroed", which means to be attached by Velcro. It has been used as such since approximately 1972.^[20]

First of all, it is ridiculous to say that the company has forbidden its employees to use the name of the company, but that's exactly what it says: "The Velcro company has forbidden its employees to use the term 'Velcro'". It's absurd. How did this article get into quality class B with editing like that? I don't have access to the book cited for that statement, but if it says that, it's just not telling the truth. Any company that forbade its employees to use the name of the company would fold fast.

Second, "in an effort to stop this" and "The company is very protective, and refer to their product as 'the Velcro brand hook-and-loop fastener'", while perfectly true, are couched in terms that imply that the company is engaging in some kind of desperate, futile and abnormal behavior (as if forbidding its employees to use its name weren't crazy enough), but it is exactly that kind of behavior that keeps trademarks from becoming genericized.

Despite the fact that probably every resident of the United States (I can't speak for other countries) refers to any pre-packaged, sterile bandage with a rectangle of gauze in the middle of a strip of adhesive tape as a "band-aid", regardless of what its brand may be (Curad, Nexcare, a store brand or even Band-Aid), "band-aid" is NOT a genericized trademark. The ONLY reason it's not generic is that Johnson & Johnson is doing exactly the same thing Velcro is doing to protect its legal status as a trademark.

As long as J&J can show a court that it is doing everything it can to protect its trademark, no court will find that it has been genericized, regardless of how many billions of people may use it generically. That's why while the whole world calls them "Band-Aids" (or "band-aids"—again, capitalization doesn't matter), Johnson & Johnson calls them "Band-Aid brand bandages"—just like "the Velcro brand hook-and-loop fastener", and for exactly the same reason. If they don't, then every manufacturer of pre-assembled, individual bandages can label them as "Band-Aids", and J&J has lost a billion-dollar advantage in the marketplace.

The same is true for Kleenex, Jell-O, and probably dozens of other trademarks and the companies that own them. The names are widely used generically, but legally they are not generic, and the only reason is that the trademark owners are doing the same kinds of things to protect them as Velcro is doing to protect its trademark. What Velcro is doing is not abnormal; in fact, it's essential. If they didn't do it, they'd lose their exclusive right to use the word, which is pretty much all they have now that their patent has expired.

So regardless of how many of us and our friends use the word "velcro" generically, it is not a genericized trademark. To say in a WP article that it is generic just because to us it is is not a lot different from our saying some prominent aging celebrity is a murderer just because everybody knows he is. When we say it about a living person, we're in danger of subjecting WP to libel action. I don't know if the same principle applies to corporations, if saying "velcro" is a genericized trademark when legally it's not generic is a cause for legal action—but we shouldn't be doing it anyway.

I don't feel like cleaning all the nonsense about genericized trademark out of the article, but if I come back after a while and see it hasn't changed, I may just take out my editorial machete and start hacking away. Whatever editors are enamored of the notion that "velcro" is a generic term have been warned.--Jim10701 (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

More than two weeks later I see that no one has corrected the nonsense in the article, so I have removed it all.--Jim10701 (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not engaged in the same business as the Velcro company and has no obligation to observe its trademark claims. 18.26.0.5 (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly as above. If something is given that name colloquially, that is what it *is*, regardless of what it's manufacturer claims or whether the trademark is legally recognised as generic. Ask somebody what a hook-and-loop fastener is and they say it's velcro. Ask someone what a putty-derived pressure-sensitive adhesive is and they say it's blutack. Ask someone what the system you're using to talk to everyone in the building is called and they'll say it's a tannoy. Using anything else is wordy, pretentious, difficult to read and entirely unnecessary. 81.159.224.250 (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the fallacy here is assuming that "genericized trademark" means "a former trademark that no longer qualifies for legal protection because it has been genericized," rather than "a phrase that started as a trademark but is widely or generally used as a generic name, whether or not it is legally protected." Jim10701 (who, if you will forgive the aside, is clearly acting like a crazy person, sheesh the tone of his posts!) is trying to impose linguistic prescriptivism on Wikipedia, with all of the problems and nonsense that inevitably imposes. Velcro is universally used as a generic name and no-one who isn't nervously looking over their shoulder at the Velcro corporation ever says "hook-and-loop fastener." 64.229.236.97 (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Critique

Wikipedia Critique: Velcro

Velcro is the brand name for the hook and loop fastener that involves two strips of fabric with opposite sides, one with hooks and one with loops that when stuck together, create a binding technique. This Wikipedia article goes in to complete detail about the invention of the product, the history behind its creation, the reason it is so practical, the advantages and disadvantages, and how it is most commonly utilized.

While detail about inventions is always a good thing, this article painstakingly describes the details of the fabrics used in different types of velcro and other unnecessary historical details that do not directly relate to the actual invention of the product of velcro itself. This added detail detracts from the importance of the invention, as it draws away from the various different way that velcro has been used in quite dire situations.

The article was well written and fairly thoroughly edited which makes it easy to read. It has many big words in it making it sound intelligent. The article is, however, fairly wordy. There are many unnecessary adjectives and phrases that merely add to the length of the article without actually adding any valuable content.

The article has an advantages and disadvantages section towards the end that is completely unnecessary. It is opinion based and extremely short. In general, it adds nothing to the article, especially since the article is dealing with the invention of the product. I would suggest removing this section all together; it contributes nothing to the article and quite frankly dumbs it down.

The pictures used in this article are fantastic for understanding exactly what velcro is and what its uses are. They give great visual portrayals of the product in its most basic form and also in its various real life functions.

Most of the sources used for this article are legitimate and contribute to the general understanding of how velcro works. A few of the sources are books that describe miscellaneous inventions that do not seem completely credible; however, often time books like that accurately depict the invention of such products and their uses. Overall, the sources are well done.

In addition to removing the advantages and disadvantages section of the article, I would simply suggest editing it for wordiness and unnecessary phrases which would make it more concise and a bit easier to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-13rclapes (talk • contribs) 03:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Very useful material, and a good summary of the status of this topic. (talk 01:55, 19 February 2013

Split tag

The article currently addresses two topics, the company, and a product produced by the company and by other companies. These two topics should be split into separate articles. Ryan Vesey 23:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I have started this split. Rlsheehan (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Hook and loop fastener is now an active page for the hook and loop or touch fasteners. This Velcro page is for discussion specific to Velcro brand fasteners. Rlsheehan (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

My edit of 20 January 2015

I deleted the small section about the lawsuit filed by YKK Corp. as its relevancy was not given. Maybe if someone can include that it could go back in, although it doesn't seem that important. Also, this article used to be longer and much more informative years ago. What happened? There used to be a whole section detailing how the Swiss inventor came to invent it. Why was that part deleted? __209.179.12.250 (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Patents and Trademarks

Proposing removing 2 sentences from the 'Patents and Trademarks' section.

The first sentence seems to jump to a conclusion that the cited resource does not support: This is despite the fact that de Mestral himself gave the name Velcro to his invention rather than the company.

The resource that is cited says: he named his invention Velcro, and launched it under that brand name in 1959. Today Velcro Industries N.V. (Velcro) is a technology-driven, multinational company... It seems like a false dilemma fallacy. Yes, he gave the name Velcro to his invention, but that does not conclude that he did not also give the name also to his company. The cited article does not support a black and white, A or B conclusion. It is misleading to say: This is despite the fact that de Mestral himself gave the name Velcro to his invention RATHER than the company.

The following sentence is also misleading: Additionally the former director of industrial Sales for Velcro USA said "Velcro is a series of hooks and loops, a male and female, one grabs the other and sticks. This sentence is taking out of context an interview with an employee of the company on David Letterman. If the director of sales for Cocoa Cola was on the show, and Dave asked what Coke is, and the director responded by describing soda "fizzy beverage" etc. it would not necessarily follow that ALL fizzy soda beverages are Cocoa Cola. In the context of the interview, we would understand that the director of sales for Cocoa Cola is describing their product/brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catedd07 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

hmm yea seems a little biased in tone too. "despite the fact that" doesn't really seem like a fact. i looked at a couple of other sources on the page, and it's a stretch to claim he didn't give the name to the company and the product both.--Weber.sayan (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The original patent is filed as a "Separable fastening device" invented by de Mestral and assignor to International Velcro Company, a corporation of Liechtenstein Filed May 9, 1958. If you read through the original patent, the only references to "Velcro" are the company. The invention is always called a separable fastening device. I think you are right that this should be removed. In fact, I would add the bit about the patent in its place. I also agree about removing the 2nd sentence. It's a reach. Healthesoul (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The original patent is the 1955 one, not the 1958 one.

You would not expect the newly invented name for a product to appear in its patent. The name itself is not being patented.

If the WIPO source is considered a reliable source for use in this article for some things, then it should also be considered reliable for the statement "he named his invention Velcro". Reissgo (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue I am pointing out has to do more with these statements being taken out of context from the sources, not the sources themselves.

The sentence you have cited from the WIPO article says, "he named his invention Velcro, and launched it under that brand name in 1959. Today Velcro Industries N.V. (Velcro) is a technology-driven, multinational company . . ." Then later it goes on to say, "With his patent and Velcro trademark in hand, de Mestral launched his business."

The article states that de Mestral gave the name to not solely the invention, but also the brand and trademark, and insinuates the company too. Thus it seems your addition of "though de Mestral himself gave the name Velcro to his invention" is ignoring those statements and listing only the example that supports your case.

Similarly, the following statement is misleading: Additionally the former director of industrial Sales for Velcro USA said "Velcro is a series of hooks and loops, a male and female, one grabs the other and sticks." The context for this interview is that the director is on the show to talk about the Velcro USA products, not generic hook-and-loop fasteners. By describing their product at a base level, this doesn't conclude that the brand name is now a generic term. See above the example for Coca-Cola.Catedd07 (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not dispute that Velcro is a brand name. I do not dispute that Velcro is the name of a company. What I dispute is the idea that velcro is not also a word meaning hook and loop fasteners. It appears in dictionaries as well as formal text like scientific papers. The idea that there is no such item as velcro is blatantly false and is only supported by lawyers that work for Velcro industries. But lawyers do not define our language, they do not write our dictionaries. I dare say that Hoover company would like to reclaim the word hoover and undo its definition as a vacuum cleaner, but once a word takes on a meaning in the eyes of the public at large then there is nothing their lawyers can do about it.

If a lawyer from the Hoover company came and edited wikipedia and said "from this day forth, hoover no longer means vacuum cleaner". Would you leave that edit unchallenged? Reissgo (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The bottom line is: this is an article about Velcro Companies. For discussion of the fastener, see Hook and loop fastener. If you feel that Wikipedia should discuss a debate on specific legal trademarks versus generic terms, then please establish a neutral POV by presenting both sides of the argument, finding reliable sources and utilizing them in their proper frame of reference. As I stated above, the way the sources are being used in these 2 sentences currently disregards the context of the article and video from which they appear. Catedd07 (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and remove the whole patents and trademarks section. It's not notable enough and the main source contradicts itself. Reissgo (talk) 06:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Request edit

The Velcro Companies Wikipedia page shows an outdated Key People list. Our current Executive Leadership Team is as follows:

Jeff Malcolm, Chief Executive Officer Gabriella Parisse, Chief Growth Officer Francesca DiNota, Chief Financial Officer Doug McBurney, Chief Operating Officer Ben Kaplan, General Counsel and Chief Talent Officer

Our website shares the updated Executive Leadership Team as support for this update: https://www.velcro.com/press-and-news/company-information/.

Additionally, we also wanted to point out a clarification of our Brand and company.

The image is incorrectly captioned as Velcro, invented by de Mestral. It should read: hook and loop, invented by de Mestral.

In the last sentence of the last paragraph under "History," it should read: VELCRO(R) Brand products are used across a wide array of industries and applications; including healthcare, the military, land vehicles, aircraft, and even spacecraft.

Velcro Companies makes more than one product and products in addition to hook and loop.

Thank you in advance.

Mark Elliott Velcro Companies melliott@velcro.com

Requested by 2601:187:4400:430:5D18:B3E1:E99C:7568; copied from User talk:2601:187:4400:430:5D18:B3E1:E99C:7568 by Drm310. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done This article is about the UK-based holding company, not the US firm. As a result, this edit would not improve the article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)