Talk:MFC
Add topicLatest comment: 13 years ago by -sche in topic RFV
RFV
[edit]
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
AFAICT, this used in this sense only in Brother product designations. If so, WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 20:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Converted to rfv-sense as I added another definition. -- Prince Kassad 20:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- Definitly not limited to Brother. A quick search showed the same term used by (or about) HP, Epson, Kyocera. Until recently I worked in a large retailer, and both the staff and the public used the term regardless of manufacturer.--Dmol 21:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- In product designations only or in a usage like "Our MFCs are right next to the printers"? If the latter, then WT:BRAND does not apply. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- It was definitly a generic use of the term. They even had the "MFC aisle", and I'm sure there wasn't a Brother pinter in there. If the term is Brother's trademark, (and I can't find any evidence that it is) then it is trademark erosion.--Dmol 10:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- In product designations only or in a usage like "Our MFCs are right next to the printers"? If the latter, then WT:BRAND does not apply. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
- Definitly not limited to Brother. A quick search showed the same term used by (or about) HP, Epson, Kyocera. Until recently I worked in a large retailer, and both the staff and the public used the term regardless of manufacturer.--Dmol 21:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've found citations of use to refer to devices made by three different companies (Brother, HP, and Epson), which leads me to suspect that it isn't a trademark, and thus that BRAND doesn't apply, but I could easily be mistaken. - -sche (discuss) 02:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)