| |
Robb King <rk@KILLTHISrobbking.com> wrote:
[snip]
> > I know that the Lego trademark page says to never say "Legos." That
> > doesn't mean that the plural of "Lego" is "Lego," it means that they
> > don't want you to use the term generically. Get it straight. • [snip]
> Good point, but I think TLG said the same thing 24 years ago.
> http://www.robbking.com/GAH/LEGOplease.jpg <<-- notice bottom of ad.
Yes, that's the "Lego trademark page" referred to.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Robb King <rk@KILLTHISrobbking.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> > > I know that the Lego trademark page says to never say "Legos." That
> > > doesn't mean that the plural of "Lego" is "Lego," it means that they
> > > don't want you to use the term generically. Get it straight. [snip]
> > Good point, but I think TLG said the same thing 24 years ago.
> > http://www.robbking.com/GAH/LEGOplease.jpg <<-- notice bottom of ad.
>
> Yes, that's the "Lego trademark page" referred to.
Yeah, but within that trademark blurb, the LEGO Group asks you to refer to their
product as LEGO bricks or toys, in the plural. People can read that a couple of
ways: from the "brand name protection" angle, or from the "settle this plural
hash" angle. Considering I was 6 when I first read that and I still understand
it today, I'm trying to figure out why the rest of the world can't make sauce of
it.
|
|
|
