| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Allan Bedford wrote:
> And part of why the plural version grates on me is that it sounds like someone
> is saying the equivalent of 'sheeps'.
If "Legos" grates on you the way "nukuler" grates on me, then you have my
sympathy! Still, someone can refer to "Fords" or "Toyotas" without causing an
uproar, so there is some precedent for pluralized brandnames, however
incorrectly it might apply to LEGO.
Maybe the fatal flaw in the "LEGO is correct" viewpoint is this: Is there
anyone who wouldn't know what is meant when someone says "Legos" in context? As
long as the corrupted pseudo-plural can retain any traction in popular usage,
then TLG's efforts to maintain the brandname's purity are doomed!
Dave!
|
|
| |
Dave Schuler <orrex@excite.com> wrote:
> If "Legos" grates on you the way "nukuler" grates on me, then you have
> my sympathy! Still, someone can refer to "Fords" or "Toyotas" without
> causing an uproar, so there is some precedent for pluralized brandnames,
> however incorrectly it might apply to LEGO.
There's the exact same technical/legalistic rule against saying "Fords" or
"Toyotas" or "Burger Kings" or "Pentiums" or "Dells" or "Dumpsters". Or
"Kleenexes" or "Band-Aids". Again as the original article pointed out. :)
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Dave Schuler <orrex@excite.com> wrote:
> > If "Legos" grates on you the way "nukuler" grates on me, then you have
> > my sympathy! Still, someone can refer to "Fords" or "Toyotas" without
> > causing an uproar, so there is some precedent for pluralized brandnames,
> > however incorrectly it might apply to LEGO.
>
> There's the exact same technical/legalistic rule against saying "Fords" or
> "Toyotas" or "Burger Kings" or "Pentiums" or "Dells" or "Dumpsters". Or
> "Kleenexes" or "Band-Aids". Again as the original article pointed out. :)
Well, sure. But the original article was *days* ago--my mayfly attention span
hardly let's get to the end of
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Dave Schuler wrote:
> Still, someone can refer to "Fords" or "Toyotas" without causing an
> uproar, so there is some precedent for pluralized brandnames, however
> incorrectly it might apply to LEGO.
Can you tell me the one automobile brand name that is generically equated with
all automobiles? That's right, there isn't one. Most auto companies refer to
their own vehicles in that style, even as part of their own jingos. This is the
other side of the street, where companies who don't have to worry about their
trademarks being diluted actually want you to think "Widget(tm)" instead of
"gear" because it means you're more likely to buy brand Widget over brand Gizmo.
> Maybe the fatal flaw in the "LEGO is correct" viewpoint is this: Is there
> anyone who wouldn't know what is meant when someone says "Legos" in
> context?
Clearly there are, as many parents see all LEGO-style bricks as being "legos",
regardless of manufacturer. And in this case, unlike with automobiles, it
actually hurts the name-brand company to have a bunch of other companies
mooching off their reputation.
> As long as the corrupted pseudo-plural can retain any traction in popular
> usage, then TLG's efforts to maintain the brandname's purity are doomed!
They don't need to utterly eliminate incorrect usage of their trademark to have
made the effort worthwhile. Victory is often measured in drops rather than
oceans.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, David Laswell wrote:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > Still, someone can refer to "Fords" or "Toyotas" without causing an
> > uproar, so there is some precedent for pluralized brandnames, however
> > incorrectly it might apply to LEGO.
>
> Can you tell me the one automobile brand name that is generically equated with
> all automobiles? That's right, there isn't one. Most auto companies refer to
> their own vehicles in that style, even as part of their own jingos. This is the
> other side of the street, where companies who don't have to worry about their
> trademarks being diluted actually want you to think "Widget(tm)" instead of
> "gear" because it means you're more likely to buy brand Widget over brand Gizmo.
Still, I've heard people say "I'd never buy a Ford" or "Fords suck" or that kind
of thing, so at some level it is true that people can equate a brand with all
subsets of the brand. Nevertheless, your point is well taken.
> > Maybe the fatal flaw in the "LEGO is correct" viewpoint is this: Is there
> > anyone who wouldn't know what is meant when someone says "Legos" in
> > context?
>
> Clearly there are, as many parents see all LEGO-style bricks as being "legos",
> regardless of manufacturer. And in this case, unlike with automobiles, it
> actually hurts the name-brand company to have a bunch of other companies
> mooching off their reputation.
Eeek! Good answer! And I, the clone-guy, didn't even think of that. Oh, well.
They're all Legos anyway, right? 8^P
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Miller wrote:
| |
Dave Schuler orrex@excite.com wrote:
| |
If “Legos” grates on you the way “nukuler” grates on me, then you have
my sympathy! Still, someone can refer to “Fords” or “Toyotas” without
causing an uproar, so there is some precedent for pluralized brandnames,
however incorrectly it might apply to LEGO.
|
There’s the exact same technical/legalistic rule against saying “Fords” or
“Toyotas” or “Burger Kings” or “Pentiums” or “Dells” or “Dumpsters”. Or
“Kleenexes” or “Band-Aids”. Again as the original article pointed out. :)
|
Well, there are two things a play here... what people(1) *want* to do, and what
companies *have* to do if they want to preserve their property.
It is my opinion that The LEGO Company *has* to ask people to use the word
“LEGO” as an adjective or else they are at risk of losing their trademark.
I bookmarked this site a long time ago, during one of the previous discussions
on this topic.
http://www.ggmark.com/guide.html
See point 2 in particular. See also
http://www.ggmark.com/protect.html
and in particular
‘A mark may be abandoned “unintentionally,” when the trademark owner fails to
use it properly, or fails to monitor its use by others. “Improper use” is use
which places the mark in danger of becoming generic. Thus, marks should be used
consistently, and distinctively, to enhance their source-identifying function.’
So based on that, TLC have to ask people(1) to use it correctly. (that is, as an
adjective, and distinguished somehow, for example in all caps) What the
people(1) they ask actually DO is a different story, but TLC can’t, in my view,
stop asking.
If you like the company, or if you like the capitalist system in general (2),
you’ll respect the request. Disrespecting it suggests that you dislike at least
one of the two. At least to me it does... YMMV.
It’s just one lawyer’s opinion of course, but it squares with the other research
I’ve done into this, including some caselaw I’m not going to cite at the moment.
And while I am no expert, I do have a trademark of my own that I’d like to
protect(3) so the topic is of some interest.
++Lar
1 - and journalists! Not to say they’re not people.
2 - and with it the notion that it’s legitimate for companies to market, have
a brand identity, advertise, care about their image, want to be distinguishable
from their competition, etc.
3 - Milton Train Works™, a proud member of the
Guild of Bricksmiths™ (4)
4 - Bolding is an acceptable mechanism of
highlighting. So is underlining
|
|
| |
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote:
> It is my opinion that The LEGO Company *has* to ask people to use the word
> "LEGO" as an adjective or else they are at risk of losing their trademark.
Yes, that's a very well-grounded opinion. :)
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
|
|
|
