Subject:
|
Re: Use of the LEGO(r) name/trademark in game instructions
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.gaming
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 May 2003 05:07:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5623 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.gaming, Allan Bedford writes:
> It was the specific reference to the fact that the LEGO(r) trademark (and
> presumably other toy brick trademarks) had not been used in the instructions
> of the game, so as to avoid legal difficulties.
>
> http://www.brikwars.com/rules/2000/0.htm#1
>
> "We have to use this term to avoid using the copyrighted name of any
> specific company's plastic building brick; we wouldn't want to make the
> lawyers angry."
>
> I'm wondering if someone can provide me with a bit more detail. Please
> forgive my ignorance if this has been a previous topic of discussion
> somewhere. But I'm wondering if this was based on a particular indident, or
> if it was simply a pro-active measure to avoid any possible infringement? I
> know there is a mention in the legal disclaimer of the problems caused by
> 'LEGO Wars', but I didn't quite understand why the LEGO name couldn't be
> used in association with BrikWars.
If I recall correctly, the issue is the use of the LEGO name for a product
that could potentially harm the LEGO brand. That is, BrikWars is a game of
violence and destruction, and LEGO doesn't (didn't) produce toys with a
violent and destructive theme. Brikwars could (potentially) give people the
wrong idea of what LEGO was about.
As a vaguely similar example, a popular drink in Australia is Bundy and
Coke. (Bundy = Bundaberg Rum), and that is how you would normally order it
in a bar.
However, when you buy it prepackaged (in cans) or on tap, it is labelled
'...and Cola'. It sure tastes like Coke, but the Coca Cola Company does not
want the name 'Coke' associated with alcoholic beverages, so the premixed
stuff is not '...and Coke'.
> Now... before this thread gets off on a tangent, let me make a mid-course
> correction right now. My _real_ question is essentially a follow-up
> question to everything I've asked above.
>
> I'm wondering:
>
> Is there any reason not to use the LEGO(r) brand name, if I am going to
> release a set of instructions for a game that people can play at home with
> their own bricks?
>
> The game instructions would be free... available on the web for anyone to
> use. (1) The game would be playable with LEGO bricks and nothing else.
> There would be nothing else to buy and the intent would strictly be to share
> the game rules in the same manner in which freeware software is distributed.
> The game rules would be copyrighted, but would not be for sale. I want to
> use the LEGO(r) name for obvious reasons(2), but not if it's going to create
> a legal brouhaha.
>
> Any thoughts or insight would be greatly appreciated.
Keep it family friendly, and you should be right.
> (2) Obvious reasons are: personal bias toward LEGO(r) brand bricks, and the
> desire to let people know that you *could* play this game with MegaBloks,
> but it just wouldn't be the same. ;)
Absolutely, you could feel the difference!
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
6 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
