 | | Re: What I did for the Y2K weekend...[lego phone]
|
|
(...) Huh? That's like saying you own a box of Kleenix made by Puffs. Or that you own a Hoover made by Black & Decker. --Todd (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: What I did for the Y2K weekend...[lego phone]
|
|
(...) Mike, does it look like (URL) to novelties, and at the bottom of the page there is a phone. I don't think this is the one I was thinking of however...I think the one I was thinking of was more blocky, with a normal reciever. More like a plate (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: What I did for the Y2K weekend...[lego phone]
|
|
(...) Or a Dumpster made by um, uh.... somebody other than Toccoa Metal Technologies. Trademark dilution at work! (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: What I did for the Y2K weekend...[lego phone]
|
|
(...) <URL:(URL) (or <URL:(URL), but that's worse....) That's definitely the Tyco phone. Someone less lazy than I should e-mail them and have them fix it. (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | LEGO trademark (was: Re: What I did for the Y2K weekend...[lego phone])
|
|
(...) Yah! And -- bing! -- now I think I *finally* understand the subtle point that TLG legal counsel was trying to explain to me when they asked me to change the name of my "Fibblesnork LEGO Backgrounds" page[1]: it shows pictures of 2x2 LEGO (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.trains, lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: What I did for the Y2K weekend...[lego phone]
|
|
(...) I'm reasonably sure that is not the phone I was thinking of however...not positive, but reasonably sure. I think (this is me thinking! scary!) that the NORTEL phone was available around 1988/89, because that is when we got our second phone (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO trademark (was: Re: What I did for the Y2K weekend...[lego phone])
|
|
(...) A quandry for marketing, I'm sure. Legal keeps saying "No, Foobrand does not equal barproduct!", while the advertising folks are trying to convince people exactly the opposite. (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO trademark (was: Re: What I did for the Y2K weekend...[lego phone])
|
|
(...) Leading to meetings out of which come concepts like "Dove is not soap", I'm sure. (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO trademark (was: Re: What I did for the Y2K weekend...[lego phone])
|
|
(...) Mom, can I play with my LEGO brand plastic automatic binding bricks....PLEASE! (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO trademark (was: Re: What I did for the Y2K weekend...[lego phone])
|
|
(...) Yep, that's pretty much what they ask you to say. You can shorten it to just "LEGO bricks", if you want. <URL:(URL), of course. Of course, if you're polite about it, as a non-lawyer and non-Lego-employee, I advocate calling the product "Lego" (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO trademark (was: Re: What I did for the Y2K weekend...[lego phone])
|
|
(...) What about LUGnet? Posts are archived essentially forever, after all. (And I suspect that even if Todd's were to suddenly go offline, they could be pieced together fromthe archives in various formats on people's newsreaders/email clients..) (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO trademark (was: Re: What I did for the Y2K weekend...[lego phone])
|
|
(...) Archived forever != formal. It's all grey area ('cept when you're selling stuff), so if you don't feel comfortable using Lego as a noun here, by all means don't. (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
