 | | Off Topic, but amusing ; )
|
|
(URL) (24 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; )
|
|
I don't get it. What's amusing about a crystal supplier??? -Phil (...) (24 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; )
|
|
(...) topic after all.) (24 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; )
|
|
(...) off (...) Hmm... I wonder if TLC will go after this company, they took a LEGO brand name!!!! : ) Scott S. -- Scott E. Sanburn Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Soon: The Sanburn Systems Company (24 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; )
|
|
(...) Why would TLC care about a Trademark it doesn't intend to use again. It would be cool if they did use the "trons" again. As much as I would like that, I doubt it will happen. Lord Insanity Vist my Lego page at: (...) (24 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; )
|
|
By that rationale, you could make monorail track and they wouldn't care. I would bet that the legal papers would come FEDEX if you tried, though. A trademark that isn't planned to be used again is still something that is an option and people like to (...) (24 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; )
|
|
(...) Actually, they have no claim to the monorail track design. If you wanted to build it, it would not be something they could claim design rights, since it is a swiss invention of the last century, and the 'stud' design, for the ends to be (...) (24 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; )
|
|
(...) First, "m-tron" is not a registered trademark (neither is "m tron", "mtron", or "m:tron"). But even if it were, trademarks need to be periodically renewed, and cannot be renewed if they're not actively being used in commerce. Furthermore, if (...) (24 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; )
|
|
A. My original post was to be taken somewhat sarcasticly. B. A Trademark that is not used is lost. If the Trademark is registered one has a longer "dormit" period. It is quite possible that none of TLC's older Trademarks are still enforceable. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; )
|
|
(...) Class 28? I didn't know the world had been divided so...rationally. :) Maybe we need new acronyms to add to IANAL: "IASLK" (I Am Somewhat Legalistically (Jurisprudentially?) Knowledgeable") or "IAIAL:NJP" (I Am Indeed A Lawyer: No Jokes, (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; )
|
|
(...) or IAIAL+IAIYAWS (I am indeed a lawyer + I am invoicing you as we speak) -pete.w (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; )
|
|
(...) I'm Not A Lawyer But I've Researched Trademark Law Because It's An Issue Which Affects The Internet A Lot And That's Something I Care About. :) It's not the world which has been divided, necessarily, but the U.S. trademark namespace. (Similar (...) (24 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; )
|
|
whoa ! I just thought it was amusing that there is a company named M-Tron like to old space lego theme. I had no idea it would spark a trademark debate : ) (24 years ago, 13-Apr-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; )
|
|
(...) Well, I have to take the credit, I made a sort of tongue in check affect at TLC disclaimer in regards to webpages, etc. and it got into the debate trademark thing. I have little knowledge of such things, I'm afraid. Scott S. -- Scott E. (...) (24 years ago, 14-Apr-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; )
|
|
Are you selling these yet, James? I'll take a few... Randy :) -- Randy Anchikoski bigguy@teradesigns.tzo.com "James Powell" <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message news:FstK28.4Ht@lugnet.com... (...) I (...) to (...) it is (...) to (...) (...) (24 years ago, 16-Apr-00, to lugnet.general)
|
