 | | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; ) —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | (...) 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: (...) (25 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; ) —Mike Poindexter
|
| | | | 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 (...) (25 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; ) —James Powell
|
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; ) —Randy Anchikoski
|
| | | | | | 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 (...) (...) (25 years ago, 16-Apr-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; ) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 10-Apr-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; ) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | (...) 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, (...) (25 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; ) —Peter White
|
| | | | | | | (...) or IAIAL+IAIYAWS (I am indeed a lawyer + I am invoicing you as we speak) -pete.w (25 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; ) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Off Topic, but amusing ; ) —Mike Petrucelli
|
| | | | 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. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
