 | | Re: Anyone heard this story yet?
|
|
(...) Sorry but I just have to throw my 2 cents in here. IMHO this is TLC's own darn fault. It shows their incompitance when it comes to the internet. They should have registered www.legolandwindsor.com when they named it Legoland Windsor. Granted (...) (24 years ago, 31-Aug-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Anyone heard this story yet?
|
|
(...) Agreed. In this particular case, it seems pretty logical that "legolandwindsor" is probably associated with the Lego theme park with a similar name. However, things get a lot more cloudy when it's sting.com (which the pop star recently tried (...) (24 years ago, 31-Aug-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Anyone heard this story yet?
|
|
(...) I wonder though; how can they be expected to police all misuse of their name in a case like this? If they copyright legolandwindsor.com, what's to prevent some knucklehead from using "legoland-windsor.com" or "legoland_windsor.com" or even (...) (24 years ago, 31-Aug-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Anyone heard this story yet?
|
|
(...) Quick answer... It can't. Long answer. Companies should use some common sense and be proactive about registering domains. You won't stop everyone by any means but a company needs to take the obvious and protect that. www.legolandwindsor.com is (...) (24 years ago, 31-Aug-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Anyone heard this story yet?
|
|
Eric, (...) have (...) better. (...) darn (...) should (...) Windsor. (...) matter (...) all (...) have (...) HOTMAIL (...) good (...) a (...) long (...) Legoland (...) I don't really have any disagreements with TLC's own incompetence in this (...) (24 years ago, 31-Aug-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Anyone heard this story yet?
|
|
(...) True. I know one company that has registered thirty to forty-odd other urls, none of them in use, just to make sure that this sort of thing doesn't happen to them. Note that these include adding derogatory suffixes to their name as well. I (...) (24 years ago, 31-Aug-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Anyone heard this story yet?
|
|
(...) By having an ever vigilant, and understanding AFOL community? (...) Point-taken, but there is an issue of possible "abuse" of trademarks here. If a site registered as (URL) and only sold clone bricks that would in IMHO be illegal. ( misleadig (...) (24 years ago, 1-Sep-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Anyone heard this story yet?
|
|
(...) Yup one of the most common suffixes (and most tame) that companies tend to register is "sucks". It also just so happens that this LEGO + this suffix is still available which doesn't supprise me but I also won't be supprised if someone (...) (24 years ago, 1-Sep-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Anyone heard this story yet?
|
|
(...) Right. That's both illegal and smarmy. Just registering the domain with the hope of selling it to Lego also under the new law illegal and definitely smarmy (although having that be illegal sort of troubles me -- just because it's not nice, or (...) (24 years ago, 1-Sep-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | legopolis.com
|
|
(...) Just for the record, they didn't. Rather, the domain legopolis.com was given up voluntarily after a general FTF meeting with two Lego attorneys in October, 1997, in which they explained that they felt that the domain name diluted the LEGO (...) (24 years ago, 1-Sep-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: legopolis.com
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote: [a bunch of stuff which I'd snipped] Thanks for explaining more clearly. The whole thing was slightly before my lego on-line time, so it's a bit hazy to me. Sorry. (...) And that's actually the part that was (...) (24 years ago, 2-Sep-00, to lugnet.general)
|
