 | | Re: Anyone heard this story yet? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | (...) 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? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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? —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | | (...) 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? —Alex Farlie
|
| | | | (...) 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? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | 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)
|
| | | | |
