Subject:
|
Re: Anyone heard this story yet?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Sep 2000 18:20:35 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
(mattdm@mattdm.)Spamless(org)
|
Viewed:
|
821 times
|
| |
|
|
Farlie A <alex_farlie@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Point-taken, but there is an issue of possible "abuse" of trademarks here.
> If a site registered as http://the_lego_sales_shop.com and only sold clone
> bricks that would in IMHO be illegal. ( misleadig advertising?)..
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 even not right, doesn't mean it should be illegal).
However, registering it for non-commercial non-exploitative reasons is NOT
illegal, and the "moral" rightness needs to be looked at on a case-by-case
basis.
I don't believe that Lego should have taken Legopolis away from the person
who had it. However, if Mega Bloks registered a misleading domain name
and portrayed it as something Lego-endorsed, that's definitely a problem.
If they registered "betterthanlego.com", it gets into grey area again. (Such
comparisons are usually legal under trademark law -- look at all of the
Burger King ads...)
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
37 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
