Subject:
|
legopolis.com
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Sep 2000 23:06:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
816 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Matthew Miller writes:
> I don't believe that Lego should have taken Legopolis away from the person
> who had it. [...]
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 trademark. They cited then-recent case law and suggested that the domain
name be given up, and offered to help with a transition to a different domain
name. Thus, although they suggested and asked that the domain be given up,
they certainly didn't require or demand it. Now, would they have? -- if their
concerns had been ignored? That's anyone's guess. Suzanne was doing freelance
design work for them at the time, so that may have had something to do with how
delicately they approached the situation. But the main point is that they
didn't "take it away." Suzanne gave it up because she respected their
concerns. And they were extremely polite to us and respectful of our efforts.
One other related thing worth noting is that they did specifically say that
they did not have any objection to the site name "Legopolis" (that is, the
name/title per se) -- and still today there is a section called "Legopolis"
on www.baseplate.com -- but that their concerns were in connection within the
Internet domain name.
More information (from late 1997):
http://www.baseplate.com/change.html
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
