Subject:
|
Re: legopolis.com
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 2 Sep 2000 04:29:50 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@{stopspam}mattdm.org
|
Viewed:
|
869 times
|
| |
|
|
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.
> 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.
And that's actually the part that was relevant to this thread, and the part
that I find silly. Even the new "cybersquatting" laws make it very clear
that in order for having a domain to be illegal, it must be in bad faith. I
don't see how a fan site using the name descriptively (a classic example of
fair use) and in a non-misleading way, with clear disclaimers on the site,
could possibly be anything but good faith, let alone bad.
I'm not sure what exactly constitutes "bad faith" (that's partly why we have
courts), and it's possible that Mr. Legoland Winsor is indeed acting in bad
faith -- but I think a pretty strong argument can be made that being
intentionally silly isn't the same as being intentionally malicious.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
Boston University Linux ---> http://linux.bu.edu/
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
37 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
