Subject:
|
Re: Brand Name Sovereignty
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Sep 2000 20:02:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
534 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler writes:
> [...]
> For that matter, The Learning Channel has been aka TLC for at least six or
> seven years--why is no fuss made about that? I can understand that an
> abbreviation might not be eligible for copyright, but "Lego" seems to be.
> Is it because the products are notably dissimilar?
It could be, but also keep in mind that LEGO doesn't call itself "TLC" --
they call themselves "The LEGO Company" or just "LEGO". Only us fans use
the label "TLC" as an abbreviation (earlier "TLG").
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Brand Name Sovereignty
|
| (...) And all of this is because we insist on calling the product by the name of the company ("Lego" instead of "Lego briks"), so we need to have another short name for the company so as to avoid confusion. :) (24 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Brand Name Sovereignty
|
| We've all seen the lengths to which TLC is willing to go in order to protect its intellectual property, and that's certainly understandable. What about such things as: (URL) For that matter, The Learning Channel has been aka TLC for at least six or (...) (24 years ago, 18-Sep-00, to lugnet.general)
|
6 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
|
|
|
|
