Subject:
|
Re: How does this ruling affect using Lego in domain names?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Tue, 5 Apr 2005 20:10:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4962 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, Robert Fries wrote:
| |
From an article on
CNN, an appeals court ruled that:
...
Will this decision change Lego’s stance on using Lego in domain names,
provided the sites are not for-profit, or confusing consumers by providing
links to non-Lego products?
|
I kinda doubt it. There isn’t much recourse Lego has when it comes to *forcing*
you to change your domain name, but it can waste your time (and its time) with
legal proceedings, I’m sure. Sorta like the old BrickBay vs. Ebay. Ebay could
easily have lost an ensuing court case, but it just wasn’t worth it to Dan. If
Dan had wanted to, he could’ve gotten a lawyer, paid some court fees (in
addition to things like airfare and room & board to appear at the court in
question), but would it have been worth it?
What the case *will* do, is allow you, the consumer, to disrespect Lego’s wishes
a little easier. Using that case as legal precedent, you may be able to stop a
legal battle more quickly.
But with respect to Lego, I don’t think the idea was ever “CHANGE YOUR SITE OR
WE’LL TAKE LEGAL ACTION!!!”. I think the idea was always “Please respect that
we’d prefer you didn’t use the Lego name in your domain name”. I don’t think
they’re trying to be jerks, they just want to try and preserve their copyright
as much as possible.
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | How does this ruling affect using Lego in domain names?
|
| From an article on (URL) CNN>, an appeals court ruled that: "But the appeals court disagreed, saying the Web site was not created to make a profit or to confuse ... customers and potential clients. There were no links on the site to competitors, the (...) (20 years ago, 5-Apr-05, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
