 | | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
|
"Matthew Gerber" <matthew@digitaliris.com> wrote in message news:GqGwFq.Fz8@lugnet.com... (...) utter (...) and (...) use (...) Does anyone know if they really have any legal standing on this? It seems a bit far fetched to me. Rose (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
|
"r2" <lego@r2eng.com> wrote in message news:GqH4BA.Fzq@lugnet.com... (...) world (...) form (...) a (...) I don't think they have any legal grounds, but IANAL. I think it would be beneficial to organize a boycott of LEGO buyers and sellers on eBay. (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
|
(...) Trouble is, unless he can find a lawyer willing to work pro bono, the cost to find out will be prohibitive. Best thing is probably to tell as many people as possible (in the media preferably). And tell eBay you'll boycott them if they don't (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
|
(...) ( speculating idly ) I wonder if all the sites that eBay is challenging in this manor got together, might it possible to get class action status ? If so, then they could all combine efforts which might make it a fair fight after all. Ray (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
|
(...) I just submitted it too. It seems like it requires tons of people to submit anything before they will post it. I'm sure they'll reject it from me too, they reject everything I submit. (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
|
(...) May get added to Quickies. Taco lurks here now and then so I would bet he is aware of the situation already. You could mail him direct and ask. He has been known to be nice on one or two days of the year. [/:-) Best DaveG (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: Slashdot (was:Bad News for Brickbay!?)
|
|
(...) I think it's a bit luck-of-the-draw as to which "editor" reads it. I've only ever had 1 story accepted 8?( ROSCO FUT off-topic.geek (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
|
I agree with Tim. We should organize a letter of complaint threatening to Boycott. Many would definitely participate. -Kyle PS..thanks LUGNET for allowing this discussion. (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Slashdot (was:Bad News for Brickbay!?)
|
|
I think it depends more on how the title is phrased, which category is chosen and how it is written. I have had success by writing submissions in that certain 'slashdot style'. KL (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
|
(...) You'll have my endorsement. Adrian (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
|
(...) Actually, they have plenty of legal ground. Again, similarly, I am not a lawyer. (And also a Canadian!) But I have been to lectures about intellectual property, and it is my understanding that trademark infringement is based on similar service (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Slashdot (was:Bad News for Brickbay!?)
|
|
(...) Yah, I'm guessing that most of the "editors" don't read what you're submitting, they just reject it. That's probably why it takes tons of submissions to get a story up, you have to get enough in that it slips past the rejectors. (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Slashdot (was:Bad News for Brickbay!?)
|
|
(...) There's so many categories to choose from, it's hard to know which one is right. (...) Ah, of course. I guess I should have misspelled every 3rd word and made it sound like incoherent clueless rambling. (22 years ago, 26-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
|
(...) Yes, they do...but... (...) Perhaps for a lax judge, but you have made a couple of false indications in your example; Brickbay is not an auction site, sellers do not conduct auctions there...it is a private commerce site for the buying and (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
|
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Calum Tsang (<GqIJsD.HKr@lugnet.com>) wrote at 21:31:25 <snip> (...) Just butting in to say that it isn't Larry's trademark. The mark belongs to the Guild of Bricksmiths(tm). :-) Carry on. (22 years ago, 26-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
|
(...) Right. Thanks, it did need pointing out. You can substitute Milton Train Works(tm) as an example of a personal trademark of mine if you like, or change "his trademark" to "the group's trademark" if you like, and either way it stands. (22 years ago, 26-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
|
(...) It should also be noted that MANY Brickbay shops point users to eBay (Including mine!)... Would they be willing to loose this!? (...) Maybe a defence by-way-of TLG!? Little far fetched for an "unoffical Lego site", but, hey, can it hurt to try (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
|
Another ?0,02 worth: I think Matthew has a good point in that the basics of the service are essentially different: Brickbay is not an auctions site. Another point the judge might look at is the fact that on eBay you can sell anything, and Brickbay (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
|
(...) Now, see, I think it has a lot to do with the service, maybe even more so than the name. I'm sure eBay does regular sweeps of the Web, WHOIS, domain registrars and such, and looks for *Bay names...mostly assuming that these services ARE (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
|
(...) D'OH! Sorry Dan...head meant to type about BrickBay, fingers decided to type about BrickShelf! Matt (22 years ago, 27-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
|
(...) I don't know if this sheds any more light on the situation, but here is my understanding of large companies defending their trademark: I was reading an article in Florida one day that was telling of "Disney" sueing a day care center for using (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
|
(...) Ah, yes, I forgot that, right. I think that proves to some degree the association being made. I've only browsed Brickbay occassionally and never bought anything from a vendor on there (I prefer my addictions from local retail :) yet I made the (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
|
(...) Hee-hee...I meant it more like eBay would have other, bigger fish to fry before they really took the time to flex more muscle at Brickbay...others were more blatently harming them, they'll deal with those faster/more actively...gives Dan some (...) (22 years ago, 27-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops)
|
| |
| | Re: Bad News for Brickbay!?
|
|
(...) I'm no lawyer either, but I know DC Comics took legal action against a elementary football team called the "Superman." They also used the Superman logo on their helmets. Now, I'm sure DC could've careed less... heck, they probably liked it. (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.market.brickshops, lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Slashdot (was:Bad News for Brickbay!?)
|
|
(...) Mentioning one or more of the slashdot "editors" often helps, too. ROSCO (22 years ago, 2-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
