| |
In lugnet.market.brickshops, Alfred Speredelozzi writes:
> Is www.legoaftermarket.com legal?
>
> I think it is. At least in the region of the 7th circuit court of
> appeals in the U.S.
>
> This case is an interesting read for anyone selling Lego toys. It is a
> case brought by Ty (Beanie Babies) against a website owner who uses
> "beanie" in her URL. They own the trademark in "Beanie Babies" and
> think that her site dilutes their mark. The problem? She is selling
> actual Ty products. Since the trademark is there to identify the source
> of the product (not to allow the producer to control who can sell the
> product) it is legitimate to use it when selling that product.
Well I think it would have been a different decision if they had used "TY"
in the URL, which is what you have suggested with the LEGO name. But there
again LEGO is their name and it's not like many other company names that
come from general use english words, they made the word up so I'd say it's
thiers to own and protect.
<snip>
> Possible problems:
> "Beanie" is a lot more generic than "Lego", a point that added to the
> strength of the Appeals court decision.
> The "Lego" brand is the company name, rather than just the product
> brand. A court may see the company name as needing stronger protection,
> but I doubt it. Given this opinion, if I sold used Toyotas I believe I
> could legally use www.AlsUsedToyotas.com.
That might not be correct, I know that Ford and Chrysler have sued many
people over using their names in URLs, including names of thier products
(ie. Jeep, Dodge, Volvo, Jaguar, etc)
jt
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
17 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
|
|
|
|
