Subject:
|
Re: Do you think there is a market for your MOCs on eBay? Please discuss...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Sat, 19 Jan 2002 00:59:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1224 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.theory, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.market.theory, Doyle Nelson writes:
> > In lugnet.market.theory, Brian Kasprzyk writes:
> > > In lugnet.market.theory, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > > In lugnet.market.theory, Paul Klenk writes:
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Posters have made a number of good points but I would like to point out that
> > > > this topic has come up before and those interested may want to do some
> > > > searching in market.theory where it tends to get discussed periodically...
> > > > they may discover tidbits not mentioned in this iteration.
> > > >
> > > > Please also note that Guild of Bricksmiths (not "Brick Guild") is a
> > > > trademarked name and should have a TM after it when first mentioned (or
> > > > somewhere on the page)... thanks!
> > > >
> > > > Larry Pieniazek, Bricksmith
> > > > Guild of Bricksmiths(tm): www.bricksmiths.com
> > > > Milton Train Works(tm): www.miltontrainworks.com
> > >
> > > Bricksmiths
> > > Bricksmiths
> > > Bricksmiths
> > > Bricksmiths
> > > Bricksmiths
> > > Bricksmiths
> > > Bricksmiths
> > >
> > > So sue me. How many times has Lego been written (even by you) without the
> > > trademark symbol?
>
> By me? Not that many. You could look it up.
>
> > > BK>
> >
> > Sorry Larry,
> >
> > But I think I must agree with Brian. The(TM)thing was a "little"
> > anal-retentive.
>
> Not by choice. Trademark law is clear on the point, which you, as a CEO,
> should know.
True, as you said below, larger companies sometime respond different than
those who MUST protect their trademark to vulnerability.
> If we want to protect our trademark (and we do, we've all put a lot into the
> concept and it has value as a brand) we *have* to assert that it's a
> trademark, which means using the TM. We can't just let it slide. And our
> trademark is a lot more fragile than LEGO(tm), since we're a lot smaller.
"And our trademark is a lot more fragile than LEGO(tm), since we're a lot
smaller." LP
Well said. :-) I hate when you do that! lol
> Use of the trademark is also a good metric as to who are friends are. People
> who deliberately misuse our name (wrong words or wrong word order) after
> being corrected about it, people who make fun of it in a malicious way, and
> people who omit the TM repeatedly (not inadvertantly, that's not such a big
> deal, but people who stamp their feet and go na nana na na... how child
> like!)... those people presumably are not friends to us or the concept.
Correct, I never condoned deliberate misuse, and did not agree with Brian’s
Temper Tantrum in anyway. And I am truly glad you specified if I or someone
else were to make a mistake, that such an action would be overlooked.
Personally though I don't think I'll forget. lol :-)
> A few names on that list I'm glad of, I prefer to choose my friends and I
> would never choose them. But most (like Brian K. the footstamper above) I'm
> rather disappointed in.
>
> Trimmed FUT to just theory.
I trust I'm not on that list of the malicious? lol
Doyle
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
61 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
|
|
|
|
