| |
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.
Nope. LEGO is a registered trademark, and _any_ unauthorized use of it
can be prosecuted. If they so choose. A few years back Paramount went
around pounding on the door of _every_ Star Trek fansite and demanding that
they pull their plug, which caused a severe negative backlash from the fan
community. Obviously TLC's Fair Play Policy does a lot to explain how
(graciously) lenient they are willing to be (basically giving permission in
advance for certain practices), but putting any of their trademarks in the
URL is taboo.
> 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.
This gets a bit less clearly defined, in that Ty owns the trademark to
"Ty" and "Beanie Baby", but they probably don't own the trademark to just
"beanie". Notice that Coca-Cola owns the trademarks to both "Coca-Cola" and
the more popular nickname, "Coke" (never mind that "coke" can also refer to
an illicit drug). TLC would probably have an easier time defending a claim
against www.legoaftermarket.com than it would against a website called, say,
www.legerrific.com, since it doesn't actually use the complete word.
> I think this case gives legal support to anyone that is re-selling Lego
> bricks (or other toys) exclusively, and who use the Lego brand name in
> their URL. I think it is an important step in redirecting the use of
> trademark law to control how the internet is used. I hope for decisions
> in the future that allow URLs for parody and commentary, without running
> afoul of trademark law.
Parody is protected by the First Amendment as far as the US is
concerned, and Gus Lopez successfully got Toys"R"Us off his back for his
parodic use of www.toysrgus.com as a URL for a vintage Star Wars toy
collecting website, but a large part of that had to do with the fact that
the people calling the shots hadn't been told that he wasn't running a
commercial website before they unleashed the hounds. That's another thing
that twists the legal system up. It's expensive to prosecute a lawsuit, and
it's expensive to defend it. Every company does things a little differently
to avoid dumping tons of cash into lawsuits. Lucasfilm goes so far as to
buy up every .com URL using one of their trademarked character names even
though they embrace the Star Wars fan community in a way that Paramount
didn't for Star Trek. Disney will go to any lengths to defend The Mouse,
and they rely on the fact that everyone knows it to prevent casual
violations. TLC is remarkably lenient with their Fair Use Policy, but the
fact that they posted it so publicly does give them significantly more
leverage when it comes to prosecuting any violations of that policy. But a
major issue here is that when a corporation does actually file suit, most
defendants have to consider whether they can afford to resist, even if they
have a nearly airtight case.
>
> 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.
If you were a licensed Toyota dealership with the word "Toyota" in your
company name, you could use that word in your URL. However, used car
dealerships very rarely specialize in one specific brand of car unless they
are selling company-refurbished/certified cars, in which case they'd be a
licensed dealership. A good LEGO-related example of this was how
www.Bioniclezone.com was asked to switch to a different URL because
"Bionicle" is a trademarked name, but Universal was allowed to produce a
website called www.bioniclemusic.com (which currently redirects to the
official LEGO website). The difference? Universal had signed a licensing
deal with TLC and content could be controlled by that contract, whereas
Bioniclezone was a free entity.
> Also, I think Lego is doing the right thing. They are _requesting_
> people not use their trademark in URLs in their fair play policy. They
> have a good history of NOT suing people who do (I think), and working
> with fans to keep the fanship alive. I haven't heard any pressure of
> Lego against aftermarkets. I just read this case and thought of how it
> might apply to my favorite hobby.
Absolutely. They respect the fans by giving us a lot of freedom to
work within their Fair Use Policy, and they expect us to return that respect
by complying with it. Getting "Paramount" on us would destroy them by
driving the most loyal fans away and causing lots of negative publicity that
would taint their good name as far as casual fans are concerned. On the
other hand, giving the fan community free reign to do whatever we please
runs the risk of consumers being negatively influenced by something that
they didn't even do, just because some of them are consfused about what's
official and what isn't.
I've noticed over the last few years that within the wider
brick-building community, the word "Brick" is often seen as being synonymous
with the LEGO System (how many times have you reached for a "kleenex" that
wasn't made by Kleenex?), except when it comes to those who've decided to
hold a grudge against TLC. It seems to me that "Brick" should be an
acceptable substitute URL-wise, as seen with Brickshelf and
Brickbay/Bricklink. That brings up another interesting point. If eBay
could successfully defend use of part of their trademarked name, do you
think TLC would be any less successful defending used of their full
trademarked name?
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
