| |
In lugnet.market.brickshops, Jake McKee writes:
> We don't have many rules for what Web sites can do (and I've worked hard to
> keep it that way). But the very few rules we have (no "LEGO" URLs,
> disclaimer statement) are pretty easy to understand. This isn't just a LEGO
> thing, it's a business thing. Not many companies allow their name to be used
> in URLs. In fact, I just did a quick search for "Ford Mustang" and the only
> URLs with "ford" in them are owned by the company. There are tons of fan
> sites and builders clubs, but none of those URLs have "ford" in them.
Not true if you search for "ford dealership":
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=ford+dealership
Right at the top you have www.deansellersford.com,
www.superstitionford.com, and www.earnhardtford.com. But again, those are
all licensed dealerships, and in order to be allowed to use the Ford name,
they have to abide by whatever contractual stipulations Ford feels like they
need to throw in to protect their brand. Also, I noticed that some of the
Mustang-related websites used the word "mustang" in their URL, but when you
name your car after a breed of horse, it's a bit hard to tell everyone that
they can't use that word in their URL. It's a totally different thing when
you invent words like "Bionicle", or when you use famously linked words like
"Star Wars" or "Star Trek". However, while "lego" is actually a real Latin
word that considerably predates TLC, it's so much more recognizable as "the
people who make the bricks" than it is as the original Latin word that it
would be nearly impossible to defend any claim of using it in its Latin
context without being aware of the commercial significance as a registered
trademark. Similarly, "Ford" is a known last-name, and if someone with that
last name had signed up for the www.ford.com URL, for the express purpose of
putting together a personal website about him/herself, and his/her Ford
relatives, FMC would probably have been denied the right to take over that
URL. I remember hearing about some NYC-based catalog company that lost
their URL-reclaimation case for that very reason.
> Adhering to this policy helps to retain control over the brand. What we
> don't want to do is confuse the message about who owns what to the point
> that "LEGO" is another "kleenex". If consumers starting thinking about all
> the clones as "lego" too, then that doesn't help anybody.
Well, it does help _somebody_, but I'm sure you're not interested in
boosting the sales of your competitors through brand-association. ;P
> <BEGIN PERSONAL TAKE>
> The thing that concerns me, is that I have been working really hard to get
> as much for the fans as possible. To open up as many avenues within the
> company as possible. Sometimes there are issues that I understand make sense
> from a biz perspective not to give up or change. I completely understand why
> this is one of them, and agree.
>
> But when people start threatening to go to court about something like this
> (something that seems pretty logical to me why the policy is there), it
> hurts the entire process.
>
> We aren't trying to be jerks. We are simply trying to protect our
> brand...one of the most important things LEGO Company owns.
> </END PERSONAL TAKE>
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Embracing the fan community is a huge
step towards improving the situation on both sides of the fence. Hasbro has
started being very stingy about what they'll hand out to the SW fan
community (which has been a major source of free advertising for them), and
it makes it harder for the collectors to collect, which in turn drives many
of them away and costs Hasbro a lot of sales.
When fans start enjoying the product in spite of the company, rather
than _because_of_ the company, it's always a bad thing. In this case,
pointedly refusing to comply with such a lenient Fair Use Policy, especially
when it comes to something as obvious as trademark infringement, only makes
it harder for TLC to justify that leniency. Resisting something as
important as a C&D request about copyright infringment only turns it into a
lose-lose situation for TLC, since they either look like the bad-guy for
muscling someone into submission, or they fail to protect their trademark
and open themselves up for all kinds of damaging PR confusion. If this
turns out to be a huge ugly legal battle, it could potentially lead to a
more strict Fair Use Policy, which in turn could negatively impact the
entire online LEGO fan community. How would everyone here feel if this
situation leads to the term "LUG", which stands for "LEGO User Group", being
restricted by the Fair Use Policy?
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
