 | | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) They can, but not for stuff like this. Ignoring the trademark-owner's wish on usage does not actually constitute a legal trademark violation. Improper usage, yes, but legal violations are only when one person is using and/or claiming as his (...) (21 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) This is pretty much my position. The purpose of language is to communicate ideas. It doesn't really matter what words are used, as long as the idea behind them is understood. If using 'legos' or 'lego' communicates the idea as well as using (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Still, I've heard people say "I'd never buy a Ford" or "Fords suck" or that kind of thing, so at some level it is true that people can equate a brand with all subsets of the brand. Nevertheless, your point is well taken. (...) Eeek! Good (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Can you tell me the one automobile brand name that is generically equated with all automobiles? That's right, there isn't one. Most auto companies refer to their own vehicles in that style, even as part of their own jingos. This is the other (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
I'm going to chalk this one up to human nature. As far as I can tell, people like to shorten names. Instead of saying "LEGO brand building bricks", they say "LEGOs". Call it a nick-name, or even an abbreviation .I could walk around all day saying (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Well, sure. But the original article was *days* ago--my mayfly attention span hardly let's get to the end of (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) There's the exact same technical/legalistic rule against saying "Fords" or "Toyotas" or "Burger Kings" or "Pentiums" or "Dells" or "Dumpsters". Or "Kleenexes" or "Band-Aids". Again as the original article pointed out. :) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) Excellent observation! I submit "food" as a likewise flexible singular/plural form. Dave! (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) If "Legos" grates on you the way "nukuler" grates on me, then you have my sympathy! Still, someone can refer to "Fords" or "Toyotas" without causing an uproar, so there is some precedent for pluralized brandnames, however incorrectly it might (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Lore on Lego vs. Legos
|
|
(...) ... (...) ... Ok... I *have* to jump in at this point. Since when does 'sand' NOT have a plural? It has been pluralized throughout the sands of time. Merriam-Webster, and every other reputable dictionary will back me up on this. Eric (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
