 | | 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)
|
