|
|
 | | Re: What's in a name? ( Potter, Plagiarism, and Trademark)
|
| (...) Or, for example, a boy wizard and a boy wizard? 8^) Dave! (24 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Disney actually did this with "Lion King"
|
| (...) Actually, the story I heard was that as Fast food McDonald's moved into England and Scotland, the found a small restaurant near one of the desired sites named McDonalds. It wasn't too large or high class (I'll get to that later) but I also (...) (24 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Disney actually did this with "Lion King"
|
| (...) Same here. I'm really just intrigued by the whole thing, since it's a nifty string of coincidences even if no plagiarism is involved. No slur intended toward either author, of course! (...) Yeah, that assertion is pretty hard to refute! 8^) (...) (24 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: What's in a name? ( Potter, Plagiarism, and Trademark)
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: If the word exists, that's one thing, but (...) Yes, Lego would have a case because it would create confusion in the public's mind. Less clear cut would be a recording company and a computer (...) (24 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Disney actually did this with "Lion King"
|
| (...) As noted above, "perhaps she has a case, perhaps she doesn't." I'm just not going to condemn Rowling based on what Stouffer had to say. Plagiarism, which is what Stouffer is implying to get public sympathy and promote herself, and trademark (...) (24 years ago, 22-Mar-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
