Subject:
|
Re: Castle Accesseries for Knight's Kingdom
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:19:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
540 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Carl Buchheim writes:
> Dave Schuler wrote:
> > I understand also the "one fish/two fish--one LEGO/two LEGO" reasoning, • but
> > it can hardly be denied that the English language holds some precendent for
> > pluralization by the addition of an "S". If a person refers to a single • brick
> > as a LEGO, I think the person can be forgiven for making the mistake,
> > especially if he hasn't heard the TLC caution to the contrary.
>
> This has nothing to due with the English language's rules for
> pluralization. It's a legal issue of trademark dilution. By referring
> to their products as LEGO bricks, LEGO building toys, etc., the Lego
> Company is trying to avoid having their trademark turn into a generic
> noun (for example, Kleenex, Band-Aid, etc. are brands of products whose
> names have over time come to refer to any such product, rather than one
> particular brand)
Good general example, but bad specifics, both of these product names are still
protected trademarks.
Contrast cola and aspirin, lost by The Coca Cola Company, Inc. and Bayer
Farben AG respectively, I believe.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Castle Accesseries for Knight's Kingdom
|
| (...) This has nothing to due with the English language's rules for pluralization. It's a legal issue of trademark dilution. By referring to their products as LEGO bricks, LEGO building toys, etc., the Lego Company is trying to avoid having their (...) (24 years ago, 13-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
36 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
|
|
|
|
