 | | Re: LEGO trademark (was: Re: What I did for the Y2K weekend...[lego phone]) —Christopher Masi
|
| | | (...) Mom, can I play with my LEGO brand plastic automatic binding bricks....PLEASE! (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: LEGO trademark (was: Re: What I did for the Y2K weekend...[lego phone]) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Yep, that's pretty much what they ask you to say. You can shorten it to just "LEGO bricks", if you want. <URL:(URL), of course. Of course, if you're polite about it, as a non-lawyer and non-Lego-employee, I advocate calling the product "Lego" (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: LEGO trademark (was: Re: What I did for the Y2K weekend...[lego phone]) —Jasper Janssen
|
| | | | (...) What about LUGnet? Posts are archived essentially forever, after all. (And I suspect that even if Todd's were to suddenly go offline, they could be pieced together fromthe archives in various formats on people's newsreaders/email clients..) (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: LEGO trademark (was: Re: What I did for the Y2K weekend...[lego phone]) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Archived forever != formal. It's all grey area ('cept when you're selling stuff), so if you don't feel comfortable using Lego as a noun here, by all means don't. (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
