| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Tim Courtney <tim@zacktron.com> writes:
> > It may be enough simply to acknowledge TLG's trade dress rights on
> > the ldraw.org web pages (it's probably safest to write and ask TLG
> > of course), but it's always possible that doing that might not be
> > enough to allay potential concerns.
>
> Though this may be a way of covering our bases, I also think that writing
> TLG would cause unnecessary alarm and possibly concern them where they
> previously were not concerned at all.
I guess you'd be pretty surprised at some of the legal questions I've asked
TLG out of the blue then! :-) Maybe I'm just weird like that.
> > Do the www.ldraw.org images differ enough not to cause confusion in the
> > minds of the average consumer? Do the images differ enough not to raise
> > concerns at TLG? Might there perhaps be some other image which is less
> > risky?
>
> But also note that the Lucida Console font used is just as much a part of
> the ldraw.org trade dress (if you will) as the bright red 2x3 brick. I
> wouldn't have the 2x3 displayed to represent ldraw.org without accompanying
> it with the text 'ldraw.org' in Lucida Console. Lego uses different fonts
> such as the 'Just Imagine...' splash screen font and the common image font
> on lego.com for its site's style. [1]
That doesn't help me worry about it any less. But again, maybe I'm just
weird like that.
> One of the main reasons I chose the red 2x3 as a part of ldraw.org's
> identity was the use of it in icons and symbols representing other aspects
> of LDraw itself. Steve uses it on LDAO icons, and Lars (correct?) uses it
> on L3P icons. LDraw is just as much creating an identity with the 2x3 as
> TLG has created one with the 2x4 and 2x2.
Hmm.
From a consumer perspective, I wonder if it's safe to assume that a red 2x3
brick is fundamentally different from a red 2x2 or 2x4 brick in the minds of
average consumers. After all, one common element all three images share is
a bright red color, a 2xN shape, and a studded brick shown at roughly the
same viewing angle.
From an intellectual property perspective, I wonder if the mere fact that
people on the net are trying to establish an identity between a red 2x3 LEGO
brick and LDraw may be enough to make TLG nervous, since the stronger the
association becomes between LDraw and a red 2x3 LEGO brick, the more trouble
it causes for TLG if they ever wanted to use a 2x3 LEGO brick on something
of their own. What's to say they won't want to use 2x3 for something next
year? Don't you think they'd be upset to see that possibility erode?
You can bet your retirement that TLG would have very little difficulty
defending the position (if it had to) that a red 2x3 LEGO brick displayed
prominently in a logo on a prominent unofficial site causes dilution of
their trademarks and trade dress related to red 2xN bricks. And you can bet
that they know this, and that they would not hesitate to act if they feel
the dilution is significant enough.
> I skimmed parts of this page and now understand more of what you're talking
> about. Yes, you're right, it is a valid issue...but I think not alerting
> TLG to the problem would be the wiser solution. A simple disclaimer would
> more than do in this case, IMO.
Well, as I always say, you can never be too safe with disclaimers. But note
that a simple disclaimer will do only so long as TLG trademark counsel
doesn't object to the use of the red 2x3 LEGO brick image. You have to
assume they'll see it sooner or later, and when they do, they might be
impartial, or they might not like it.
When they contacted me about my background images, they said they didn't
object to my distributing them at the current time as long as I displayed a
notice stating that the LEGO brick image (meaning imagery depicting LEGO
bricks) is a trade dress of TLG. I thought that was pretty reasonable.
However, just because that's reasonable, it can't be assumed that every
instance of LEGO brick imagery on web pages is not objectionable to TLG.
If there ever was brick image that was particularly risky to display in a
logo, I would think it would be a red 2xN.
That's all I have to say.
--Todd
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer; the above is not qualified legal advice.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: [ldraw.org] Update
|
| (...) Yeah, as much as I think this whole "trade dress" thing is silly, I agree 100% with Todd right here. Don't get me wrong - I LOVE ldraw.org - I love all the hard work that's gone into it. And maybe it's just the fact that I'm colorblind that (...) (25 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.publish)
| | | Re: [ldraw.org] Update
|
| (...) Well, if we were to contact TLG, what would be the best approach to it, to get on their good side? I'm not totally objected to contacting them, I just would like to make sure we've done everything we can to have them not jump on us beforehand. (...) (25 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: [ldraw.org] Update
|
| (...) Yeah, I saw that program and downloaded it and just had to write about it :) Mike fully cooperated with my efforts to promote it (I wonder why) ;) and is very open to suggestions for future features. (...) Though this may be a way of covering (...) (25 years ago, 20-Aug-99, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, lugnet.publish)
|
44 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
|
|
|
|
