Subject:
|
Re: autoFAQpost /general/~u.can_i_use_lugnet_name_or_logo.en.faq
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.faq
|
Date:
|
Sat, 17 Jul 1999 18:44:39 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera.com[spamless]
|
Viewed:
|
2242 times
|
| |
|
|
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> In lugnet.faq, Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> writes:
>
> > Robert Munafo wrote:
> > > Why would you mention not putting AFOL and LUGNET on the same shirt? What's the
> > > connection?
> >
> > Because I remembered it... we had a pretty intense discussion about it
> > at the time, and we respected Todd's wishes. Timeframe was
> > February-March of this year.
>
> Hey, you almost make it sound like there was some kind of heated discussion/
> argument/debate or something. I thought it was all very civilized, with
> mostly just questions and answers and things. (Were you holding back anger
> or frustration?? What causes you to say "intense" (above), or am I reading
> into what you wrote too much?)
prolly. I said intense because it was nuanced, not because there were
hard feelings. I DID get a little frustrated at myself because every
time I thought I had the nuances grokked and I restated what I thought I
understood, I didn't quite have it yet, and we were under severe time
pressure to get the shirts finalized and produced, and sometimes I had
to prod you to get another go-round (you were terribly busy dealing with
non L stuff like helping Suzanne's family get through a rocky patch)...
<snip>
> because I don't think we could actually "prohibit" the use of AFOL and
> LUGNET on the same shirt, at least not in the context of a declarative
> informational sentence such as "I read LUGNET." OTOH, I think we can
> prohibit, say, the use of the AFOL directly beneath the LUGNET logo in place
> of the name "LUGNET" (not that anyone would ever do that or want to do that,
> but that's something I'd really come down hard against).
>
> Anyway, inasmuch as you respect (which I appreciate) the wishes that AFOL
> not being put on the same shirt, I think it sends the wrong message to
> people when the wish ("we'd rather not") is rewritten as a strict
> prohibition ("Based on Todd's answers prohibiting AFOL and LUGNET on the
> same shirt..."). It's a perception thing...d'ya know what I mean? It's
> fuzzy. There was also another paragraph about cards...
Yes, you're right. Like I said, it's nuanced. Prohibit is too strong of
a word, prefer is better, I suppose.
> p.s. While (AFAIK) it's anyone's right to put "AFOL" on anything they want,
> it should be noted that if they spelled it out in full, i.e. "Adult Fan of
> LEGO®" that they might be run into trouble with TLG for using their mark
> without permission, especially if they were selling the items. I am not a
> lawyer, so this is just something for people to keep in mind. Anyone who
> wants to put "LEGO" on a t-shirt probably needs to contact TLG attorneys for
> permission.
Thought about that. Decided NOT to ask TLG permission to create a T
shirt that said "My dad has more LEGO(R) than your dad" despite that.
Call it internal inconsistency, but I'm more concerned about YOUR trade
dress and trademarks than theirs.
Reason being that it was a declarative statement, it didn't use TLG
trade dress, and it did acknowledge that LEGO is a registered trademark.
Perhaps you might want to take a crack at rewriting the whole FAQ the
way you want it to read and then we won't have to go around and around
trying to get it right. Might be faster.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
17 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
|
|
|
|
