RE: Now trademarks, was:Re: Surly polar bear
Funny, we have had a brand of mints called "Polo" for decades! Malcolm -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill Owens Sent: 22 January 2002 14:03 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Now trademarks, was:Re: Surly polar bear There was until recently a night spot in Charlotte called "The Polo Lounge" Ralph Lauren and Co. sued saying the name "polo" was their property. Sure fooled me. I always thought polo was a game similar to croquet played by rich Englishmen on ponies. Bill KG4LOV [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Good light, >Frantisek Vlcek (TM)(R)(C). All other mentioned trademarks are >property of their disrespectful stealers, and William Shakespeare. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Now trademarks, was:Re: Surly polar bear
I heard a story on Public Radio a while back that a couple of disgruntled Australian song writers had trademarked every possible combination of telephone touch-tones as "songs" (their reasoning is that two notes equals a musical composition). Last I heard they were fighting in the courts for "royalties" for each time ANYONE ANYWHERE in the world dials ANY number from ANY touch-tone telephone! Christian (using rotary phones from now on!) On Tuesday 22 January 2002 09:30, you wrote: > Funny, we have had a brand of mints called "Polo" for decades! > > Malcolm > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bill Owens > Sent: 22 January 2002 14:03 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Now trademarks, was:Re: Surly polar bear > > > There was until recently a night spot in Charlotte called "The Polo Lounge" > Ralph Lauren and Co. sued saying the name "polo" was their property. Sure > fooled me. I always thought polo was a game similar to croquet played by > rich Englishmen on ponies. > > Bill KG4LOV > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Good light, > >Frantisek Vlcek (TM)(R)(C). All other mentioned trademarks are > >property of their disrespectful stealers, and William Shakespeare. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Now trademarks, was:Re: Surly polar bear
On soapbox Some of you might remember a few years ago that Rupert Murdoch threatened to sue a small Maryland paper called "The Times", Murdoch's contention was that there could only be one "The Times" and that of course was "The Times" of London. The Maryland paper not having the assets to stand up to NewsCorp changed it's name to the Picayune Times or some such. So behold the sad of IP law as giant corporations try to lay claim to common words, ever wonder why Microsofts word processor was named Word, perhaps very soon there will be a © by every word in the great Oxford Dictionary of the English Language. In the meantime individual photographers have to jump through hoops to keep their photographs from image stealing web crawlers. off soapbox Evan - Original Message - From: "Bill Owens" > There was until recently a night spot in Charlotte called "The Polo Lounge" > Ralph Lauren and Co. sued saying the name "polo" was their property. Sure > fooled me. I always thought polo was a game similar to croquet played by > rich Englishmen on ponies. > > Bill KG4LOV > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Good light, > >Frantisek Vlcek (TM)(R)(C). All other mentioned trademarks are > >property of their disrespectful stealers, and William Shakespeare. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Now trademarks, was:Re: Surly polar bear
You are of course correct. My point was simply corporations are increasingly using more general terms and applying copyrights to them in a deliberate effort to impede their usage by others who might or might not be competitors. Evan From: "Tom Rittenhouse" > You can not copyright or trademark words, except in conjucntion with > something. You can not keep people from using the word except in a > competitive manner. That is the reason for coined words like Kodak and > Xerox, they only apply to the product so any use is an infringement. > > Ciao, > graywolf > [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Now trademarks, was:Re: Surly polar bear
Odd. Beverly Hills Hotel has a Polo Lounge --- as I remember, Hyatt has something similar, and I suspect there were many others around the country. Would seem RLC must have had something else than just the name on which to make a winning case? Otis Wright Bill Owens wrote: > There was until recently a night spot in Charlotte called "The Polo Lounge" > Ralph Lauren and Co. sued saying the name "polo" was their property. Sure > fooled me. I always thought polo was a game similar to croquet played by > rich Englishmen on ponies. > > Bill KG4LOV > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Good light, > >Frantisek Vlcek (TM)(R)(C). All other mentioned trademarks are > >property of their disrespectful stealers, and William Shakespeare. > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Now trademarks, was:Re: Surly polar bear
Or their lawyer told them it would be more costly to fight than they were willing to pay for. Losers of lawsuits like that should have to pay the other party's legal expenses but that ain't usually the way it works. Len --- -Original Message- From: Tom Rittenhouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 11:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Now trademarks, was:Re: Surly polar bear They may have threatened to sue, but trademarks can only be restricted for use in a competetive manner. That means you can not call clothing you sell Polo, but you can call your bar Polo. So if they caved in they had a piss poor lawyer. Ciao, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
OT Re: Now trademarks, was:Re: Surly polar bear
On Tuesday, January 22, 2002, at 12:31 PM, Tom Rittenhouse wrote: > They may have threatened to sue, but trademarks can only be restricted > for > use in a competetive manner. That means you can not call clothing you > sell > Polo, but you can call your bar Polo. So if they caved in they had a > piss > poor lawyer. I recall a polo supply company being bullied by WIPO and Ralph Lauren to give up the polo.com domain. I don't recall the outcome, but the WIPO do not impress me with their logical thinking or decision making skills. They seem, from what I have read, to be simply a lobby group for big business. -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: OT Re: Now trademarks, was:Re: Surly polar bear
There was a run of cases in the UK a few years back with McDonald's claiming that they owned the Mc prefix on just about anything (and tasking legal action against anybody who used it), and not just for fast food. Toys-R-us also did the same with the backwards R (and indeed forwards too!) and won at least several cases against small sole trader outlets. The main one I remember being a tire dealer in Bedford called tires-r-us. Regards, /\/\ick... - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: OT Re: Now trademarks, was:Re: Surly polar bear
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Mick Maguire wrote: > There was a run of cases in the UK a few years back with McDonald's > claiming that they owned the Mc prefix on just about anything (and > tasking legal action against anybody who used it), and not just for > fast food. Toys-R-us also did the same with the backwards R (and > indeed forwards too!) and won at least several cases against small > sole trader outlets. The main one I remember being a tire dealer in > Bedford called tires-r-us. Speaking of Mickey D's, they've also trademarked the phrase "Have you had your break today?" Rght. chris - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
