8 ms·
Lego's argument always struck me as absurd. Imagine Ford doing the same thing: "Please refer to our vehicles as 'Ford vehicles' or 'cars', and not 'Fords'. By d
by gwilliams 7y ago
Lego's argument always struck me as absurd. Imagine Ford doing the same thing: "Please refer to our vehicles as 'Ford vehicles' or 'cars', and not 'Fords'. By doing so..."
- maxerickson 7y agoI think the temptation to start a car company that markets "Ford" cars is probably less than the temptation to put on your box of bricks that they are compatible with Lego bricks. If the company doesn't take reasonable actions to protect the mark, they lose control of it.
- detaro 7y agoWhat does that have to do with how people call actual LEGO bricks?
- maxerickson 7y agoI figured https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22276586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22276586 made the context clear enough. Ford doesn't worry about losing their brand. Lego does. So Ford regularly uses the brand as a noun itself, Lego Group asks people to not do that.
- detaro 7y agoThe only risk I can see is becoming a generic term for "construction bricks". I don't see how me calling my genuine Lego bricks Legos contribute to that.
- maxerickson 7y agoIt's how trademark law is written, use as a noun indicates it is becoming a generic term.