Valuate Domain Names
DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars
HomeRegisterMembershipsGetting StartedDomain Tools Domain EbooksSEO Software Domain Resellers Advertise

Go Back   DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars > Domain News, Beginners Guides and Legal Stuff! > Domain Name Legal Issues
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-07-2007, 11:26 AM   #1 (permalink)
DNF Addict
 
DNQuest.com's Avatar
 
Last Online: 09-23-2008 04:35 PM
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,100
DNF$: 4,835
Location: Columbia, MD

Send a message via Yahoo to DNQuest.com

Lego toys loses to Lego the artist

Though this is not directly domain related, it is always argued "rights or greater rights" to use a name needs to be proven. Though Lego is a TM, her name is Lego and has rights to a name. This is where they have a legitimate reason to use the name. I like the ruling becuase it is a common sense ruling. She isn't doing anything to hurt the toy maker or trying to deceive anyone, she is just using her own name.



http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news...329259246.html


COPENHAGEN - Lego, the iconic Danish maker of plastic toy bricks, lost a brand infringement case today when Denmark's Supreme Court ruled an art gallery owner could use the Lego name since it was her surname.

The high court decided that Louise Lego could continue using the name for her Copenhagen gallery, Gallery Lego, where she displays her own paintings, and her website, http://www.galleri-lego.dk.

The toymaker, founded in 1932, had argued it had the exclusive rights to the Lego name.

Its use of Lego stems from the contraction of the Danish phrase "Leg godt" which means "play well," and has nothing to do with the Lego family.

The company also wanted Louise Lego to stop promoting her gallery online under the Lego name.

But the court found that there was little risk that people would confuse Louise Lego's paintings and artworks with Lego toys.

The toymaker was ordered to pay Louise Lego 150,000 kroner ($A31,500) to cover her court costs.
__________________
Track emails that you send, PM me to find out how....
DNQuest.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Ads
Old 11-07-2007, 01:29 PM   #2 (permalink)
Platinum Lifetime Member
 
dcristo's Avatar
 
Last Online: Today 03:07 AM
iTrader: (55)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,855
DNF$: 1
Location: Australia
Country:


I am kind of stumped why they filed for TM infringement in the first place. How could one confuse artwork for lego toys. What's the world coming to if you can't user your own surname for branding. Great news!
__________________
virtual assistant services
dcristo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2007, 01:32 PM   #3 (permalink)
 
acesfull's Avatar
 
Last Online: Yesterday 08:52 PM
iTrader: (39)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 753
DNF$: 2,709
Location: Birmingham


Quote:
Originally Posted by dcristo View Post
I am kind of stumped why they filed for TM infringement in the first place.
To rip off the domain owner. It's called attempted reverse domain hijacking.

Also, see: www.nissan.com
acesfull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2007, 01:36 PM   #4 (permalink)
Platinum Lifetime Member
No Avatar
 
Last Online: Today 08:43 AM
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,440
DNF$: 437
Location: Ottawa
Country:


Pretty stupid. She didn't even own lego.com...
DomainsInc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2007, 01:37 PM   #5 (permalink)
Platinum Lifetime Member
 
dcristo's Avatar
 
Last Online: Today 03:07 AM
iTrader: (55)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,855
DNF$: 1
Location: Australia
Country:


Isn't the whole basis for TM infringement using the name in bad faith?
__________________
virtual assistant services
dcristo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2007, 01:43 PM   #6 (permalink)
 
acesfull's Avatar
 
Last Online: Yesterday 08:52 PM
iTrader: (39)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 753
DNF$: 2,709
Location: Birmingham


Quote:
Originally Posted by dcristo View Post
Isn't the whole basis for TM infringement using the name in bad faith?
That's suppose to be how it is. But that's, sadly, not how it always goes. Some people/companies don't give a shi* about you or your rights, and feel quite comfortable making lies and false alligations to try to get what they want.
acesfull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2007, 01:45 PM   #7 (permalink)
Platinum Lifetime Member
 
dcristo's Avatar
 
Last Online: Today 03:07 AM
iTrader: (55)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,855
DNF$: 1
Location: Australia
Country:


Quote:
Originally Posted by acesfull View Post
That's suppose to be how it is. But that's, sadly, not how it always goes. Some people/companies don't give a shi* about you or your rights, and feel quite comfortable making lies and false alligations to try to get what they want.
I feel like pissing on lego toys right now
__________________
virtual assistant services
dcristo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2007, 01:48 PM   #8 (permalink)
 
acesfull's Avatar
 
Last Online: Yesterday 08:52 PM
iTrader: (39)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 753
DNF$: 2,709
Location: Birmingham


Quote:
Originally Posted by dcristo View Post
I feel like pissing on lego toys right now
Deal! You piss on lego toys, and I'll go piss on Nissan cars!

Last edited by acesfull; 11-07-2007 at 01:51 PM..
acesfull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2007, 01:58 PM   #9 (permalink)
 
gingeman's Avatar
 
Name: Chris
Last Online: 11-20-2009 12:32 PM
iTrader: (64)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,514
DNF$: 796
Location: A95.com
Country:

Send a message via AIM to gingeman

What a silly venture on ther part- if it was lego.com it might be understandable that they would try and claim- but the domain holds no value to them and there is no confusion between their product and her use. The most damaging thing to their brand here is bad PR for pursuing this case...
__________________
FOR SALE NOW: W-U.com $6k
gingeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2007, 02:04 PM   #10 (permalink)
 
acesfull's Avatar
 
Last Online: Yesterday 08:52 PM
iTrader: (39)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 753
DNF$: 2,709
Location: Birmingham


Quote:
Originally Posted by gingeman View Post
What a silly venture on ther part- if it was lego.com it might be understandable that they would try and claim- but the domain holds no value to them and there is no confusion between their product and her use. The most damaging thing to their brand here is bad PR for pursuing this case...
Correct! The contested domain was: galleri-lego.dk!

This is this kind of sick abuse that runs up the cost of owning domains (or destroying well-intended individuals trying to make an honest living online with a single web address), and will make it harder and/or a LOT more expensive for new people and companies coming online to buy preowned domains. They have no idea the damage they do to others, nor do they care in the least.

Last edited by acesfull; 11-07-2007 at 02:09 PM..
acesfull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2007, 09:17 PM   #11 (permalink)
Platinum Lifetime Member
No Avatar
 
Name: Dave Zan
Last Online: 11-12-2009 09:55 PM
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,663
DNF$: 0
Location: Manila


Quote:
Originally Posted by dcristo View Post
Isn't the whole basis for TM infringement using the name in bad faith?
Unless I'm mistaken, it's likelihood of confusion.

The thing here is Lego is probably a famous trademark in Germany, and they
did believe they have some kind of exclusivity to it. The woman believes she
has a right to use her surname for her gallery as long as it's unrelated, and
it so happens both just can't agree.

Is the toymaker's view unfair? Maybe, but they have earned a considerable
amount of goodwill towards their brand for toys over the past few decades,
and many people can and do associate the name with them.

Can't the woman be allowed to use her last name for her gallery? I don't see
why not as long as it's not related or even infringing on someone's mark......
and didn't do some form of business with the mark holder too maybe.

But is Lego indeed doing this as a possible RNDH? I don't believe so, and I've
no reason to believe such so far, although that naturally won't stop others
from believing otherwise.

While it's preferable if a copy of the decision is available (which might be in
German anyway), I'll just hazard a guess here that this is a case where two
parties just couldn't resolve their differences and decided to ask a neutral
party to help out. The judge eventually ruled in the woman's favor, but has
ordered the toymaker to pay her court costs.

If anything, it appears fortunate that this German court, depending on their
laws, doesn't grant some kind of absolute exclusivity for trademark holders.
Each jurisdiction has their own definitions, but none are forced or compelled
to believe how another one does.

One thing I find good about this, though, is the so-called "loser" pays. Now
that I don't find unfair...so far.
__________________
Vidi, Vici, Veni!
Dave Zan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2007, 05:22 AM   #12 (permalink)
LLL or HELLL
 
dolansco's Avatar
 
Name: Gerry Brady
Last Online: Yesterday 08:13 PM
iTrader: (56)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,206
DNF$: 258
Location: Ireland
Country:

Send a message via MSN to dolansco Send a message via Skype™ to dolansco

Denmark , not Germany , for the record.
__________________
dolansco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2007, 06:31 AM   #13 (permalink)
Platinum Lifetime Member
No Avatar
 
Name: Dave Zan
Last Online: 11-12-2009 09:55 PM
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,663
DNF$: 0
Location: Manila


Damn it, Dannish, not German...ach...
__________________
Vidi, Vici, Veni!
Dave Zan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2007, 06:34 AM   #14 (permalink)
LLL or HELLL
 
dolansco's Avatar
 
Name: Gerry Brady
Last Online: Yesterday 08:13 PM
iTrader: (56)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,206
DNF$: 258
Location: Ireland
Country:

Send a message via MSN to dolansco Send a message via Skype™ to dolansco



But it was a good and fair result ..

it would be like Mcdonalds taking a stab at http://johnmcdonald.com/ ( random site - first one i made up in my head , and it resolved ) , but is a good example.
__________________
dolansco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2007, 07:03 AM   #15 (permalink)
Platinum Lifetime Member
 
Seraphim's Avatar
 
Last Online: Today 09:25 AM
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,077
DNF$: 1,397
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Country:


What was Lego thinking? The DNF needs a wall of shame where companies like this can be listed for all to see.
__________________
...
Seraphim is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2007, 10:09 AM   #16 (permalink)
DNF Addict
No Avatar
 
Name: James
Last Online: Today 04:42 AM
iTrader: (48)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,915
DNF$: 1,012
Location: UK
Country:


Quote:
Originally Posted by gingeman View Post
What a silly venture on ther part- if it was lego.com it might be understandable that they would try and claim- but the domain holds no value to them and there is no confusion between their product and her use. The most damaging thing to their brand here is bad PR for pursuing this case...
Well, another couple of lawyers made some dough. I wonder if Lego Toys will claim any of that $150,000 back from their lawyer - yeah right.....


Did someone mention Armani ?
jasdon11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2007, 10:53 AM   #17 (permalink)
 
acronym007's Avatar
 
Last Online: Today 08:39 AM
iTrader: (106)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,674
DNF$: 12,098
Location: USA
Country:

Send a message via AIM to acronym007

ebay claims to own everything with bay in it, perhaps they were reading about all of ebay's wins in court.
__________________
http://www.ecorporation.com
acronym007 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2007, 11:07 AM   #18 (permalink)
 
Onward's Avatar
 
Last Online: Today 09:28 AM
iTrader: (45)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,049
DNF$: 15,818
Location: Washington DC
Country:


I was considering buying a Nissan....that is now out of my consideration.
__________________
.

Find out who is sending that anonymous offer...
Search their e-mail address across over 40 social & business networking sites, blogs and forums.
Onward is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2007, 11:19 AM   #19 (permalink)
DNF Addict
 
DNQuest.com's Avatar
 
Last Online: 09-23-2008 04:35 PM
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,100
DNF$: 4,835
Location: Columbia, MD

Send a message via Yahoo to DNQuest.com

For clarification, usage plays a very important part of deciding TMs. If my name was John Ford and owned johnford.com and sold cars, you can bet your bottom dollar that if I was challenged, I would lose the name.
__________________
Track emails that you send, PM me to find out how....
DNQuest.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2007, 08:02 PM   #20 (permalink)
Platinum Lifetime Member
No Avatar
 
Name: Dave Zan
Last Online: 11-12-2009 09:55 PM
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,663
DNF$: 0
Location: Manila


Quote:
Originally Posted by Onward View Post
I was considering buying a Nissan....that is now out of my consideration.
FYI, one small but major difference between the Nissan dispute and this one
is Mr. Nissan's domain name (well currently anyway) displayed a car ad, and
that's essentially a no-no.

Just letting you know.
__________________
Vidi, Vici, Veni!
Dave Zan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:35 AM.
Copyright @2001-2009 DNForum.com