[Sugar-devel] Fwd: [b2g] Introducing B2G to x86

Christian Stroetmann stroetmann at ontolab.com
Fri Feb 28 12:00:13 EST 2014

At this point I would like to mention some last words and then stop 
sending e-mails to this thread.

I am sorry to say that I could not tell you and others what I really 
wanted to say. Maybe, it was due to a language barrier on my side. Ich 
kann auch in Deutsch schreiben, falls es so leichter für alle 
Beteiligten und Interessierten ist.

So, a last time once again. In general, if a registered trademark is 
very well known by the public, or said in other words, if it is part of 
the colloquial language/common speech, then such a trademark can be 
deleted from a trademark registry, which surely results in an update of 
the WIPO ROMARIN database.
The registered trademark 'LEGO' is such a registered trademark, which 
has become a term/word of many common speeches worldwide, definitely. 
For example, a very common speech act is 'Let's play lego', like the 
speech act 'Let's google it'.

In this respect I wrote before, that I do not think that Lego is in 
control over its registered trademark 'LEGO' anymore, because I think 
that the term/word 'lego' is part of many common speeches worldwide and 
hence should be deleted from the related trademark registries 
respectively databases due to the legal rule that a term/word that 
belongs to a common speech is not qualified to be protected by the 
public as a registered trademark (anymore). I did not meant that the 
term/word 'lego' is not a registered trademark of Lego. I meant that 
Lego might loose it potentially due to the laws.

If the company Lego thinks that a person, group or corporation has 
infringed its trademark 'LEGO', wants to vigorously defend this 
infringement, and sues this person, group, or corporation, then Lego 
risks that the opposite party questions the legality of Lego's trademark 
registration and in this way start a legal process that in the end 
deletes the registered trademark 'LEGO' from the registry. In fact, here 
begins highly complex legal stuff even for the company Lego and it is 
already up to Lego how far it goes with its gambling in this specific 
case of the term/word 'lego' that is actually registered as the 
trademark 'LEGO'. By the way: A similar case at the courts was e.g. 
Lindows vs. Windows, that ended with a big cheque for the side of 
Lindows (see [2]).

This is how it works at least in Europe, and in this respect the 
statements on the referenced webpage of Lego (see [1]) have to be seen 
as well. In fact, some rules are simply said not as valid as Lego claims 
as part of its gambling.

Said this, the WIPO ROMARIN database does not contradict me regarding 
the registered trademark 'LEGO'.

By the way, the term/word 'sugar' is also part of common speech.

Have fun
Christian Stroetmann

[1] aboutus.lego.com/en-gb/legal-notice/fair-play 
[2] Wikipedia, Linspire en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindows

> WIPO's Romarin database contradicts you regarding the LEGO mark.
> LEGO vigorously defend infringement of their marks 
> (http://aboutus.lego.com/en-gb/legal-notice/fair-play).
> Sean
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Christian Stroetmann 
> <stroetmann at ontolab.com <mailto:stroetmann at ontolab.com>> wrote:
>     On Thu, 27.02.2014 01 <tel:27.02.2014%2001>:13, Bastien wrote:
>         Christian Stroetmann<stroetmann at ontolab.com
>         <mailto:stroetmann at ontolab.com>>  writes:
>             For sure, there is the One Tablet Per Child (OTPC)
>             respectively One
>             Pad Per Child (OPPC) project by my business division
>             intellitablet
>             since July 2012 (see [1]).
>         A trademark is not just about adding (TM) after a bunch of other
>         trademarks.
>         I doubt you officially registered "One Tablet Per Child".
>         I mean... "One LEGO Laptop Per Child (TM)"... a new trademark with
>         LEGO within it, seriously?
>     You are right and wrong. Indeed, the related laws are complex and
>     it needs some time and often support by an attorney for common
>     people to understand them a little. So please, ask a attorney, and
>     keep in mind that the terms are used commercially and are
>     copyrighted as well. That is also the reason, why a said in an
>     e-mail before, that the issue with the trademark is irrelevant here.
>     The point with LEGO in a new trademark is serious.
>     For example, if a registered trademark belongs to a common
>     language, which is the case if the trademark is known very well by
>     the public, like for example Lego, Windows, Google, Android, and
>     so on, then the trademark laws say, that it can be deleted from
>     the trademark register. Said this, I already doubt in this
>     specific case that the company LEGO has still control over the
>     trademark LEGO.
>     Nevertheless, it was meant as a place holder and an idea
>     contributer, if the company LEGO would be interested in such a One
>     LEGO Laptop Per Child (TM) device on the one hand and on the other
>     hand a mark that my company publicated the concept with this
>     title. There are more points to say, but again ask an attorney,
>     look at other laws, and so on, and respect my company's trademarks.
>     Regards
>     Christian Stroetmann
>     _______________________________________________
>     Sugar-devel mailing list
>     Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
>     <mailto:Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org>
>     http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20140228/e63648ea/attachment.html>

More information about the Sugar-devel mailing list