|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 14 2013 @ 01:31 PM EDT |
| I agree with these points. However, in London there were some examples of
long-standing small businesses such as the "Cafe Olympic" which had to change
its name.
See t
he result here. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 14 2013 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
Not sure if you were replying to my post or not PJ.
No chance of them getting confused by a bunch of knitters and crocheters on an
explicitly craft related social site that does not even advertise. The self
important snobs of the committee just have their knickers in a twist about
nothing.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: RichardB on Tuesday, May 14 2013 @ 04:29 PM EDT |
The London Olympics was covered by the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games
Act 2006. As such, it falls into a unique category, and it's somewhat pointless
to try to generalise, except possibly to Games held in other countries.
Unfortunately, like many other multinational organisations, the IOC had the
option of going elsewhere, where they might find the laws more amenable. One
might find that distasteful but that's the way it is.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Tyro on Tuesday, May 14 2013 @ 07:30 PM EDT |
The "Olympic" committee has a long history of abusive heavy-handed
tactics that are completely unjust. To defend them as being within the legal
framework of trademark law is to denigrate trademark law. Perhaps justly, I'm
not a lawyer. To me their tactics generally smack of extortion and monopoly
power at its abusive extreme. (The only reason most people don't notice, is
that the monopoly doesn't infringe on their lives directly.)
I have heard nothing about the abuse done by the London Olympic committee that
can't be matched by that done by at least one earlier version, though admittedly
the abusiveness seems to be getting thicker. This may be actual, or it may be
due to better communications.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
