What is the best Arthurian show?

[Duggy]

Three versions of best:

1. Most fun to watch.
2. Best quality production.
3. Most "faithful" to sources.

Notes:
For me 1 is usually 2, but not always.
Obviously 3 is difficult has there is no single source, but some
things just seem to use the names and make this up from scratch,
others rely on a source or source...

===
= DUG.
===

[Bert Olton]

Before trying to come up with an answer, or answers, I've got to present
two caveats.

First, I have not kept up with film or television Arthuriana for more
than 10 years. Thus, my answers are going to be kind of dated.

Second, I'd ask if you mean by "show" a series or a single film? Of
course, you might also mean a play...Not trying to be a nit picking pain
in the neck, but there are so many...

Well, on second thought, I guess that is kind of nit picking and stupid.
Who cares, right? So here goes from my ancient perspective:

In category 1. "Most fun to watch", I'd vote for four titles:

the short lived series "Crusade", ditto "King Arthur the Young War
Lord", then the movie "The Natural" and also the movie, "Knightriders",
and more recently (yeah, here's a fifth title), the movie "The Mighty".
Ah, but how can one eliminate Boorman's "Excalibur" from "Fun to
watch", even if only for ragging on it? Or "The Fisher King"? Or,
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail"?...it goes on and on...


In category 2, "Best quality production", I'm going to bow out on any
input here. Too much of a "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
thing for me to be even remotely definitive about it...


In category 3, "Most "faithful" to sources", wow, again, a lot to
consider, but off the top of my head:

Rohmer's "Perceval le Gallois", Bresson's "Lancelot du Lac",...this list
too goes on and on...

It would almost be easier to enumerate abysmal versions...or perhaps
better yet, just for me to shut up.


Best regards,
Bert

--
To those who have served or are serving the cause of freedom, whether in
peace or in war, at home or abroad, thank you. Si vis pacem, para
bellum. "Let's roll!", Todd Beamer, United Airlines Flight 93,
September 11, 2001. http://www.canaltownanvil.org

[Steve Newport]

Lerner and Loewe's CAMELOT

**********************************
"March went out like a lion, a whippin' up the water in the bay..."--
Oscar Hammerstein II

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-04-09 00:45:07 +0000, Bert Olton said:
> the short lived series "Crusade",

You mean the one killed in 1998 when the TNT executives of the era
decided that it was too intellectual for their highly select audience
of droolin', beer-suckin', cousin-lovin', thirteen-toed wrasslin' fans?

--
John W Kennedy
Having switched to a Mac in disgust at Microsoft's combination of
incompetence and criminality.

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-04-09 04:36:55 +0000, Steve Newport said:
> Lerner and Loewe's CAMELOT

Purcell and Dryden's "King Arthur".

And (although it is on the frontier of Logres) Wagner's "Tristan und Isolde".

And Rodgers and Hart made a contribution, as I recall.

--
John W Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich
have always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Man Who Was Thursday"

[Bert Olton]

On 04/09/2012 06:10 PM, John W Kennedy wrote:
> On 2012-04-09 00:45:07 +0000, Bert Olton said:
>> the short lived series "Crusade",
>
> You mean the one killed in 1998 when the TNT executives of the era
> decided that it was too intellectual for their highly select audience of
> droolin', beer-suckin', cousin-lovin', thirteen-toed wrasslin' fans?
>

lol...wouldn't have gone that far in castigating anyone, but yup, that
was the one.

[caspar milquetoast]

On 10/04/2012 6:10 AM, John W Kennedy wrote:
> On 2012-04-09 00:45:07 +0000, Bert Olton said:
>> the short lived series "Crusade",
>
> You mean the one killed in 1998 when the TNT executives of the era
> decided that it was too intellectual for their highly select audience of
> droolin', beer-suckin', cousin-lovin', thirteen-toed wrasslin' fans?
>

Also known as 'Americans'?

[caspar milquetoast]

For me, they all go to the 1970s UK TV series, 'Arthur Of The Britons'
starring Oliver Tobias. It was aimed at teenagers and it showed, but
still did the real period (well, as real as the period can be for a
fictional character) than any of the others.

Anyone else remember that?

[Mason Barge]

For me, it would have to be "Excalibur", but it's extremely "artsy" and
not to most people's taste.

[caspar milquetoast]

On 10/04/2012 10:42 PM, Mason Barge wrote:
>
> For me, it would have to be "Excalibur", but it's extremely "artsy" and
> not to most people's taste.

Oh no, I found it very enjoyable as an interpretation of the medieval
romance. But I didn't like Merlin. Not Gandalfy enough.

[Bert Olton]

On 04/10/2012 04:04 AM, caspar milquetoast wrote:

> For me, they all go to the 1970s UK TV series, 'Arthur Of The Britons'
> starring Oliver Tobias. It was aimed at teenagers and it showed, but
> still did the real period (well, as real as the period can be for a
> fictional character) than any of the others.
>
> Anyone else remember that?

Absolutely. That's the one I cited in my initial answer to Duggy as
"King Arthur the Young War Lord" (the title it appears as in the U. S.).
It was excellent.

[Mason Barge]

Yeah, Merlin was a bit cutesy. OTOH, the scene where Uther impregnates
Igrayne (sp?) might well be the hottest sex scene ever put on film.

[Michael Black]

On Sun, 8 Apr 2012, Duggy wrote:

> Three versions of best:
>
> 1. Most fun to watch.
> 2. Best quality production.
> 3. Most "faithful" to sources.
>

Not a tv series, but I always liked the movie "Knightriders", where a
traveling troupe re-enacts the days of the round table, using motorcycles
as horses.

Oddly enough, a few weeks later, "Excalibur" came out, which I liked too,
though it was really the first time I saw the legend in a movie.

"Sword in the Stone" is pretty good too, in a different sort of cartoonish
way.

Michael

[Duggy]

On Apr 10, 8:10 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2012-04-09 00:45:07 +0000, Bert Olton said:
> > the short lived series "Crusade",
> You mean the one killed in 1998 when the TNT executives of the era
> decided that it was too intellectual for their highly select audience
> of droolin', beer-suckin', cousin-lovin', thirteen-toed wrasslin' fans?

Really? I thought it was massively dumbed down from B5.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 9, 11:03 am, T987654321 <qwrtz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Series:  Merlin (are there any others?)

More than one. More than one under that name.

If you mean the series rather than the mini-series, I don't sure it
tops any of the categories.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

The Babylon 5 spin-off? Surely there was more Arthur in B5 than
Crusade... or does just calling the ship Excaliber count?

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 10, 6:04 pm, caspar milquetoast <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote:
> For me, they all go to the 1970s UK TV series, 'Arthur Of The Britons'
> starring Oliver Tobias. It was aimed at teenagers and it showed, but
> still did the real period (well, as real as the period can be for a
> fictional character) than any of the others.

> Anyone else remember that?

Only from a quiz question on the James Bond newsgroup.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 11, 10:11 am, Bert Olton <artor...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> Absolutely.  That's the one I cited in my initial answer to Duggy as
> "King Arthur the Young War Lord" (the title it appears as in the U. S.).
>   It was excellent.

Dated?

===
= DUG.
===

[Dry Gulch Pete]

'Arthur of the Britons' rocks!
Oliver Tobias as Arfur, Michael Gothard as Lud or was it Nosmo King's
son, Hubert?

HTV West circa 1976 - I remember it well and I'm only 26! :-D

The two best Arthurs were that and 'The Adventures of Sir
Lancelot' (1956) starring William Russell as Lance and Bruce Seton/
Ronald Leigh-Hunt as Art!

--
DGP

[John W Kennedy]

In some ways, it was, by the direct instruction of TNT executives, who
wanted to kill the show without themselves breaking the contract,
deciding instead to incite Joe Straczynski to kill it with a string of
unreasonable demands. (It all came out several years later.)

But, in a sense, it is pointless to judge the show from the existing
episodes; the first arc episode was never even shot. (The plague was
never the real arc; it was a dummy improvised on the spur of the moment
to satisfy an executive who wanted an easy-to-remember slugline. Had
the show continued, the plague would have been wrapped up about the
middle of the second year.)

The real show that Joe planned is the reason that "Crusade" turned up
in this thread in the first place. It was to be about the process of
creating a new culture. Sheridan and Delenn were Arthur and Guinevere
(more White's version than otherwise), and the crew of the IAS
Excalibur were some of the new Round Table's top knights. The cast of
"Babylon 5" was deliberately scattered in the last few episodes of the
series so that they would be available as guest stars. (There was even
one episode written, but never filmed, involving Bester.)

--
John W Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://www.SKenSoftware.com/Double%20Falshood

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-04-15 22:38:23 +0000, Duggy said:

> On Apr 9, 10:45 am, Bert Olton <artor...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> On 04/08/2012 06:05 PM, Duggy wrote:
>>
>>> Three versions of best:
>>
>>> 1.  Most fun to watch.
>>> 2.  Best quality production.
>>> 3.  Most "faithful" to sources.
>>
>>> Notes:
>>> For me 1 is usually 2, but not always.
>>> Obviously 3 is difficult has there is no single source, but some
>>> things just seem to use the names and make this up from scratch,
>>> others rely on a source or source...
>>

>>> ==> > = DUG.
>>> ==>

>> Before trying to come up with an answer, or answers, I've got to present
>> two caveats.
>>
>> First, I have not kept up with film or television Arthuriana for more
>> than 10 years.  Thus, my answers are going to be kind of dated.
>>
>> Second, I'd ask if you mean by "show" a series or a single film?  Of
>> course, you might also mean a play...Not trying to be a nit picking pain
>> in the neck, but there are so many...
>>
>> Well, on second thought, I guess that is kind of nit picking and stupid.
>>   Who cares, right?  So here goes from my ancient perspective:
>>
>> In category 1. "Most fun to watch", I'd vote for four titles:
>> the short lived series "Crusade",
>
> The Babylon 5 spin-off? Surely there was more Arthur in B5 than
> Crusade... or does just calling the ship Excaliber count?

As I just said elsewhere on the thread, if the show had not been
aborted by toad-sucking rednecks before even the first episode aired,
it would have become very much a story in the tradition of White's
Arthur, about the building up of a new civilization.

[Your Name]

In article
<d8bda06b-b0a7-4baa...@is10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 11:03=A0am, T987654321 <qwrtz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Series: =A0Merlin (are there any others?)

>
> More than one. More than one under that name.
>
> If you mean the series rather than the mini-series, I don't sure it
> tops any of the categories.

The most recent British TV series' proper name is something like "The
Adventures of Merlin".

[Bert Olton]

On 04/15/2012 06:45 PM, Duggy wrote:
> Dated?
>
> ===
> = DUG.
> ===

1975. Oliver Tobias as Arthur, Jack Watson as Llud, Michael Gothard as
Kai, Brian Blessed as Mark of Cornwall, Peter Firth as Corin, Gila as
Rowena, Rupert Davies as Cerdic, George Marischka as Yorath...and so on.

Here's a question for you. Why is Rowena the daughter of a Jute in this
tv series, instead of the daughter of a Saxon as Geoffrey had it?

Or, better yet, why did the writers Stewart and Feely choose Llud
instead of Ector as Arthur's foster father? And why change his name
from the more original Lludd? Yup, he retains the silver arm/hand in
the show, but is he still the leader of the Danaans? Is he from Cymric
legend, or Gaelic? Or is this Nudd, or Nuada?

That the show raised such questions made it of value.

[Don Bruder]

In article
<YourName-160...@203-118-187-47.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,

As I understand it, and assuming we're both talking about the same
series, here in America the title is/was (not sure if it's still playing
here or not - I lost track of it a goodly while ago) simply "Merlin",
but some issue or other (Probably copyright/IP related, I'd imagine)
forced it to be repackaged as "The Adventures of Merlin" as a condition
of getting it on the air in Britain.

--
Email shown is deceased. If you would like to contact me by email, please
post something that makes it obvious in this or another group you see me
posting in with a "how to contact you" address, and I'll get back to you.

[Remysun]

On Apr 8, 6:05 pm, Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1.  Most fun to watch.
> 2.  Best quality production.
> 3.  Most "faithful" to sources.

The PBS Kids version from Marc Brown.

[Duggy]

On Apr 16, 11:14 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article

> <d8bda06b-b0a7-4baa-a07c-96308aaea...@is10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

>
> Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 11:03=A0am, T987654321 <qwrtz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Series: =A0Merlin (are there any others?)
>
> > More than one.  More than one under that name.
>
> > If you mean the series rather than the mini-series, I don't sure it
> > tops any of the categories.
>
> The most recent British TV series' proper name is something like "The
> Adventures of Merlin".

I've never seen it with that title.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 16, 12:10 pm, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> As I understand it, and assuming we're both talking about the same
> series, here in America the title is/was (not sure if it's still playing
> here or not - I lost track of it a goodly while ago) simply "Merlin",
> but some issue or other (Probably copyright/IP related, I'd imagine)
> forced it to be repackaged as "The Adventures of Merlin" as a condition
> of getting it on the air in Britain.

I don't think there'd be a copyright issue with the name "Merlin" as a
film/series title, it's too simple and public domain.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 16, 11:41 am, Bert Olton <artor...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> On 04/15/2012 06:45 PM, Duggy wrote:
>
> > Dated?

> 1975.

Sorry, I meant "is it dated?"

> Here's a question for you.  Why is Rowena the daughter of a Jute in this
> tv series, instead of the daughter of a Saxon as Geoffrey had it?

> Or, better yet, why did the writers Stewart and Feely choose Llud
> instead of Ector as Arthur's foster father?  And why change his name
> from the more original Lludd?  Yup, he retains the silver arm/hand in
> the show, but is he still the leader of the Danaans?   Is he from Cymric
> legend, or Gaelic?  Or is this Nudd, or Nuada?

> That the show raised such questions made it of value.

Why are any such changes made? The big things (although annoying)
sometimes make more sense than the little.

===
= DUG.
===

[Harold Groot]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

IMDB shows that title for a few places - but not the UK.

"Merlin" (2008) (TV series)
aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Australia, Hong Kong (English title)
(DVD title), International (English title)

aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Japan (English title) (DVD title)

[Your Name]

In article <jmfv1u$aiv$1...@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article
> <YourName-160...@203-118-187-47.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz>,
> Your...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > In article
> > <d8bda06b-b0a7-4baa...@is10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 9, 11:03=A0am, T987654321 <qwrtz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Series: =A0Merlin (are there any others?)
> > >
> > > More than one. More than one under that name.
> > >
> > > If you mean the series rather than the mini-series, I don't sure it
> > > tops any of the categories.
> >
> > The most recent British TV series' proper name is something like "The
> > Adventures of Merlin".
>
> As I understand it, and assuming we're both talking about the same
> series, here in America the title is/was (not sure if it's still playing
> here or not - I lost track of it a goodly while ago) simply "Merlin",
> but some issue or other (Probably copyright/IP related, I'd imagine)
> forced it to be repackaged as "The Adventures of Merlin" as a condition
> of getting it on the air in Britain.

Of course, being a British show, the British title is the correct one, but
even there the title seems to change depending on where you look and what
season it is ... maybe "The Adventures of Merlin" was too long for TV
listings (especially on-screen listings).

[Duggy]

On Apr 16, 4:08 pm, ques...@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>

The website of the Australian broadcaster:

http://ten.com.au/merlin.htm

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 16, 4:08 pm, ques...@infionline.net (Harold Groot) wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>

Interesting. I'm in Australian and hadn't seen that title.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 11, 12:42 am, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For me, it would have to be "Excalibur", but it's extremely "artsy" and
> not to most people's taste.

I enjoyed it.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 11, 9:29 am, caspar milquetoast <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote:
> On 10/04/2012 10:42 PM, Mason Barge wrote:
> > For me, it would have to be "Excalibur", but it's extremely "artsy" and
> > not to most people's taste.
> Oh no, I found it very enjoyable as an interpretation of the medieval
> romance.

Fair call.

> But I didn't like Merlin. Not Gandalfy enough.

I thought that was an advantage.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 12, 2:41 am, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 07:29:24 +0800, caspar milquetoast
> <b...@comswest.net.au> wrote:
> >On 10/04/2012 10:42 PM, Mason Barge wrote:

> >> For me, it would have to be "Excalibur", but it's extremely "artsy" and
> >> not to most people's taste.
> >Oh no, I found it very enjoyable as an interpretation of the medieval
> >romance. But I didn't like Merlin. Not Gandalfy enough.
> Yeah, Merlin was a bit cutesy.

I wouldn't say cutesy. Hammy a little, but with a sinister edge you
don't see enough in the character.

>  OTOH, the scene where Uther impregnates
> Igrayne (sp?) might well be the hottest sex scene ever put on film.

Well, when you're directing a sex scene with your own daughter in it
it's always going to be hot.

===
= DUG.
===

[tomcervo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjEcj8KpuJw&feature=related

[John W Kennedy]

Program listings in the US say "Merlin", but the opening title sequence
in the US actually reads "The Adventures of Merlin", though with
"Merlin" in much larger type.

There could easily have been some kind of trademark dispute with the
1998 all-star miniseries starring Sam Neill.

[Duggy]

How could one trademark the name "Merlin"?

===
= DUG.
===

[John W Kennedy]

You can trademark almost anything for a specific purpose (although, at
least in the US, you can't trademark a bare number -- that's why the
Intel 80586 was rechristened "Pentium"). You can't trademark "Merlin"
as a word, but it can be, and has been, trademarked for a number of
products and services, and can very likely be trademarked as the title
of a TV series.

[Your Name]

In article
<30f8c631-fb1f-4b66...@w6g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 17, 12:27=A0am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > On 2012-04-16 06:08:29 +0000, Harold Groot said:
> > > On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
> > > <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> On Apr 16, 12:10=3DA0pm, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > >>> As I understand it, and assuming we're both talking about the same

> > >>> series, here in America the title is/was (not sure if it's still play=

> ing
> > >>> here or not - I lost track of it a goodly while ago) simply "Merlin",
> > >>> but some issue or other (Probably copyright/IP related, I'd imagine)

> > >>> forced it to be repackaged as "The Adventures of Merlin" as a conditi=

> on
> > >>> of getting it on the air in Britain.
> >
> > >> I don't think there'd be a copyright issue with the name "Merlin" as a
> > >> film/series title, it's too simple and public domain.
> >
> > > IMDB shows that title for a few places - but not the UK.
> >
> > > "Merlin" (2008) (TV series)
> > > aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Australia, Hong Kong (English title)
> > > (DVD title), International (English title)
> >
> > > aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Japan (English title) (DVD title)
> >
> > Program listings in the US say "Merlin", but the opening title sequence
> > in the US actually reads "The Adventures of Merlin", though with
> > "Merlin" in much larger type.
> >
> > There could easily have been some kind of trademark dispute with the
> > 1998 all-star miniseries starring Sam Neill.
>
> How could one trademark the name "Merlin"?

There are numerous companies that already use "Merlin", so it would be
difficult.

[Duggy]

On Apr 17, 1:23 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> You can trademark almost anything for a specific purpose (although, at
> least in the US, you can't trademark a bare number -- that's why the
> Intel 80586 was rechristened "Pentium"). You can't trademark "Merlin"
> as a word, but it can be, and has been, trademarked for a number of
> products and services, and can very likely be trademarked as the title
> of a TV series.

Things are trademarkable as a title of a TV show?

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 17, 2:20 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article

> <30f8c631-fb1f-4b66-9b03-3b1a0bb99...@w6g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>, Duggy

And if "Merlin" was trademarked, wouldn't that make "The Adventures of
Merlin" a breach of that trademark?

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 17, 2:03 am, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article <njcoo7h95p50bf9blm2eqpuato5nkal...@4ax.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  jackb...@bright.net wrote:
> > Don Bruder wrote:
>
> > >In article <jmh8pf$ud...@news.albasani.net>,
> > > "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> > >> I believe the UK title is Merlin. There was no copyright issue in America,
> > >> just some Syfy channel programming executive who insisted on adding
> > >> The Adventures Of to the title card. In guide listings it's just Merlin.
>
> > >Like so much that goes on when it comes to TV programming, some idiot's
> > >whim would be just as likely a suspect as copyright/IP issues, I
> > >imagine. I can't remember where I read it, but something is tickling in
> > >the back of my head that there actually WAS a reason (however lame it
> > >might have been...) for the title change, and the "tickle" gets even
> > >stronger when I think the reason had to do with copyright/IP/trademark
> > >issues.
>
> > As NBC studios had a hand in the 1998 miniseries "Merlin," I can see
> > them particularly not wanting folk looking for_it_ to grab a 2008 BBC
> > production by mistake.
>
> I suspect we're talking about two different shows.
>
> The one absolutely certain detail I can remember that should distinguish
> the one I'm thinking of from any others that could be getting "talk
> time" in this thread was the CGI dragon, voiced by John Hurt. Most of
> the rest of it is kinda hazy - I mostly saw it while doped up on
> heavy-duty painkillers whilst recovering from the six broken ribs and
> assorted bruised and contused innards that a somewhat less than
> cooperative horse had bestowed upon me. Since that particular "life
> milepost" was roughly 3-4 years ago, the miniseries you speak of is
> definitely out of play as a possibility.

You're talking about the current series "Merlin" (2008) also known as
"The Adventures of Merlin" (it appears)

There was a 1998 mini-series also called "Merlin".

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 17, 1:26 am, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
> In article <jmhbv9$8t...@news.albasani.net>,

>  "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>

> > Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > >Like so much that goes on when it comes to TV programming, some idiot's
> > >whim would be just as likely a suspect as copyright/IP issues, I
> > >imagine. I can't remember where I read it, but something is tickling in
> > >the back of my head that there actually WAS a reason (however lame it
> > >might have been...) for the title change, and the "tickle" gets even
> > >stronger when I think the reason had to do with copyright/IP/trademark
> > >issues.
>

> > But titles cannot be copyrighted. How do you trademark a character you
> > didn't even create?
>
> Don't ask me. I'm just stating what I recall reading.

Where did you read it?

===
= DUG.
===

[caspar milquetoast]

On 16/04/2012 9:41 AM, Bert Olton wrote:
> On 04/15/2012 06:45 PM, Duggy wrote:
>> Dated?
>>
>> ===
>> = DUG.
>> ===
>
>
> 1975. Oliver Tobias as Arthur, Jack Watson as Llud, Michael Gothard as
> Kai, Brian Blessed as Mark of Cornwall, Peter Firth as Corin, Gila as
> Rowena, Rupert Davies as Cerdic, George Marischka as Yorath...and so on.

Brian Blessed! I forgot about him. Brilliant as Augustus in 'I
Claudius', and as King Richard IV in 'Blackadder I'.

[Your Name]

In article
<e1336a9f-3958-4f8f...@a8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 17, 2:20=A0pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > In article
> > <30f8c631-fb1f-4b66-9b03-3b1a0bb99...@w6g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
> > >

> > > How could one trademark the name "Merlin"?
> >
> > There are numerous companies that already use "Merlin", so it would be
> > difficult.
>
> And if "Merlin" was trademarked, wouldn't that make "The Adventures of
> Merlin" a breach of that trademark?

Maybe, maybe not.

The computer company "Apple" no doubt has their name protected through
every legal process and in every country, but there are still many other
companies using "Apple" in their name (there's an appliance reapir
company just along the road from me called "Apple Appliances", plus of
course the Beatles "Apple Corps").

Some names do lose their legal protection when they become common place in
the language (eg. aspirin, hoover, bandaid, escalator). There was an
article in the local newspaper last week about how this might happen with
Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for any tablet device.

[Duggy]

On Apr 17, 4:19 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> plus of
> course the Beatles "Apple Corps").

Ummm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

Apple Corp could only sue Apple once they got into music because Apple
Corp had TMs for music.

Trademarks are for different uses not just generally.

If you could trademark a title (and most proof is you can't) then
"Adventures of Merlin" would be in the same usage area as "Merlin".

> Some names do lose their legal protection when they become common place in
> the language (eg. aspirin, hoover, bandaid, escalator).

And some words are protected out of the box.

> There was an
> article in the local newspaper last week about how this might happen with
> Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for any tablet device.

Adobe have stupid "rules" on their TOS page about using the word
"Photoshop" to try to stop this.

===
= DUG.
===

[John W Kennedy]

I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs, but I know it is true of
comic books. Through a lengthy set of circumstances, DC owns the rights
to the old Fawcett character "Captain Marvel", but is not allowed to
use the name "Captain Marvel" as the title of a comic book. Their
customary substitute is "Shazam!".

I am not maintaining that it is definitely /true/ that the title
"Merlin" is encumbered. I have an adequate knowledge of neither the law
nor the facts in the case. But, from what I do know, it does seem
possible.

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-04-17 04:35:20 +0000, Duggy said:

> On Apr 17, 2:20 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>> In article
>> <30f8c631-fb1f-4b66-9b03-3b1a0bb99...@w6g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 17, 12:27=A0am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2012-04-16 06:08:29 +0000, Harold Groot said:
>>>>> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:36:45 -0700 (PDT), Duggy
>>>>> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Apr 16, 12:10=3DA0pm, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> As I understand it, and assuming we're both talking about the same

>>>>>>> series, here in America the title is/was (not sure if it's still play> > ing

>>>>>>> here or not - I lost track of it a goodly while ago) simply "Merlin",
>>>>>>> but some issue or other (Probably copyright/IP related, I'd imagine)

>>>>>>> forced it to be repackaged as "The Adventures of Merlin" as a conditi> > on

>>>>>>> of getting it on the air in Britain.
>>
>>>>>> I don't think there'd be a copyright issue with the name "Merlin" as a
>>>>>> film/series title, it's too simple and public domain.
>>
>>>>> IMDB shows that title for a few places - but not the UK.
>>
>>>>> "Merlin" (2008) (TV series)
>>>>> aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Australia, Hong Kong (English title)
>>>>> (DVD title), International (English title)
>>
>>>>> aka "The Adventures of Merlin" - Japan (English title) (DVD title)
>>
>>>> Program listings in the US say "Merlin", but the opening title sequence
>>>> in the US actually reads "The Adventures of Merlin", though with
>>>> "Merlin" in much larger type.
>>
>>>> There could easily have been some kind of trademark dispute with the
>>>> 1998 all-star miniseries starring Sam Neill.
>>> How could one trademark the name "Merlin"?
>> There are numerous companies that already use "Merlin", so it would be
>> difficult.
>
> And if "Merlin" was trademarked, wouldn't that make "The Adventures of
> Merlin" a breach of that trademark?

Not necessarily, since the /character/ Merlin is public-domain.

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-04-17 06:19:11 +0000, Your Name said:

> In article
> <e1336a9f-3958-4f8f...@a8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
> <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 17, 2:20=A0pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <30f8c631-fb1f-4b66-9b03-3b1a0bb99...@w6g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
>>>>
>>>> How could one trademark the name "Merlin"?
>>>
>>> There are numerous companies that already use "Merlin", so it would be
>>> difficult.
>>
>> And if "Merlin" was trademarked, wouldn't that make "The Adventures of
>> Merlin" a breach of that trademark?
>
> Maybe, maybe not.
>
> The computer company "Apple" no doubt has their name protected through
> every legal process and in every country, but there are still many other
> companies using "Apple" in their name (there's an appliance reapir
> company just along the road from me called "Apple Appliances", plus of
> course the Beatles "Apple Corps").

Which, in fact, led to considerable legal squabbling when Apple (via
iTunes) went into the music business.

> Some names do lose their legal protection when they become common place in
> the language (eg. aspirin, hoover, bandaid, escalator). There was an
> article in the local newspaper last week about how this might happen with
> Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for any tablet device.

"Hoover" has only lost its trademark status in the UK, and "aspirin"
was lost as part of WW1 reparations. But, yes, it is a danger, which is
why certain companies, such as Xerox, Coca-Cola, and Kimberly Clark
(makers of Kleenex) have legal staffs dedicated to watching for and
correcting generic usages.

[Your Name]

In article
<70192202-9e21-4eea...@qg3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Duggy

<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > There was an article in the local newspaper last week about how this
> > might happen with Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for any
> > tablet device.
>
> Adobe have stupid "rules" on their TOS page about using the word
> "Photoshop" to try to stop this.

And that's working out *so* "well" for them too. ;-)

[Duggy]

On Apr 18, 7:22 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article

> <70192202-9e21-4eea-a4e7-a9d31c44d...@qg3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Duggy

>
> <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > There was an article in the local newspaper last week about how this
> > > might happen with Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for any
> > > tablet device.
>
> > Adobe have stupid "rules" on their TOS page about using the word
> > "Photoshop" to try to stop this.
>
> And that's working out *so* "well" for them too.  ;-)

Yeah, it pointless, but they're trying.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

Exactly.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 17, 10:46 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > Things are trademarkable as a title of a TV show?
> I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs, but I know it is true of
> comic books.

No, it's not. Comic book titles aren't trademarked they're register
with the post master or something silly. That's why older comics
changed names or picked up old comic numbering... to continue on a
different name.

> Through a lengthy set of circumstances, DC owns the rights
> to the old Fawcett character "Captain Marvel",

Not lenghty. They purchased the rights when Fawcett when under.

> but is not allowed to
> use the name "Captain Marvel" as the title of a comic book. Their
> customary substitute is "Shazam!".

But not because of Trademark. If the name was trademarked they could
call a character Captain Marvel at all.

> I am not maintaining that it is definitely /true/ that the title
> "Merlin" is encumbered.

Since it has been called "Merlin" in most markets and especially since
it seems to have been called "The Adventures of Merlin" only in
markets where it was already called "Merlin" it is highly dubious.

> I have an adequate knowledge of neither the law
> nor the facts in the case. But, from what I do know, it does seem
> possible.

You don't seem to know much.

Generic book, movie and film titles are reused often. And "Merlin" is
a very generic title.

===
= DUG.
===

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-04-17 21:33:34 +0000, Duggy said:

> On Apr 17, 10:46 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Things are trademarkable as a title of a TV show?
>> I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs, but I know it is true of
>> comic books.
>
> No, it's not. Comic book titles aren't trademarked they're register
> with the post master or something silly. That's why older comics
> changed names or picked up old comic numbering... to continue on a
> different name.

It is true that Post-Office registration was a reason that new titles
were frequently, by a legal fiction, continuations of other titles, but
a moment's thought shows that that argues /against/ your point, not for
it. In any case, the strategem is no longer in use.

>> Through a lengthy set of circumstances, DC owns the rights
>> to the old Fawcett character "Captain Marvel",
>
> Not lenghty. They purchased the rights when Fawcett when under.

No. It is possible that when DC bought the rights to the Marvel Family
in 1991 it had something to do with the leveraged buyout of Fawcett in
1988, but DC had bought the rights to Captain Marvel, himself, in 1972,
and the entire affair had started all the way back in the 1940s when DC
sued Fawcett with the claim that Captain Marvel infringed on Superman.
Fawcett shut down its comics operation in the 50s, and agreed to settle
the case with DC, but it was another generation before someone had the
bright idea to solve the problem by having DC buy Cap from Fawcett.

>> but is not allowed to
>> use the name "Captain Marvel" as the title of a comic book. Their
>> customary substitute is "Shazam!".
>
> But not because of Trademark. If the name was trademarked they could
> call a character Captain Marvel at all.

Arguing in a circle.

>> I am not maintaining that it is definitely /true/ that the title
>> "Merlin" is encumbered.
>
> Since it has been called "Merlin" in most markets and especially since
> it seems to have been called "The Adventures of Merlin" only in
> markets where it was already called "Merlin" it is highly dubious.

That makes no sense at all.

>> I have an adequate knowledge of neither the law
>> nor the facts in the case. But, from what I do know, it does seem
>> possible.
>
> You don't seem to know much.

Are you an IP lawyer? Are you privy to the contracts involved? Do you
know why the show, whether or not it is listed as "Merlin" in
programming guides, actually says "The Adventures of Merlin" in the
credits?

[Your Name]

In article
<5a595c4f-878d-4e9e...@is10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

There was an article in the local newspaper yesterday about the Sanitarium
company, a breakfast cereal maker (among other things) here in New
Zealand, taking a local store owner to court. Sanitarium makes a cereal
called "Weetbix" and apparently they don't like the importer (who has all
of ONE litle store selling only imported British foods) selling a British
cereal called "Weetabix". :-\

There was a similar issue a while back with Sanitarium who are the New
Zealand maker of Marmite (or is it Vegemite?) taking another British food
importer to court because they were selling the British version in their
single store, possibly the same importer.

Of course, being a big company with piles of money, Sanitarium won the
Marmite / Vegemite one and will win the Weetbix / Weetabix one too.

[Duggy]

On Apr 18, 4:41 pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article

> <5a595c4f-878d-4e9e-97d7-22fc73e28...@is10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

I think vegemite (In Australia) is Kraft not Sanitarium, so probably
Marmite in the story. Silly stuff.

Of course, there was somewhere in Asia where Apple failed to register
iPad before a local company and tried to sue.

===
= DUG.
====

[Duggy]

On Apr 18, 12:59 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2012-04-17 21:33:34 +0000, Duggy said:
> > On Apr 17, 10:46 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >>> Things are trademarkable as a title of a TV show?
> >> I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs, but I know it is true of
> >> comic books.
> > No, it's not.  Comic book titles aren't trademarked they're register
> > with the post master or something silly.  That's why older comics
> > changed names or picked up old comic numbering... to continue on a
> > different name.

> It is true that Post-Office registration was a reason that new titles
> were frequently, by a legal fiction, continuations of other titles, but
> a moment's thought shows that that argues /against/ your point, not for
> it. In any case, the strategem is no longer in use.

No, because you could not register a second title.

> >> Through a lengthy set of circumstances, DC owns the rights
> >> to the old Fawcett character "Captain Marvel",
> > Not lenghty.  They purchased the rights when Fawcett when under.
> No. It is possible that when DC bought the rights to the Marvel Family
> in 1991 it had something to do with the leveraged buyout of Fawcett in
> 1988, but DC had bought the rights to Captain Marvel, himself, in 1972,
> and the entire affair had started all the way back in the 1940s when DC
> sued Fawcett with the claim that Captain Marvel infringed on Superman.
> Fawcett shut down its comics operation in the 50s, and agreed to settle
> the case with DC, but it was another generation before someone had the
> bright idea to solve the problem by having DC buy Cap from Fawcett.

In the 70s they licensed CM, not purchased.

All the extra information is meaningless to the fact that DC bought
the rights.

DC brought the rights to Charlton characters without all the extra
goings on.

> > But not because of Trademark.  If the name was trademarked they could
> > call a character Captain Marvel at all.
> Arguing in a circle.

No. If the name "Captain Marvel" was trademarked, then they could not
use the name inside the comic. "Batman" is trademarked, Marvel can't
use the name. Captain Marvel isn't.

The comic titles are a different issue.

> >> I am not maintaining that it is definitely /true/ that the title
> >> "Merlin" is encumbered.
> > Since it has been called "Merlin" in most markets and especially since
> > it seems to have been called "The Adventures of Merlin" only in
> > markets where it was already called "Merlin" it is highly dubious.
> That makes no sense at all.

Exactly.

In Australia Ten broadcasts it as "Merlin", the DVD is issued as "The
Adventures of Merlin". Someone noted on FTA in the US it was called
"Merlin" on cable it was called "The Adventures of Merlin." Copyright
is not the issue.

> Are you an IP lawyer? Are you privy to the contracts involved? Do you
> know why the show, whether or not it is listed as "Merlin" in
> programming guides, actually says "The Adventures of Merlin" in the
> credits?

No. No. Yes.

The words "The Adventures of" do not appear in the opening credits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYTY-3J4vvk

Please pay attention. The versions with the name change add those
word.

===
= DUG.
===

[Your Name]

In article
<6c080af6-205d-48ba...@qg3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 18, 4:41=A0pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > In article
> > <5a595c4f-878d-4e9e-97d7-22fc73e28...@is10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Apr 18, 7:22=3DA0am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <70192202-9e21-4eea-a4e7-a9d31c44d...@qg3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >

> > > > > > There was an article in the local newspaper last week about how t=
> his
> > > > > > might happen with Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for =

> any
> > > > > > tablet device.
> >
> > > > > Adobe have stupid "rules" on their TOS page about using the word
> > > > > "Photoshop" to try to stop this.
> >

> > > > And that's working out *so* "well" for them too. =A0;-)

> >
> > > Yeah, it pointless, but they're trying.
> >

> > There was an article in the local newspaper yesterday about the Sanitariu=

> m
> > company, a breakfast cereal maker (among other things) here in New
> > Zealand, taking a local store owner to court. Sanitarium makes a cereal

> > called "Weet-bix" and apparently they don't like the importer (who has all

> > of ONE litle store selling only imported British foods) selling a British
> > cereal called "Weetabix". :-\
> >
> > There was a similar issue a while back with Sanitarium who are the New
> > Zealand maker of Marmite (or is it Vegemite?) taking another British food
> > importer to court because they were selling the British version in their
> > single store, possibly the same importer.
> >
> > Of course, being a big company with piles of money, Sanitarium won the

> > Marmite / Vegemite one and will win the Weet-bix / Weetabix one too.

>
> I think vegemite (In Australia) is Kraft not Sanitarium, so probably
> Marmite in the story. Silly stuff.

"Silly"?!? If you mean the product, then that's being polite - Marmite and
Vegemite both taste like I imagine horse manure would, and smell like it
too. :-(

Both stories are just Santiarium throwing their weight around as a big
company. They claim having towo similar / same name products would confuse
buyers ... but that's ridiculous since the Britsh product is sold only in
a few specifically "British food" shops.

> Of course, there was somewhere in Asia where Apple failed to register
> iPad before a local company and tried to sue.

Apple registered "iPad" everywhere and bought the Chinese rights to the
name from a company selling basically a computer under that name. The
problem is that the company apparently had two parts - one that Apple
dealt with (in Hong Kong?) and another in China itself which is now trying
to claim that the original agreement didn't include them ... largely
because that company is going bankrupt and so are trying to screw more
money out of Apple.

[Your Name]

In article
<6c080af6-205d-48ba...@qg3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 18, 4:41=A0pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > In article
> > <5a595c4f-878d-4e9e-97d7-22fc73e28...@is10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On Apr 18, 7:22=3DA0am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <70192202-9e21-4eea-a4e7-a9d31c44d...@qg3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >

> > > > > > There was an article in the local newspaper last week about how t=
> his
> > > > > > might happen with Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for =

> any
> > > > > > tablet device.
> >
> > > > > Adobe have stupid "rules" on their TOS page about using the word
> > > > > "Photoshop" to try to stop this.
> >

> > > > And that's working out *so* "well" for them too. =A0;-)

> >
> > > Yeah, it pointless, but they're trying.
> >

> > There was an article in the local newspaper yesterday about the Sanitariu=

> m
> > company, a breakfast cereal maker (among other things) here in New
> > Zealand, taking a local store owner to court. Sanitarium makes a cereal

> > called "Weet-bix" and apparently they don't like the importer (who has all

> > of ONE litle store selling only imported British foods) selling a British
> > cereal called "Weetabix". :-\
> >
> > There was a similar issue a while back with Sanitarium who are the New
> > Zealand maker of Marmite (or is it Vegemite?) taking another British food
> > importer to court because they were selling the British version in their
> > single store, possibly the same importer.
> >
> > Of course, being a big company with piles of money, Sanitarium won the

> > Marmite / Vegemite one and will win the Weet-bix / Weetabix one too.

>
> I think vegemite (In Australia) is Kraft not Sanitarium, so probably
> Marmite in the story. Silly stuff.

"Silly"?!? If you mean the product, then that's being polite - Marmite and
Vegemite both taste like I imagine horse manure would, and smell like it
too. :-(

Both stories are just Santiarium throwing their weight around as a big

company. They claim having two similar / same name products would confuse

buyers ... but that's ridiculous since the Britsh product is sold only in
a few specifically "British food" shops.

> Of course, there was somewhere in Asia where Apple failed to register
> iPad before a local company and tried to sue.

[Duggy]

On Apr 19, 8:11 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article

> <6c080af6-205d-48ba-ab39-7fd4a4593...@qg3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Duggy

> > I think vegemite (In Australia) is Kraft not Sanitarium, so probably
> > Marmite in the story.  Silly stuff.
> "Silly"?!? If you mean the product,

No, the suings.

> then that's being polite - Marmite and
> Vegemite both taste like I imagine horse manure would, and smell like it
> too.  :-(

I'm not a fan of it myself.

> > Of course, there was somewhere in Asia where Apple failed to register
> > iPad before a local company and tried to sue.

> Apple registered "iPad" everywhere and bought the Chinese rights to the
> name from a company selling basically a computer under that name. The
> problem is that the company apparently had two parts - one that Apple
> dealt with (in Hong Kong?) and another in China itself which is now trying
> to claim that the original agreement didn't include them ... largely
> because that company is going bankrupt and so are trying to screw more
> money out of Apple.

That's Apple's version.

===
= DUG.
===

[Your Name]

In article
<a96c803c-c81e-4071...@ot8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
<p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 19, 8:11=A0am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> > In article
> > <6c080af6-205d-48ba-ab39-7fd4a4593...@qg3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Duggy
> > >

> > > Of course, there was somewhere in Asia where Apple failed to register
> > > iPad before a local company and tried to sue.
>
> > Apple registered "iPad" everywhere and bought the Chinese rights to the
> > name from a company selling basically a computer under that name. The
> > problem is that the company apparently had two parts - one that Apple
> > dealt with (in Hong Kong?) and another in China itself which is now
> > trying to claim that the original agreement didn't include them ...
> > largely because that company is going bankrupt and so are trying to
> > screw more money out of Apple.
>
> That's Apple's version.

Given the Chinese company's money problems and the strange legal workings
in China, I'd easily believe Apple.

[Duggy]

On Apr 19, 11:14 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> Given the Chinese company's money problems and the strange legal workings
> in China, I'd easily believe Apple.

This started before the money problems.

===
= DUG.
===

[caspar milquetoast]

On 17/04/2012 8:46 PM, John W Kennedy wrote:
> On 2012-04-17 04:34:07 +0000, Duggy said:
>
>> On Apr 17, 1:23 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>> You can trademark almost anything for a specific purpose (although, at
>>> least in the US, you can't trademark a bare number -- that's why the
>>> Intel 80586 was rechristened "Pentium"). You can't trademark "Merlin"
>>> as a word, but it can be, and has been, trademarked for a number of
>>> products and services, and can very likely be trademarked as the title
>>> of a TV series.
>>
>> Things are trademarkable as a title of a TV show?
>
> I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs, but I know it is true of
> comic books. Through a lengthy set of circumstances, DC owns the rights
> to the old Fawcett character "Captain Marvel", but is not allowed to use
> the name "Captain Marvel" as the title of a comic book. Their customary
> substitute is "Shazam!".
>
> I am not maintaining that it is definitely /true/ that the title
> "Merlin" is encumbered. I have an adequate knowledge of neither the law
> nor the facts in the case. But, from what I do know, it does seem possible.

Surely Captain Marvel is a distinct and invented name of contemporary
fiction, and therefore some kind of legal control could be exercised
over it. The name Merlin however, is an ancient and culturally common
name used in many sources and is not anyone's to own.

[Duggy]

It could, but it wasn't. Or Marvel did and the previous version made
enforcing that untenable.

> The name Merlin however, is an ancient and culturally common
> name used in many sources and is not anyone's to own.

True.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 9, 10:45 am, Bert Olton <artor...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> Or,
> "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"?...it goes on and on...

Good call.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

Public Domain is a copyright issue, not a trademark issue.

Most of Tarzan is public domain (out of copyright) but the name is
still trademarked. You can republish ERB's "Tarzan of the Apes" but
you can't put "Tarzan" on the cover.

===
= DUG.
===

[Dragon Lady]

"Your Name" <Your...@YourISP.com> wrote in message
news:YourName-170...@203-118-187-35.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz...

> In article
> <e1336a9f-3958-4f8f...@a8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>, Duggy
> <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 17, 2:20=A0pm, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <30f8c631-fb1f-4b66-9b03-3b1a0bb99...@w6g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Duggy
>> > >
>> > > How could one trademark the name "Merlin"?
>> >
>> > There are numerous companies that already use "Merlin", so it would be
>> > difficult.
>>
>> And if "Merlin" was trademarked, wouldn't that make "The Adventures of
>> Merlin" a breach of that trademark?
>
> Maybe, maybe not.
>
> The computer company "Apple" no doubt has their name protected through
> every legal process and in every country, but there are still many other
> companies using "Apple" in their name (there's an appliance reapir
> company just along the road from me called "Apple Appliances", plus of
> course the Beatles "Apple Corps").
>

I fail to see how anyone could trademark a name like Apple, which is a
common fruit and has probably been around for as long as the English
language has existed.

> Some names do lose their legal protection when they become common place in
> the language (eg. aspirin, hoover, bandaid, escalator). There was an
> article in the local newspaper last week about how this might happen with
> Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for any tablet device.

Kleenix is the common example. They did too good a job of marketing the
name, and it became common usage for any tissue used to clear the sinuses.

[Duggy]

On Apr 22, 8:05 pm, "Dragon Lady" <sgts...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I fail to see how anyone could trademark a name like Apple, which is a
> common fruit and has probably been around for as long as the English
> language has existed.

Anglo-Saxon: æppel, which just I think meant "a fruit".

They trademarked "Apple Inc" I think, and in relation to non-fruit
things.

Although when it comes to people who sell fruit, Apple is suing over
this logo breaching their trademark:

http://zeropaper.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Woolworths-Logo.jpg

===
= DUG.
===

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <jn0l5u$nfk$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dragon Lady"

<sgt...@comcast.net> writes:

> I fail to see how anyone could trademark a name like Apple, which is a
> common fruit and has probably been around for as long as the English
> language has existed.

Basically, you can trademark it as long as it does not refer to an
actual apple. In that case, your objection applies. But someone
INVENTED the idea of Apple Records, or Apple Computer, so in that case
it is trademarkable.

> > Some names do lose their legal protection when they become common place in
> > the language (eg. aspirin, hoover, bandaid, escalator). There was an
> > article in the local newspaper last week about how this might happen with
> > Apple's "iPad" becoming the universal name for any tablet device.
>

> Kleenix is the common example. They did too good a job of marketing the
> name, and it became common usage for any tissue used to clear the sinuses.

Some names lose their legal protection, and some names become generic
identifiers for similar products, but these two things are independent.
In particular, nothing loses its legal protection BECAUSE it becomes a
generic identifier.

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article
<decd1558-96d0-4928...@k7g2000pbo.googlegroups.com>,

Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Apr 22, 8:05 pm, "Dragon Lady" <sgts...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > I fail to see how anyone could trademark a name like Apple, which is a
> > common fruit and has probably been around for as long as the English
> > language has existed.
>

> Anglo-Saxon: æppel, which just I think meant "a fruit".

Whether or not that is true, that has no bearing on trademarks today.

> They trademarked "Apple Inc" I think, and in relation to non-fruit
> things.

More specifically in relation to computer things. When Apple entered
the music market, they discovered that someone else had already
trademarked "Apple" in relation to music. A settlement was reached, and
the computer company paid money.

> Although when it comes to people who sell fruit, Apple is suing over
> this logo breaching their trademark:
>
> http://zeropaper.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Woolworths-Logo.jpg

Yes, that's fine. If they are using Apple's logo for some purpose not
authorized by Apple, then of course Apple can sue. What they cannot and
do not sue for, of course, is people using "apple" to refer to apples.

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-04-22 12:46:12 +0000, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply said:
> In article
> <decd1558-96d0-4928...@k7g2000pbo.googlegroups.com>,
> Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Apr 22, 8:05 pm, "Dragon Lady" <sgts...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> I fail to see how anyone could trademark a name like Apple, which is a
>>> common fruit and has probably been around for as long as the English
>>> language has existed.
>>
>> Anglo-Saxon: æppel, which just I think meant "a fruit".
>
> Whether or not that is true, that has no bearing on trademarks today.
>
>> They trademarked "Apple Inc" I think, and in relation to non-fruit
>> things.
>
> More specifically in relation to computer things. When Apple entered
> the music market, they discovered that someone else had already
> trademarked "Apple" in relation to music. A settlement was reached, and
> the computer company paid money.

Oh, they knew about Apple (Beatles). They had been through it before,
long ago, when it was resolved by declaring that Apple wouldn't sell
music and the Beatles wouldn't sell computers.

>> Although when it comes to people who sell fruit, Apple is suing over
>> this logo breaching their trademark:
>>
>> http://zeropaper.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Woolworths-Logo.jpg
>
> Yes, that's fine. If they are using Apple's logo for some purpose not
> authorized by Apple, then of course Apple can sue. What they cannot and
> do not sue for, of course, is people using "apple" to refer to apples.

I suspect this is one of those trademark suits where Apple will be just
as happy if they lose, provided that the loss is on the grounds that
the two logos aren't similar enough; it satisfies their burden of
defense.

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <4f94128c$0$23224$607e...@cv.net>, John W Kennedy

<jwk...@attglobal.net> writes:

> Oh, they knew about Apple (Beatles). They had been through it before,
> long ago, when it was resolved by declaring that Apple wouldn't sell
> music and the Beatles wouldn't sell computers.

Right, and that changed when Apple started selling music.

[Don Bruder]

In article <jn0rni$1h7$1...@online.de>,
hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply)
wrote:

Actually, you've got that part exactly wrong - Becoming a generic
identifier is the entire reason that the legal protection is lost.

A company has to walk a fine line between protecting its trademarks and
being perceived as too draconic to do business with. If they aren't
vigorous enough in their enforcement efforts, the courts will tell them
they're out of luck, and they'll lose the trademark. If they're too
vigorous, they'll alienate the customers that make the trademark worth
having. At least one court ruling has said that NOT being so draconic
you drive customers away is proof that you're not enforcing your
trademark rights vigorously enough.

--
Email shown is deceased. If you would like to contact me by email, please
post something that makes it obvious in this or another group you see me
posting in with a "how to contact you" address, and I'll get back to you.

[Your Name]

In article <jn0uik$3sc$2...@online.de>, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de

(Phillip Helbig---undress to reply) wrote:

The Woolworths logo isn't even remotely the same as the Apple logo, but
apparently the lawyers think people will get confused. More likely the
greedy lawyers couldn't think of anything better to do that week to "earn"
they over-bloated pay packets. :-\

The exact same Woolworths logo is being used in New Zealand for the
Countdown supermarkets. The company which owns the New Zealand supermart
chains Countdown, Foodtown and Woolworths, is now re-branding all the
stores as Countdown ... but I don't think they have any connection to the
Australian Woolworths.

On the other side of the coin, all the Shell petrol stations in New
Zealand were bought by another company which doesn't want to pay to
continue using the international logo and name, so they are re-branding
the petrol stations as "Z".

[Your Name]

This is the recent Associated Press article about how the iPad may become
a generic name for all tablets:
<http://www.theeagle.com/nation/Will-iPads-go-the-way-of-aspirin-and-Kleenex---7087012>
One of many links around the Internet to the same basic news item.

[Duggy]

On Apr 23, 7:17 am, YourN...@YourISP.com (Your Name) wrote:
> In article <jn0uik$3s...@online.de>, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de

> (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply) wrote:
>
> > In article

> > <decd1558-96d0-4928-a774-f3bc1e91b...@k7g2000pbo.googlegroups.com>,

> > Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > > Although when it comes to people who sell fruit, Apple is suing over
> > > this logo breaching their trademark:
>
> > >http://zeropaper.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Woolworths-Logo.jpg
>
> > Yes, that's fine.  If they are using Apple's logo for some purpose not
> > authorized by Apple, then of course Apple can sue.  What they cannot and
> > do not sue for, of course, is people using "apple" to refer to apples.
>
> The Woolworths logo isn't even remotely the same as the Apple logo, but
> apparently the lawyers think people will get confused. More likely the
> greedy lawyers couldn't think of anything better to do that week to "earn"
> they over-bloated pay packets.  :-\

Agreed. I think that Phillip is blind. Or stupid. Or both.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 22, 10:46 pm, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---

undress to reply) wrote:
> In article
> <decd1558-96d0-4928-a774-f3bc1e91b...@k7g2000pbo.googlegroups.com>,
>

> Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Apr 22, 8:05 pm, "Dragon Lady" <sgts...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > I fail to see how anyone could trademark a name like Apple, which is a
> > > common fruit and has probably been around for as long as the English
> > > language has existed.
> > Anglo-Saxon: æppel, which just I think meant "a fruit".
> Whether or not that is true,

It is. I did Old English at university.

> that has no bearing on trademarks today.

Agreed.

> > They trademarked "Apple Inc" I think, and in relation to non-fruit
> > things.
> More specifically in relation to computer things.

A lot of companies will try to trademark it in as many things as
possible.

>  When Apple entered
> the music market, they discovered that someone else had already
> trademarked "Apple" in relation to music.

No, they already knew. There was already an agreement between Apple
Corp and Apple Inc.

> > Although when it comes to people who sell fruit, Apple is suing over
> > this logo breaching their trademark:
> >http://zeropaper.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Woolworths-Logo.jpg

> Yes, that's fine.  If they are using Apple's logo for some purpose not
> authorized by Apple, then of course Apple can sue.

That's not Apple's logo. That's a "W" (for "Woolworths" shaped like
an apple, but without the bite.)

> What they cannot and
> do not sue for, of course, is people using "apple" to refer to apples.

Please go on stating the already agreed upon facts.

===
= DUG.
===

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-04-22 21:17:12 +0000, Your Name said:

> In article <jn0uik$3sc$2...@online.de>, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de
> (Phillip Helbig---undress to reply) wrote:
>> In article
>> <decd1558-96d0-4928...@k7g2000pbo.googlegroups.com>,
>> Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Although when it comes to people who sell fruit, Apple is suing over
>>> this logo breaching their trademark:
>>>
>>> http://zeropaper.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Woolworths-Logo.jpg
>>
>> Yes, that's fine. If they are using Apple's logo for some purpose not
>> authorized by Apple, then of course Apple can sue. What they cannot and
>> do not sue for, of course, is people using "apple" to refer to apples.
>
> The Woolworths logo isn't even remotely the same as the Apple logo, but
> apparently the lawyers think people will get confused.

/Or/ they think that some third party might be able to make a case that
people could be easily be confused and that Apple didn't respond.

[Duggy]

On Apr 23, 1:18 am, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <4f94128c$0$23224$607ed...@cv.net>, John W Kennedy

>
> <jwke...@attglobal.net> writes:
> > Oh, they knew about Apple (Beatles). They had been through it before,
> > long ago, when it was resolved by declaring that Apple wouldn't sell
> > music and the Beatles wouldn't sell computers.
>
> Right, and that changed when Apple started selling music.

So you're changing your story?

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 23, 8:18 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> /Or/ they think that some third party might be able to make a case that
> people could be easily be confused and that Apple didn't respond.

It will also be a very public warning for people to stay away from
things that look like their logo.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 23, 12:15 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> I suspect this is one of those trademark suits where Apple will be just
> as happy if they lose, provided that the loss is on the grounds that
> the two logos aren't similar enough; it satisfies their burden of
> defense.

I think it's a long-term thing.

Woolworths, is a grocery chain, are using the shown "fresh food"
logo. It (and it's major rival) are doing 2 things at the moment:
Filling shelves with cheaper goods with the store name on it to
control and expanding by buying/establishing other chain stores
(record shops, hardware places, etc).

Apple is afraid if these 2 thing collide they that logo will be on
Woolworth Electronic Goods.

Or so they claimed.

===
= DUG.
===

[Dragon Lady]

"Duggy" <p.allan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:decd1558-96d0-4928...@k7g2000pbo.googlegroups.com...

Right. Because their customers are so stupid, they'll mistake a company
selling food for one selling computers.

Do you think they realize how stupid it makes them look?

[Dragon Lady]

"Phillip Helbig---undress to reply" <hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de> wrote
in message news:jn0uik$3sc$2...@online.de...

That might make sense if the logo actually looked like Apple's logo, which,
if I'm not mistaken. looks like an apple with a bite taken out of it. This
thing doesn't look anything like that.

[Your Name]

In article <jn2o9s$b35$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dragon Lady"

The Woolworths logo looks like an apple peel curled back up to vaguely
resemble an apple (or more precisely a letter "W"). :-)

[Your Name]

In article <jn2o55$afi$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dragon Lady"

Technically Woolworths was originally a supermarket / grocery store which
is meant to sell food ... unfortunately like many greedy businesses
they've also moved to sell some magazines, books, DVDs, toys, stationery,
small electric appliances, mobile phones, etc.

[Duggy]

On Apr 23, 3:08 pm, "Dragon Lady" <sgts...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Duggy" <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> wrote in message

It's Apple, their users do that for them.

===
= DUG.
===

[John W Kennedy]

Lest non-Australians be confused here, Australian Woolworths is a
supermarket/grocery store chain that copied its name from the American
(and elsewhere) F. W. Woolworth department-store chain.

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <jn1dgc$rts$1...@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net>

writes:

> > Some names lose their legal protection, and some names become generic
> > identifiers for similar products, but these two things are independent.
> > In particular, nothing loses its legal protection BECAUSE it becomes a
> > generic identifier.
>

> Actually, you've got that part exactly wrong - Becoming a generic
> identifier is the entire reason that the legal protection is lost.

Reference please? How should a company such as Johnson and Johnson
prevent people from using "Kleenex" as a generic term? That's what
we're talking about. Other companies can't use it as a generic term.
OK, if they did, and the owner didn't complain, then maybe that could
lead to loss of legal protection, but that is not what one generally
means by "becoming a generic term". As far as I know, no other company
calls their tissues "Kleenex" but nevertheless it is still a generic
term and, as far as I know, still a trademark.

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article
<73fa02c7-018f-49c1...@ri8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> writes:

> Agreed. I think that Phillip is blind. Or stupid. Or both.

Should I publish my street address and a description so that you can
send the people over to kill me? Might as well get it over with.

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-04-23 20:57:09 +0000, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply said:

> In article <jn1dgc$rts$1...@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net>
> writes:
>
>>> Some names lose their legal protection, and some names become generic
>>> identifiers for similar products, but these two things are independent.
>>> In particular, nothing loses its legal protection BECAUSE it becomes a
>>> generic identifier.
>>
>> Actually, you've got that part exactly wrong - Becoming a generic
>> identifier is the entire reason that the legal protection is lost.
>
> Reference please? How should a company such as Johnson and Johnson
> prevent people from using "Kleenex" as a generic term?

By writing letters to publishers, writers, TV networks, etc., etc.,
etc., and by "know your trademark law" brochures distributed via, e.g.,
the WGA.

And, yes, they do that. Regularly.

[Duggy]

On Apr 24, 6:58 am, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---

undress to reply) wrote:
> In article

> <73fa02c7-018f-49c1-8521-a31627630...@ri8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

>
> Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Agreed.  I think that Phillip is blind.  Or stupid.  Or both.
>
> Should I publish my street address and a description so that you can
> send the people over to kill me?  Might as well get it over with.

You could just do it yourself.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 24, 7:43 am, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2012-04-23 20:57:09 +0000, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply said:
>

> > In article <jn1dgc$rt...@dont-email.me>, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net>

> > writes:
>
> >>> Some names lose their legal protection, and some names become generic
> >>> identifiers for similar products, but these two things are independent.
> >>> In particular, nothing loses its legal protection BECAUSE it becomes a
> >>> generic identifier.
>
> >> Actually, you've got that part exactly wrong - Becoming a generic
> >> identifier is the entire reason that the legal protection is lost.
>
> > Reference please?  How should a company such as Johnson and Johnson
> > prevent people from using "Kleenex" as a generic term?
>
> By writing letters to publishers, writers, TV networks, etc., etc.,
> etc., and by "know your trademark law" brochures distributed via, e.g.,
> the WGA.
>
> And, yes, they do that. Regularly.

http://www.adobe.com/misc/trade.html#section-4

===
= DUG.
===

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article <4f95ccee$0$20063$607e...@cv.net>, John W Kennedy

<jwk...@attglobal.net> writes:

> >> Actually, you've got that part exactly wrong - Becoming a generic
> >> identifier is the entire reason that the legal protection is lost.
> >
> > Reference please? How should a company such as Johnson and Johnson
> > prevent people from using "Kleenex" as a generic term?
>

> By writing letters to publishers, writers, TV networks, etc., etc.,
> etc., and by "know your trademark law" brochures distributed via, e.g.,
> the WGA.
>
> And, yes, they do that. Regularly.

Yes, but what about just "people on the street" using it as a generic
term, which is what the discussion was about before people started
saying I was blind and stupid.

[Duggy]

On Apr 24, 3:43 pm, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <4f95ccee$0$20063$607ed...@cv.net>, John W Kennedy

No, just me, and because you thought the Woolworths logo looked like
the Apple logo.

===
= DUG.
===

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article
<c05f028a-4821-4581...@u4g2000pbu.googlegroups.com>,

Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> writes:

> > > >> Actually, you've got that part exactly wrong - Becoming a generic
> > > >> identifier is the entire reason that the legal protection is lost.
> >

> > > > Reference please? =A0How should a company such as Johnson and Johnson

> > > > prevent people from using "Kleenex" as a generic term?
> >
> > > By writing letters to publishers, writers, TV networks, etc., etc.,
> > > etc., and by "know your trademark law" brochures distributed via, e.g.,
> > > the WGA.
> >
> > > And, yes, they do that. Regularly.
> >
> > Yes, but what about just "people on the street" using it as a generic
> > term, which is what the discussion was about before people started
> > saying I was blind and stupid.
>

> No, just me, and because you thought the Woolworths logo looked like
> the Apple logo.

Actually, if you read my posts, you will see that I NEVER SAID ANYTHING
ABOUT WHAT I THOUGHT THE WOOLWORTH LOGO LOOKS LIKE. If I did, provide a
reference. Put up or shut up. You have already suggested I kill
myself. Don't you have anything better to do than troll on usenet. Get
a life!

[John W Kennedy]

What appears in writing, or other forms of permanent record, is about
twelvety-'leven times more important as evidence.

[Duggy]

On Apr 25, 9:27 am, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---

undress to reply) wrote:
> In article

> Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> writes:

> > No, just me, and because you thought the Woolworths logo looked like
> > the Apple logo.
>
> Actually, if you read my posts, you will see that I NEVER SAID ANYTHING
> ABOUT WHAT I THOUGHT THE WOOLWORTH LOGO LOOKS LIKE.  If I did, provide a
> reference.  Put up or shut up.  You have already suggested I kill
> myself.  Don't you have anything better to do than troll on usenet.  Get
> a life!

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.legend.king-arthur/msg/b2f5457288b2f325

"If they are using Apple's logo for some purpose not authorized by
Apple, then of course Apple can sue."

It's clearly not the Apple log. If you think it looks like it is,
you're blind or stupid or both.

===
= DUG.
===

[Phillip Helbig---undress to reply]

In article
<83667285-b9fe-42ee...@wp13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

Duggy <p.allan...@gmail.com> writes:

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.legend.king-arthur/msg/b2f5457288b2f325
>
> "If they are using Apple's logo for some purpose not authorized by
> Apple, then of course Apple can sue."
>
> It's clearly not the Apple log. If you think it looks like it is,
> you're blind or stupid or both.

Did I say anything about what the logo looks like? No. I said IF...
THEN.... This was a general comment. If I had seen it (I haven't) and
if I thought it was the same then I would have said SINCE they are
using....

[Duggy]

On Apr 26, 3:30 pm, hel...@astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---

undress to reply) wrote:
> In article

> <83667285-b9fe-42ee-bba4-6afe0c6aa...@wp13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Duggy <p.allan.dug...@gmail.com> writes:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.legend.king-arthur/msg/b2f5457288b...

>
> > "If they are using Apple's logo for some purpose not authorized by
> > Apple, then of course Apple can sue."
>
> > It's clearly not the Apple log.  If you think it looks like it is,
> > you're blind or stupid or both.

> Did I say anything about what the logo looks like?  No.  I said IF...
> THEN....  This was a general comment.  If I had seen it (I haven't) and
> if I thought it was the same then I would have said SINCE they are
> using....

So you commented on the logo without looking at the logo.

So not blind. Just stupid.

===
= DUG.
===