Re: Olympics : Thu May 31, 2012 1:29 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

He knew he was on shakey ground three years ago when he asked trading standards about it.

He asked about it. He was given an answer (apparently) and he complied with that.

And you're defending this?

Re: Olympics : Thu May 31, 2012 1:35 pm  

Mintball wrote:

He asked about it. He was given an answer (apparently) and he complied with that.

And you're defending this?

I can't believe you are defending someone who is seeking to gain financially out of trademark infringement.

Re: Olympics : Thu May 31, 2012 1:41 pm  

The torch came through Warrington earlier, with hundreds lining the way. Majority of which were school children who were bussed in from all over the town (council tax money?). The rest were mainly the elderly.

Oh and there was a 15 minute coca cola break for everyone at the large Tesco store.

Could'nt exactly say it was a resounding success, just a hindrance for everyday commuters. God knows what the policing bill was.

Re: Olympics : Thu May 31, 2012 1:52 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

I can't believe you are defending someone who is seeking to gain financially out of trademark infringement.

So if, say, the Vatican trademarked the cross, you'd consider that perfectly acceptable?

Re: Olympics : Thu May 31, 2012 2:03 pm  

From the link he only changed the name to try to cash in on the "Olympic" brand after London was awarded the games. Accordingly, he should receive no sympathy. If he wanted legal advice, the last place he should have gone to is a Local Authority!

Re: Olympics : Thu May 31, 2012 2:11 pm  

Mintball wrote:

So if, say, the Vatican trademarked the cross, you'd consider that perfectly acceptable?

You are still defending someone who seeks to make money from infringing a trademark.

Re: Olympics : Thu May 31, 2012 2:30 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

You are still defending someone who seeks to make money from infringing a trademark.

And you're still defending idiocy.

I note you aren't answering the question about the church etc.

The Olympic 'brand' managed perfectly well for millennia without being trademarked. The current situation is doing more damage to it than anything that went before. And it illustrates just where we are a society – or perhaps that should be, as a corporatocracy?

[DaveO]

Re: Olympics : Thu May 31, 2012 2:37 pm  

Live Wired wrote:

The torch came through Warrington earlier, with hundreds lining the way. Majority of which were school children who were bussed in from all over the town (council tax money?). The rest were mainly the elderly.

Well as you can see from the photos I posted the crowd in Chester was made up of all ages and it certainly wasn't bussed in. The 25K crowd at the racecourse even paid to get in.

I reckon so far the majority are pretty happy to see the torch procession come through their locality.

Oh and there was a 15 minute coca cola break for everyone at the large Tesco store.

They were handing out small bottles of coke from one of the floats when it went past. My son didn't get one. I think he has forgotten he just turned 18 and isn't a little kid any more!

Could'nt exactly say it was a resounding success, just a hindrance for everyday commuters. God knows what the policing bill was.

People actually came to Chester to see it so as the city has a large tourist economy I think the council will have been pleased especially given the extended coverage it got on North West Tonight.

Re: Olympics : Thu May 31, 2012 2:52 pm  

Mintball wrote:

... The Olympic 'brand' managed perfectly well for millennia without being trademarked...

Millennia?
There were no Olympics during the time between the Ancient Greeks and Victorian times.
Hence, I think decades would be more appropriate.

Continue ...

Re: Olympics : Thu May 31, 2012 3:49 pm  

I wonder when this lot will start proceedings against the Olympic Organisation for nicking their original idea?

I wonder when this lot will start proceedings against the Olympic Organisation for nicking their original idea?