Actually, I understand even better refusing protection to Petrobras having seen the bp mark; color is all that's distinctive about it.

IMO, this is much more distinctive than their previous logo, a simple green shield with 'BP' in gold letters. (I actually quite liked their old logo, but distinctive isn't the word for it.)

I'd imagine the new one is supposed to evoke thoughts of environmental friendliness and whatnot. (Incidentally, I'm now wondering whether sales of BP's product rise at all when Brazil wins the World Cup.)

Wow, I don't visit the board for a couple of days and have to wade through 200+ posts.

-=*Motherfugging SHOUTOUT to my MAIN man ANGUS G*=-

(c:

Thanks for the heads up on Buffy's return. Let's hope it's nation wide next Tuesday!

Good to see Channel 7 actively promoting the show. t /Sarcasm

Actually, I understand even better refusing protection to Petrobras having seen the bp mark; color is all that's distinctive about it.

Interesting logic. The less distinctive your trademark is, the more possiblities you can exclude for your competitor. I think I'm going trademark the color black.

Uh, no, that's NOT what I said; and you must forgive me for bristling at your insult, when I'm speaking from a legally valid standpoint. I didn't say it was less distinctive, I said it had one distinction. Color. And if it's a strong mark in Britain, then another user trying to use that color would be even less likely to be allowed.

For instance, only one user in the U.S. is allowed to use pink on house insulation. It's a strong mark, nonetheless; pink insulation is Owens-Corning's mark, mostly because insulation doesn't lend itself to pinkness. Oil doesn't lend itself to green-yellow like, say, lemon-lime flavored soda does. And claiming *less* might be more protectable, since you're actually asking the court for protection of less. They're not saying everything with points, or a circle, or that starts with b and ends with petroleum is part of their trademark-- just color.

-=*Motherfugging SHOUTOUT to my MAIN man ANGUS G*=-

I'm not sure why (perhaps it's the general Coolness of Angus), but that made me giggle.

It made me giggle too.

Sigh...new Massive Attack album on Monday, new Buffy on Tuesday, can next week get any better?

Sigh...new Massive Attack album on Monday,

Why am I so poor?

It doesn't come out here until the 11th, Brenda, maybe you can scare up some cash before then.

A new BP, with the new logo, opened a few blocks from my house! It's all shiny and new and really lights up the houses of the poor schmucks nearby.

PS This is in New York City.

And oh yeah, Zoe, my mom's cousins, six McDonald boys, report no burger jokes. We can tell a big company from a smiling Scottish-American guy.

Hmm - don't think you need to be insulted . I answered your point as I understood it. I quoted you directly, then made what I though was a reduction to absurdity of something that strikes as absurd in the law. I'm not disputing you on what the law is; I'm arguing that the law on this issue is aburd.

I still think there is a ditinction here. From what you are saying Owen/Corning actually dyes their insulation pink. (If I'm wrong that is not an attempt to insult you. It is my actual understanding, easily corrected.) BP does not actually dye their oil or even the barrels it comes in green and yellow. It is the color of their logo.

It seems to me (and again I'm talking about why I disagree with a legal principle; I'm not disputing your understanding of what the principle is) that if the only distinctive thing about a trademark (in the sense of a logo, not something you use to make your actual product look different) is the use of a very common two colors - then you are inviting unintentional infringement.

I am sorry my last post offended you. I hope this one does not.

Zoe, this thread was started as a haven for those without the latest episodes, back in the dark ages when there was only one Buffista thread on WX.

Min ... the origins of this thread go back to Table Talk. It used the word "Unamerican" back then and should always have that word somewhere in the title.

To be blunt, if someone has a problem with the word, they should go elsewhere.

Just to tie this back into the thread topic, in 1906 the movie The Story of the Kelly Gang opened in Melbourne. This was perhaps the first narrative film of any significant length in the world.

billytea ... it's my understanding that the first "narrative film of any significant length" pre-dates that by around 10 years. Moreover, it was in "colour" no less. The Salvation Army in Australia created a movie about the bible some time in the late 1890s.

But the McDonald's restaurant was started by people named McDonald. They didn't just grab the name; it was theirs.

This is only half-true. The brothers (name escapes me) who started what we know as "McDonald's" bought the hamburger joint from the original owners. They kept the name and started expanding the number of "restaurants" using the moniker.