2020 Non-Crows AFL Discussion Part 2

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

Ricciuto: Benny is also an ideas man. That's why Nicksy calls him the Ideas Man. He has lots of ideas.

Hart: A forward line with three slow talls

Nicks: You're an ideas man, Benny
Sam Manure:
“It’s The Vibe Of It. It’s The Location. It’s Burton. It’s Pyke. It’s Blindfolds. It’s The Vibe And Ah, No That’s It. It’s The Vibe. I Rest My Case.”
 
I starting feeling the pressure, it was a recurring bad dream being played out on in front of me. My chest was tightening. The most common goes along the lines of a I'm teeing up on the first, I put the ball on the tee and take my set up. But I'm not happy with something, say feet are in muddy ground. So I see a better spot, tee up there, now there's a tree in the path of my ball, go to another spot, some other problem. Meanwhile the pressure to get off the tee block is increasing and the next group(s) to tee off are mingling around. I'm not sure how long it goes for, but washing buggalugs for that minute or so last night was very uncomfortable for me. My chest is tightening as I type this.
Quite sure I never thought I'd see that word come out of your mouth/fingers. :p
 
Doesn't look like it, the football and car are still the proper shape. Either way, he's not running out on the park anytime soon.

Hope this means his mental health is on the improve though. That's all that matters for Dayne now IMO
He's basically said he's never playing again.

 
Just saw an article that says the indigenous flag is copyrighted by a clothing company called WAM? The company is owned by non indigenous guys as well. This just seems odd. There’s been an issue with the AFL this year over the copyright and therefore the flag won’t be used this coming round.
This has been a massive issue in the Aboriginal community for some time. The guy who owned it, sold out to WAM. It's really sad. It's like Ugghs being stolen from Australia by an unscrupulous company.
 
This has been a massive issue in the Aboriginal community for some time. The guy who owned it, sold out to WAM. It's really sad. It's like Ugghs being stolen from Australia by an unscrupulous company.

In neither of these cases was there theft. The guy who created the Aboriginal flag had copyright and rightly did whatever he wanted with it, including selling it. Uggs was also just a regular business sale.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Doesn't look like it, the football and car are still the proper shape. Either way, he's not running out on the park anytime soon.

Hope this means his mental health is on the improve though. That's all that matters for Dayne now IMO
If his mental health was as severe as mentioned then the meds he would be taking are likely to make you Ballon out like that, it happens to al ot of people on those kinds of meds.
 
In neither of these cases was there theft. The guy who created the Aboriginal flag had copyright and rightly did whatever he wanted with it, including selling it. Uggs was also just a regular business sale.
Ugg was an American patenting an Australian invention/name, which was in wide and popular use for many years. The patent should never have been accepted. It had nothing to do with a "regular business sale".
 
Ugg was an American patenting an Australian invention/name, which was in wide and popular use for many years. The patent should never have been accepted. It had nothing to do with a "regular business sale".

That's not true. Both the Australian and American companies that first used/trademarked "Ugg" were created by Australians. The American company later purchased the Ugg trademark from the Australian company, and then that American company was purchased by a larger conglomerate.

The dispute is over whether "ugg" is able to be trademarked in Australia at all, given its generic nature. The blame is squarely on the Australian trademark office that allowed that registration in the first place
 
That's not true. Both the Australian and American companies that first used/trademarked "Ugg" were created by Australians. The American company later purchased the Ugg trademark from the Australian company, and then that American company was purchased by a larger conglomerate.

The dispute is over whether "ugg" is able to be trademarked in Australia at all, given its generic nature. However the actual sale of the trademark (whether legal or not) was a transfer of ownership from an Australian to American company.
This is a fairer statement of affairs. Happy to concede that it was trademarked here, then sold to the US.

It should never have been trademarked in Australia, given that it was a term in common usage - and did not refer to a specific company's product.
 
This is a fairer statement of affairs. Happy to concede that it was trademarked here, then sold to the US.

It should never have been trademarked in Australia, given that it was a term in common usage - and did not refer to a specific company's product.

And after a legal dispute in Australia it was found to be generic, back in 2006. But in the USA it was found to be not generic, which I guess is fair given it was introduced into that market as a brand.

In any case it wasn't "stolen" from us and for the past 15 years has been properly classed as generic
 
And after a legal dispute in Australia it was found to be generic, back in 2006. But in the USA it was found to be not generic, which I guess is fair given it was introduced into that market as a brand.

In any case it wasn't "stolen" from us and for the past 15 years has been properly classed as generic
Thanks for explanation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top