Banter RDT CVXXXI - BigTank

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
They don't call me a veteran for nothin

Been good mate. I'm in Perth now, just landed the job I've been chasing for the last few years, convinced my partner to move in with me, life's good.
You were up north ehy?

Thats good for you man
 
Great name if Warner bros don’t allow the devils name to be used
Is that an issue that's been raised?

How does this trademark stuff work, anyway? Is there some sort of international agreement between most countries that means a company based in America can prevent an entity on the other side of the world from using the same name? What would happen for example if the AFL turned around and said "Stuff you, we're using the name" ?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Is that an issue that's been raised?

How does this trademark stuff work, anyway? Is there some sort of international agreement between most countries that means a company based in America can prevent an entity on the other side of the world from using the same name? What would happen for example if the AFL turned around and said "Stuff you, we're using the name" ?
Trademarks can apply to specific geographical regions or worldwide. That’s about all I know
 
Is that an issue that's been raised?

How does this trademark stuff work, anyway? Is there some sort of international agreement between most countries that means a company based in America can prevent an entity on the other side of the world from using the same name? What would happen for example if the AFL turned around and said "Stuff you, we're using the name" ?
Shouldn't be an issue as long as they use a picture that's completely different to the WB Taz (which won't be a problem seeing as real ones don't look anything like the cartoon) and don't use Taz etc in their name.
 
Trademarks can apply to specific geographical regions or worldwide. That’s about all I know
My question is one of jurisdiction, I guess. Who administers a worldwide trademark? Which agency? In which country? For it to mean anything, the countries involved would have to agree on the laws and regulations, etc.

Anyway, I've always wondered. It's like the "ugg" boots case. Some American company somehow obtained the rights to uggs and they can't be made here or called uggs, or something. I'm like, GFY.
 
Is that an issue that's been raised?

How does this trademark stuff work, anyway? Is there some sort of international agreement between most countries that means a company based in America can prevent an entity on the other side of the world from using the same name? What would happen for example if the AFL turned around and said "Stuff you, we're using the name" ?



Robbo has just returned from another near death experience but the drunken fool has spoken on this issue


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
My question is one of jurisdiction, I guess. Who administers a worldwide trademark? Which agency? In which country? For it to mean anything, the countries involved would have to agree on the laws and regulations, etc.

Anyway, I've always wondered. It's like the "ugg" boots case. Some American company somehow obtained the rights to uggs and they can't be made here or called uggs, or something. I'm like, GFY.
I think that they weren't able to trademark it in Australia because it's a common term so people can still make and sell them here, the issue was people here trying to sell them overseas on the internet
 
My question is one of jurisdiction, I guess. Who administers a worldwide trademark? Which agency? In which country? For it to mean anything, the countries involved would have to agree on the laws and regulations, etc.

Anyway, I've always wondered. It's like the "ugg" boots case. Some American company somehow obtained the rights to uggs and they can't be made here or called uggs, or something. I'm like, GFY.

There’s an international treaty most countries including Australia have signed up to.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I have a Switch and will eventually buy it but (as a cheapskate) it does annoy me that basically none of their top titles are ever available for under $69-79.

Nintendo's philosophy is their games hold their value, so there is no reason to discount them.

Yeah pretty annoying

I've played enough modern Pokemon games to disagree with them. Have enjoyed Scarlet though. I'm happy to risk $20 on a game that was only OK or has no real replay value, but not $70. I'd buy more of their games if they were cheaper, all they're doing is making me risk averse with purchases.

Nintendo has a sale on at the moment on a handful of their top titles. Discounts range from 22-33% off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top