You were up north ehy?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.
Thats good for you man
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You were up north ehy?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.
Yeah, lived up there for a bit, then went FIFO for a bit, now I'm in Perth full timeYou were up north ehy?
Thats good for you man
Is that an issue that's been raised?Great name if Warner bros don’t allow the devils name to be used
Trademarks can apply to specific geographical regions or worldwide. That’s about all I knowIs 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.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" ?
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.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" ?
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 internetMy 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.
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.
Islanders I like.I reckon either Islanders or Mariners.
Not sure what sort of mascot you'd have though?Islanders I like.
Agro's really let himself go
Freo's mascot is just a random dude so they could make it work.Not sure what sort of mascot you'd have though?
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.