<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Elsewhere: LEGO Brick Trademark in the EU</title>
	<atom:link href="http://twinlug.com/2008/11/elsewhere-lego-brick-trademark-in-the-eu/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://twinlug.com/2008/11/elsewhere-lego-brick-trademark-in-the-eu/</link>
	<description>The Minneapolis and St Paul LEGO Users Group.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:46:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: trademark</title>
		<link>http://twinlug.com/2008/11/elsewhere-lego-brick-trademark-in-the-eu/comment-page-1/#comment-14</link>
		<dc:creator>trademark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:41:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://twinlug.com/?p=69#comment-14</guid>
		<description>The court&#039;s ruling was largely correct.  You cannot trademark functional aspects of a product.  In this case, the connectors on the Lego bricks were deemed to be functional, as they serve the purpose of connecting the bricks together.  It was a pretty straightforward case.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The court&#8217;s ruling was largely correct.  You cannot trademark functional aspects of a product.  In this case, the connectors on the Lego bricks were deemed to be functional, as they serve the purpose of connecting the bricks together.  It was a pretty straightforward case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

