How important is it for you to write "LEGO" vs Lego?

[tedbeard]

LEGO is a proper noun.

Proper nouns can be pluralized all you from a language perspective. Think Machintosh Computers - Macs, BMWs, and other brands like that.

Interesting how in your example you make my case. You write "Macintosh Computers" not "Macintoshes" and in fact very few would know what you were talking about if you did (at least those of us who enjoy apples or wear certain kinds of boots). The monosyllabic abbreviation "Macs" is certainly used by we are not talking about "LEGs".

[Vindicare]

I type out LEGO. Simply, out of respect for the company. They're trying to keep it from becoming a blanket word, as others have said. Taking a few extra seconds, to capitalize all 4 letters isn't really that difficult. Since we're also getting all "proper" with the word, some say all caps look like an acronym...if that were the case, it'd be L.E.G.O. Analogy time! Say you meet someone who's name is David, and while it's perfectly acceptable to call someone with that name Dave, he would rather you call him David. Would you just ignore his request and call him Dave?

[m0dulo]

I write LEGO because I don't work for professional news organizations like CNN and the Washington Post.

Edited August 19, 2014 by m0dulo

[Lind Whisperer]

This just reminds me of the "Cul-de-sacs" vs "Culs-de-sac" debate from Gilmore Girls (or for a more modern debate, "forums" vs "fora"). To be honest, I prefer using Lego to LEGO, as it seems less pedantic and dramatic, and looks normal in a piece of text, not to mention, when people write in full capitals, it seems to me they are either "shouting" the word, or it is an acronym that stands for something.

You make an excellent point with Cul-de-sacs versus Culs-de-sac, but there is one small and significant difference - No one has a copyright on the name Cul-de-sacs, but LEGO does have a copyright on the brand name LEGO.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Lind Whisperer

[kibosh]

I type out LEGO. Simply, out of respect for the company. They're trying to keep it from becoming a blanket word, as others have said. Taking a few extra seconds, to capitalize all 4 letters isn't really that difficult. Since we're also getting all "proper" with the word, some say all caps look like an acronym...if that were the case, it'd be L.E.G.O. Analogy time! Say you meet someone who's name is David, and while it's perfectly acceptable to call someone with that name Dave, he would rather you call him David. Would you just ignore his request and call him Dave?

How does this keep it from becoming a blanket word? So Lego may mean Mega Bloks, but LEGO clearly refers to LEGO bricks? If everyone followed these copyright rules, and did indeed write LEGO, wouldn't LEGO become the blanket word everyone is afraid of? What would everyone complain about then?

[Drizzt]

Lego, lego, LEGO, legos.. I will likely use them all. I'll only correct someone when they use Lego when referring to sub par alternative.

[skateboard34]

Officially, LEGO is an adjective but I just use the noun LEGO instead of adding the descriptor afterwards such as pieces, sets, bricks, etc.

[kibosh]

Officially, LEGO is an adjective but I just use the noun LEGO instead of adding the descriptor afterwards such as pieces, sets, bricks, etc.

Where are you getting this information? I find this hard to believe. Even in their own advertising, signage, etc. they simply write LEGO. They never reference LEGO bricks or pieces or what not.

[8BrickMario]

"LEGO" is the company name, and a descriptive for their product. LEGO models, LEGO bricks, etc. are often just "models" and "bricks", but they still use it accordingly. Watch a designer video and you'll see that they do indeed use LEGO as a modifier for their product.

[m0dulo]

Here is a lot of information about trademark Grammar: http://itre.cis.upen...ves/000943.html

It even contains LEGO examples.

Here is an excerpt:

Notice also that INTA says a trademark must always be used as an adjective. What they mean actually has nothing to do with adjectives. Adjective are words like good, big, soft, reddish, etc. They are often used as attributive modifiers of nouns: good reasons, a big company, etc. But other things can be used as attributive modifiers. Proper nouns can: when we talk about London fog, we are using London (a proper noun) as an attributive modifier of the noun fog. That doesn't mean London is an adjective. It isn't. It's the name of a city. Adjectives never name cities. And adjectives are virtually never trademarked. When we use the exp<b></b>ression a London Fog raincoat, we use London Fog (a trademark, with the form of a nominal construction, consisting of a proper noun attributive modifier and a common noun) as an attributive modifier of the noun raincoat. What INTA is saying is that it wants you to always use trademarks as attributive modifiers.

But what the INTA people mean is more subtle than they know how to say, so they get it all wrong. The enemy they are laying defenses against is the danger that a trademark might fall into the public domain. For fear of this (and it can happen), they want to forestall the conversion of certain proper noun trademarks into common count nouns. The worry is that the next stage after writing "Tic Tacs" will be writing "tictacs", and soon people will be referring to some other company's little white mints as tictacs, and soon the trademark might become unprotectable and its value be lost. It would just be a two-syllable word in the dictionary, with a small t, meaning little hard white mint candy.

If someone is interested in the proper use of trademarks, the whole page is worth reading. The conclusion is especially interesting but don't skip to the end. ;)

Edited August 21, 2014 by m0dulo