Two queers in Manchester
Discussion
What an extraordinary story,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293793/Hi...
I will be amazed if any form of legal ownership of that word is possible, so suspect they are wasting their money with a legal challenge. Possibly a small chance of success in court but not one I'd want to back with hard cash! Losing could be very expensive - and damaging to the business.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2293793/Hi...
I will be amazed if any form of legal ownership of that word is possible, so suspect they are wasting their money with a legal challenge. Possibly a small chance of success in court but not one I'd want to back with hard cash! Losing could be very expensive - and damaging to the business.
It seems like a fairly standard business dispute the same as any number of others every year.
I am amused by the posters on the Mail who can't understand if it's okay for the bars to have the word in their name why it's not acceptable for them to shout the word "queer" at passers-by they suspect are homosexual.
I am amused by the posters on the Mail who can't understand if it's okay for the bars to have the word in their name why it's not acceptable for them to shout the word "queer" at passers-by they suspect are homosexual.
I'm really struggling to see any merit in the case put forward by Nigel Martin-Smith. Queer is a generic word used worldwide in this context for decades. In fact I have a copy of 'Queer' by William S Burroughs written in 1951 sitting in the bookcase next to me now.
Of course companies have acted in an overzealous manner protecting 'their' IP for almost as long.
Of course companies have acted in an overzealous manner protecting 'their' IP for almost as long.
Papa Hotel said:
Militant gays kicking up a fuss when no-one cares, whatever next?
"LOOK AT ME!! LOOK AT ME, I'M GAAAAAY, DARLING!"
No it isn't. It's purely a business dispute."LOOK AT ME!! LOOK AT ME, I'M GAAAAAY, DARLING!"
As an aside, there's a second hand white goods business in North London called "SELLFRIDGES". It's been trading for years.
Papa Hotel said:
Blib said:
No it isn't. It's purely a business dispute.
It's not a business dispute at all, it's attention whoring at its best. Playing the old "gay and proud" card while earning a massive amount of free publicity. Both places win. Papa Hotel said:
Blib said:
No it isn't. It's purely a business dispute.
It's not a business dispute at all, it's attention whoring at its best. 
Blib said:
Papa Hotel said:
Blib said:
No it isn't. It's purely a business dispute.
It's not a business dispute at all, it's attention whoring at its best. Playing the old "gay and proud" card while earning a massive amount of free publicity. Both places win. 
I must be wrong then, two people have said so, one with the fabled which is usually pretty conclusive.
It's not unheard of for two businesses to have a "dispute" resulting in some nice high profile publicity for both. No-one would give a s
t if it was The Nag's Head and The King's Head scrapping over use of the word "head".
I stand by my assertion that no-one cares and both bars only stand to gain from this supposed dispute.
which is usually pretty conclusive. It's not unheard of for two businesses to have a "dispute" resulting in some nice high profile publicity for both. No-one would give a s
t if it was The Nag's Head and The King's Head scrapping over use of the word "head". I stand by my assertion that no-one cares and both bars only stand to gain from this supposed dispute.
Papa Hotel said:
I must be wrong then, two people have said so, one with the fabled which is usually pretty conclusive.
It's not unheard of for two businesses to have a "dispute" resulting in some nice high profile publicity for both. No-one would give a st if it was The Nag's Head and The King's Head scrapping over use of the word "head".
I stand by my assertion that no-one cares and both bars only stand to gain from this supposed dispute.
Are their respective solicitors working for free? which is usually pretty conclusive. It's not unheard of for two businesses to have a "dispute" resulting in some nice high profile publicity for both. No-one would give a s
t if it was The Nag's Head and The King's Head scrapping over use of the word "head". I stand by my assertion that no-one cares and both bars only stand to gain from this supposed dispute.
Papa Hotel said:
Blib said:
No it isn't. It's purely a business dispute.
It's not a business dispute at all, it's attention whoring at its best. Playing the old "gay and proud" card while earning a massive amount of free publicity. Both places win. It's a business dispute between two similar business with a very recognisable name. It's you that's making a fuss about this involving <gasp> THE GAYS, not either proprietor.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff