Template:Did you know nominations/Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc.
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Fuebaey (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. edit
... that lens.com lost its trademark for the word LENS in 2012?
Created/expanded by Mjberger (talk). Nominated by Amcconachie (talk) at 21:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC).
- I'm having trouble finding a direct statement of the hook in the article -- and this hook definitely needs to cited to a secondary source, not a ruling or opinion. EEng (talk) 05:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- (sorry, more reading...) Well OK, in my case my confusion turned out to be due to there being two cases about this. 11-4114 is about the use of trademarks in AdWords, which I am shocked to learn went the way it did. There's lots of good 3rd material on this. However, the article is about 11-1258, which is over Lens.com's claim of trademark on "lens", which they lost. This has less 3rd party interest it seems, I guess because it's more limited in application. However, I would suggest that this, [http://www.ipbrief.net/2012/09/05/short-circuit-august-1-15-2012/ this, this and this demonstrate some level of interest and I would suggest they successfully meet the cite requirement. However, I think the hook entirely misses the point of the decision: Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that lens.com lost its trademark for the word LENS in 2012, because the courts decided that a retail website did not meet the definition of "computer software"?
I think it needs this because I provided a new ALT, right? Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
@Mjberger: @Amcconachie: I think the "citation needed" tags should be addressed before this goes to the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, it looks like an IP went through and took care of the tags (I think all with the same source). Can you please check to see whether this meets standards now? I doubt we'll see either creator or nominator, as this was part of a course project, and the semester is almost certainly over by now. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Full review needed; I hadn't realized that previous comments didn't address most of the basic DYK criteria such as size, newness, neutrality, close paraphrasing, etc. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
This article is new enough and long enough. Striking the original hook because ALT1 is more interesting. As far as I can see, ALT1 is acceptable and has sufficient inline citations for its facts (to the extent that I can interpret the legal language). The article is neutral and I did not detect any copyright/close paraphrasing issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
