RE: [boost] Re: Logo 67 bad [was: Logo comments]

From: Reid Sweatman (drunkardswalk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-09 17:07:40

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of David Abrahams
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 9:16 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Re: Logo 67 bad [was: Logo comments]
> 
> 
> "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
> > David Abrahams wrote:
> >> "Eric Niebler" <eric_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >>
> >>> A lot of people are expressing favorable opinions about 
> selection 67 
> >>> boost/squares. This logo is simply out of the question, in my 
> >>> opinion, because of its glaring similarity to the 
> marketing imagery 
> >>> of Visual Studio. Just look at the Visual C++ box:
> >>>
> >>> http://tinyurl.com/6chhn
> >>>
> > 
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/images/gallery/boxshots/web/visual-
> > c-plus-plus03.jpg
> >>>
> >>> IMO, option 67 should be removed.
> >>
> >> I consider that a background pattern and not sacrosanct.  I never 
> >> would have noticed it had you not pointed it out.
> >>
> >> I think if we had to eliminate any abstract graphic that 
> was used in 
> >> promotional or packaging material, there'd be hardly anything we 
> >> could use.
> >
> > If it was used on the packaging of baby formula I might agree with 
> > you. Having a logo that's so similar to to VC++ marketing material 
> > would be a real problem, IMO.
> 
> Even though it's just a minor design element in the VC++ package?

One question:  is anyone doing trademark searches for similar logos?  In the
US, any University library, and probably lots of other sources, have the
listings for free examination, current to about three months.  Of course,
they're not indexed any too well...

Reid