2016-05-04, 02:45
I was a little curious why random users seemed to care about this so much. Makes more sense now.
(2016-05-04, 00:30)Ned Scott Wrote: Upon further investigation, it appears no one at WeTek was contacted about this giveaway. It was actually set up between an authorized third party seller of WeTek Core boxes. Intentionally or not, KP then made it sound like this was an official WeTek giveaway. Perhaps they were confused, perhaps not, but they have been contacted now so that corrections can be made.
Furthermore, it seems the number of "complaints" about this is due to two Kodi-centric user groups that are based in Portugal, and them fighting with each other. While I still thank those people for bringing this to our attention, as it was still an issue, it would be better for everyone to fully disclose their connections. We are only interested in protecting the WeTek and Kodi brands, and have no interest in other community disputes.
That still leaves the problem of the KP site abusing the Kodi trademark. As WeTek has resources in Portugal, feel free to let us know if there is anything we can do to help, if we can. Helping Kodi helps WeTek, especially when it comes to these kinds of issues.
(2016-05-04, 19:30)natethomas Wrote: Pikes, no one is arguing that it's totally ok for a group to use Kodi in their domain. The only question I had was why you personally seemed to care so much. Now I guess I know why. I wish you'd have been a bit more clear about your own allegiance at the outset. There's no shame in having a competing website or group, but hiding the fact that you are a competitor looks pretty shady.
(2016-05-04, 20:03)pikes Wrote:(2016-05-04, 19:30)natethomas Wrote: Pikes, no one is arguing that it's totally ok for a group to use Kodi in their domain. The only question I had was why you personally seemed to care so much. Now I guess I know why. I wish you'd have been a bit more clear about your own allegiance at the outset. There's no shame in having a competing website or group, but hiding the fact that you are a competitor looks pretty shady.
So the question here isn't having a site that goes against your own trademark? Is that the message?
(2016-05-04, 21:55)natethomas Wrote:(2016-05-04, 20:03)pikes Wrote:(2016-05-04, 19:30)natethomas Wrote: Pikes, no one is arguing that it's totally ok for a group to use Kodi in their domain. The only question I had was why you personally seemed to care so much. Now I guess I know why. I wish you'd have been a bit more clear about your own allegiance at the outset. There's no shame in having a competing website or group, but hiding the fact that you are a competitor looks pretty shady.
So the question here isn't having a site that goes against your own trademark? Is that the message?
Did you miss my first sentence in your rush to get defensive?
(2016-05-05, 02:31)Ned Scott Wrote: Since it seemed odd that so many people were having an issue specifically about this situation, it made it seem like something else was going on. That made me question how reliable the reports were. My first thought was that these reports might be coming from a WeTek competitor, trying to make WeTek look bad.