On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 5:16:04 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
On 4/28/2016 4:05 PM, Leon wrote:
On 4/28/2016 2:05 PM, Spalted Walt wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

On 4/28/2016 11:11 AM, Spalted Walt wrote:
John McCoy wrote:

Spalted Walt wrote in
:

notbob wrote:

A URL means zip.

Try telling that to Trademark holders. I think they would *strongly*
disagree.

I think it's more likely that the trademark holder hasn't
noticed yet, than that the glue is actually Titebond. The
only place "titebond" appears is in the URL, they don't
reference anywhere on the actual page (which says the brand
is "HFT").

HF has been using that "titebond-iii-ultimate-wood-glue" URL for
almost 5 years:
Sep 20, 2011

http://web.archive.org/web/201109202...-oz-91768.html




So that if you are actually looking for TB III a search engine will
include the HF crap. It is a redirect ploy.

You'd think that would indeed be the reason. If it was, it is an EPIC
failure because if you Google "titebond iii ultimate wood glue" or
just "titebond iii" , either with or without the quotes, I don't think
you'll see a single HF link.



And for what it is worth, I went to the HF site and searched Probond
glue, and Elmer's wood glue

Here is the result.

http://www.harborfreight.com/catalog...q=probond+glue

It's interesting that probond returns 0 matches, yet titebond
returns 1.

http://www.harborfreight.com/catalog...ult?q=titebond

Maybe the builder of the search database assumed more people are
familiar with the titebond brand vs. the probond.