UltraViolet

I am so overjoyed that you found this forum thread and responded to it, as I was the person who posted the question to the LUG website, and I wasn't sure if I was going to get any response. I certainly didn't expect to hear directly from the exact person I was seeking out! Thank-you so much for posting the background story behind your transformer and for the photo of the bottom of the unit proving that it really did exist. While I would very much like to be able to find one of these 110V transformers myself some day, I'm hard-pressed to believe I will ever see another one of them. It seems quite unlikely that many were ever sold, and even less likely they would have survived until now. What I still haven't been able to determine is what country or countries these were intended for. There were very few countries that ever used the European type-C plug but also had 110V supply. Japan used the wrong plug, and Brazil hardly had any 110V. There had been some 110V in parts of Europe until after the Second World War, but I can't find a reference that could say if any of the old standard survived long enough to have still been around in the late 60's. My best guess is that the box used a generic photo of the version with the European plug, but the actual 742 transformer may have had a different plug. As your original plug is long since removed, I still can't be sure. Many thanks again to you, and also to Andy for pointing me to the videos. I'm much closer now to unravelling this mystery, and there is still slim hope that I ever might own one some day.

I managed to find it in a video, perhaps not the one you had seen. This shot was in the Brickworld Chicago BTB vid starting at about the 29 minute mark: LEGO Great Ball Contraption at Brickworld Chicago 2024 (Rube Goldberg Machine) (youtube.com) The sign on that table was for Nova-LUG, out of Virginia, so that would make sense from what you said. It's impossible to know from the video if the blue transformer is actually 110V, or the common 220V using a step-up converter, though. At least I could contact the LUG to see if they know anything about it.

I would like to know if anyone can confirm whether or not the 742-1 110V blue train transformer ever made it to market. It appeared as a catalog order reference item, but they seem to be unobtainium now. I also cannot definitively determine which country these were designed to be sold for. The photos of the box show a dual round pin plug, like much of Europe, but this may have been generic box art. I have heard it suggested that it might have been for Japan. Is there anyone out there who owns one of these rarities, or has at least seen a real one in the flesh?

But it's clearly demonstrable in that instance that LEGO never produced parts with ball bearings inserted. Further, the few hundred enthusiasts who bought these parts know this full well. If some Joe Public finds a cracked brick, it is exponentially more likely it came like that in their sealed LEGO set and was not a modified part.

I think we need to be clear that indentifying a "genuine LEGO brick" for the sake of differentiating it from off-brands is rather difficult if by printing on it you can no longer call it a "genuine LEGO brick". What on earth are you supposed to call it? "Genuine LEGO brick" was obviously being used to indicate the origin of the bricks used, not implying that modifying them posed no (remote) risks that that quality would not be preserved though minor modifications. A disclaimer on the re-sale product and the seller's website should have been plenty enough clarify. I think we can safely say that, due to the extremely niche nature of the business, everyone purchasing would already understand what they are getting. Also, how do you 'speak' the name LEGO while crediting their copyright without actually 'speaking' the name LEGO, considering disclaimers were a non-starter? Seems like a trap to me. How are you supposed to tell people they are buying "genuine LEGO bricks" if you can't actually say it? Also, how on earth is anyone ever supposed to find your business on the internet if your only search term can be "compatible" or "leading" "building bricks"? And further, what does "compatible" or "leading" mean without clear context? I never buy MegaBlox because they are total trash. How am I supposed to know what someone is selling me if they can't tell me, and why someone running a business be forced to use off-brand bricks just so they can print an image on them?

It would be easily demonstrable that a printed or modified part did not originate with LEGO in that form. LEGO is not responsible for enforcing EU toy safety standards. I cannot see how LEGO have incurred any real direct injury by a legal standard, only theoretical. In fact, they actually made money by the existence of that re-seller business, even if it were only a drop in the bucket. It also doesn't make any sense that a non-business person can alter LEGO bricks in any way they see fit and somehow this would never result in the same asserted theoretical legal injury LEGO is crying about. Why do they get do say the sky is falling based on theoretical technicalities, but I'm accused of semantics? LEGO won on shaky arguments. They are well within their rights to protect their trademarks and copyrights, but junk science has no place in the courtroom. Is there a single instance ever of a consumer suing LEGO over a cracked brick? I couldn't even tell you how many of my "genuine direct-from-LEGO" bricks have broken due to faulty ABS plastic batches or design flaws. Many of these parts are out of product and costly to replace through the resale market, and if I do replace them it's most likely through Bricklink where LEGO again takes a cut of the sale. I've had to throw away many pieces even this week due to "Brittle Blue Syndrome", "Brittle Dark Red Syndrome", "Brittle Reddish Brown Syndrome", and a new one for me this week, "Brittle Dark Brown Syndrome". I've also had to trash hundreds of cracked 1x1 bricks, headlight bricks, and cheese slopes. BTW, when I use the term "Hobbyist", I implied that this small business would not have existed had it not originated as a hobbyist passion project by one person serving hobbyists. I am not implying that "Hobbyists" should be immune from business laws. It is clear that killing an ant with a sledgehammer was not a necessary outcome. LEGO has no business dictating to me how I may or may not use their bricks once I've paid for them. If they want to put a leash on every re-seller in the world, maybe they would be best advised to only sell through their own stores. You can imagine what that would do to their annual sales.

I'd like to know what the effect on Hein will be. Can he even afford the cost of the judgement, let alone legal fees? LEGO seems to have basically slammed and locked the door to him staying in this business in any form. It's important to know the character of the people who get stomped by multi-national corporations, as they are not all China-based knock-off artists or cons.

Exactly what Michael said, again. I'm not dumb, and anyone starting a business should either read up on the basics of trademark law or hire someone to consult on it for them. That said, clearly many business entities are having difficulty knowing ahead of time whether or not they are going to get in trouble with LEGO's legal department on a large variety of 'infractions'. Maybe HA Bricks didn't do their homework, but I'm hard pressed to believe they acted maliciously.

I was going to make exactly your point - LEGO needs to be clear up front about what constitutes violations instead of waiting for someone to step into their murky trap.

I just ordered custom train wheels from Breckland Bricks. Sure hope they aren't under the gun next.

I don't understand how you are supposed to support LEGO and their "top quality" stance by using and identifying their bricks without actually saying it's "LEGO". I have some understanding about how this particular seller in this case was not careful enough about 'technicalities' of language, but I honestly can't see how this ruinous outcome was necessary. LEGO basically insisted they would accept nothing less than destroying a single person. The only possibly safe route for anyone is to buy off-brand bricks when selling modified parts, but if you are selling modified parts, not selling any non-modified LEGO parts alongside them. Now given that, how would you know if you can trust the quality of bricks you are buying from a 3rd-party seller if they are not even allowed to identify the manufacturer? This is why I don't trust anything on AliExpress automatically - the sources and the quality can vary wildly, and in most cases you can't trace who the actual manufacturer is. That's hilarious - if you print on a brick with a non-reactive ink or paint, you're likely actually protecting the brick against UV damage. It's quite clear that no one is going to be able to sell modified LEGO bricks. Anyone who still wants to be in business is going to have to source from their competitors in China, competitors they can't control. This is truly boneheaded.

I am quite confident that we have not seen the last of this - LEGO going after hobbyist individuals. You don't risk your public image and spend vast sums of money on a court case where you have no hope of receiving the kind of money being demanded, merely to fry one tiny fish. They are trying to set legal precedents, and shockingly so in the EU where anti-competitive behavior by mega-corporations is actually being fought against heavily and very publicly. It's not enough for them to scare everyone into voluntarily shutting down their businesses - every small reseller in the world should be quaking in their boots right now. And that's if you've EVER run such a business in the past, even if you have already closed down years ago.

I really don't understand. They can't go after their only serious threat, which is all the knock-off producers in China, so they instead choose to completely crush a single individual who isn't manufacturing? If one of my bricks snaps in half because LEGO used a bad batch of ABS pellets, that's apparently just fine, but if I cut a brick in half for an express purpose, lets say it's an art piece, and tell you it has a LEGO logo on the molding and sell it to you with you knowing full well it's been modified, I get my entire life destroyed? Is LEGO really trying to suggest that a big company can buy actual LEGO bricks, nick one corner off them, then have any credibility for re-selling them as "genuine"? I don't trust where this is going at all. LEGO bought Bricklink and promptly forbid making and selling custom items through the platform, even though everyone understands it is a resale marketplace for primarily used and out of production bricks, and it is also a separate business entity that doesn't claim otherwise. If I exhibit at a LEGO-sanctioned convention, are they going to have me prove that there are no non-genuine or modified parts in my builds? Are they going to ban half the vendors? Don't kid yourself that it won't eventually go that way. There are many massive LEGO train layouts where the baseplates and much of the roadbed and track are third-party, as otherwise it would be ruinously expensive to acquire the materials. Surely, even if an exhibitor is not selling anything, the implication that it's "LEGO" at a LEGO-themed convention is not a distinction the general public will make. Would that not undermine their business model just as much or more than a single person printing custom images on genuine bricks?

Wouldn't this decision just push all the brick modding services to the off-brands for their materials? I honestly don't see how this helps LEGO sell more of their own products. Was this a test case to see if they can go after every tiny seller in North America, or is the law different enough here that they can only restrict sales to US/Canada?

I definitely like how it looks just that little bit more 'grand'. Great respect to all of you guys figuring out all those articulations.