Lego tells Bricklink, "No "Lego" in store names."

[JINZONINGEN73]

http://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp...8170&nID=251313

Yeah, so if there's any stores you wanted to do business with again, it's possible that their names might be nothing like they were before.

The thinking is, that SUPPOSEDLY customers going there will get all the hell confused and somehow think that something named, say, Thor's Legos is actually part of Lego.

Yeah... right?

>__<

If Lego wanted to be mean to Bricklink, they could tell them to remove some Lego images, as it's being used for commercial purposes.

So, to cover their megablocks, the Admin of Bricklink requested all the stores with "Lego" change their names.

Hmm... should this be in Marketplace?

Show of hands... how many of you ever shopped on Bricklink and thought you were ACTUALLY purchasing items from Lego itself? :-|

[Shadows]

So, to cover their megablocks, the Admin of Bricklink requested all the stores with "Lego" change their names.

I read about this and honestly, wasn't surprised. I still think it was more voluntary than forced, and oddly, I think it's a good idea, not because of potential confusion on Bricklink, but because it sets up the potential for someone to register their "username" which is really just a thinly veiled LEGO name, as a domain, and then real confusion or potential infringement could occur.

I expect eBay to be next, and LEGO can enforce it, if they want.

On a vaguely related note... I actually thought the guy with www.pick-a-brick.com in his name was closer to being potentially confusing to the dimmer members of society. Sadly, a lot of people really are just that stupid and I'd be surprised if LEGO doesn't have that registered legally.

Whatever the case, it's apparently surprising to the 1800+ members who will be changing their names, but otherwise, fairly unimportant on the grand scale.

[blueandwhite]

http://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp...8170&nID=251313

If Lego wanted to be mean to Bricklink, they could tell them to remove some Lego images, as it's being used for commercial purposes.

So, to cover their megablocks, the Admin of Bricklink requested all the stores with "Lego" change their names.

Actually, I don't think LEGO could ask Bricklink to move most of the catalog images. The LEGO brand is property of the LEGO group, and as such use of the name is a violation of their trade name. Just as if you opened a convenience store named Walmart, you can bet there would be hell to pay. It's not the use of the LEGO name to describe their product that is an issue. It's people using the LEGO brand as a business name that makes this a problem. Alot of brands have lost their distinctiveness because their names have fallen into common use (kleenex, Q-tip etc.). LEGO will do everything they can to protect their name.

With that, I'm not sure that LEGO can actually prevent bricklink from displaying photos or images of the different LEGO bricks available on Bricklink. Given that LEGO recently lost its copyright case against Megabloks, I'm not sure on what grounds they could ask to have the brick photographs removed. Moreover, if LEGO were able to do what you're suggesting, wouldn't this technically give other companies the same rights? It would essentially eliminate the right of an individual to sell anything on the second-hand market for fear of copyright violation. Heck, almost every item sold on ebay is accompanied by a photograph.

I have no doubt that LEGO despises bricklink (despite how much it has done for the AFOL community). They undoubtedly eat heavily into LEGO's bottom line, even if the bulk brick market has never been served well by LEGO. The fact that fans don't have to buy sets (and large quantities of brick that they don't want or will never use) doesn't serve LEGO well. I simply imagine that if it were possible, LEGO would have shut Bricklink down years ago.

Bricklink forever :-D !!

[Lasse D]

I think one should be reactive instead of proactive in cases like this.

I other words. I do not agree with the lawyers who might think they work in LEGO's best interest.

[brickzone]

I don't think this is a big deal. It's reasonable enough for Lego to request this as a trademark holder.

Plus they are legally *obliged* to take active measures to "protect" their trademark, otherwise they lose it, and then not just bricklink stores but other brick selling companies etc. can use the word "Lego" to sell their products.

[snefroe]

well this could be a first move on Lego's part to disrupt Bricklink. it starts with the names, then the images then the trading ,...

still, i don't really see the point in attacking bl. the bl shops are taking looooooots of parts and sets from lego, they're reaching customers lego will never ever reach with their limited range of products and parts... to me it sounds like the giant company is angry for some reason and needs some one to punish, just to make himself feel better again... g... as if bl is the worst problem they're facing these days...

[Athos]

Glad I went with the Brickslinger, rather than LegalLego... X-D What a pain that will be...

Steve

[Kanal-K1]

I think it will be much useful for TLC to think about some much serious problems (worse quality of bricks, exact Chinese copies and so on), than to suddenly strike onto Bricklink.

Bricklink does a pretty good work for TLC, I am an active BL seller (even small from small country), and what I do, that i buy most of the sets only to part them out to my BL shop. Ratio between my private collection sets and part-out sets is around 1:10-1:20. I am quite sure, that most of BL shops are doing it same, and especially some very big US, UK, NL and D shops are buying unbelievable quantities of sets to part out in their shops...

[Lt. Veers]

I just checked the index of stores and some still have lego in them. They'd better hurry and change it.

[tedbeard]

With that, I'm not sure that LEGO can actually prevent bricklink from displaying photos or images of the different LEGO bricks available on Bricklink. Given that LEGO recently lost its copyright case against Megabloks, I'm not sure on what grounds they could ask to have the brick photographs removed.

You are confusing trademark law, patent law and copyright law. A photograph in and of itself is protected by copyright as intellectual property. Using a photograph someone else has taken is a violation of the photographers copyright over that image. It doesn't matter what the image is, just that it was created by the photographer or, in this case, the photographers employer, TLC.

We are NOT talking about images created by AFOLs.

I have no doubt that LEGO despises bricklink (despite how much it has done for the AFOL community). They undoubtedly eat heavily into LEGO's bottom line,

You are kidding right? :-D Bricklink is a reseller of LEGO products. LEGO already got it's profit when the original brick was sold and in any case AFOLs represent no more than 3-5% of the annual sales of TLC. How would shutting down BL create ANY positive effect on TLC's bottom line? I would bet that if BL sellers stopped buying from LEGO it would NOT be made up in direct sales to BL buyers. they would actually sell less to AFOLs which benefits no one.

[blueandwhite]

You are confusing trademark law, patent law and copyright law. A photograph in and of itself is protected by copyright as intellectual property. Using a photograph someone else has taken is a violation of the photographers copyright over that image. It doesn't matter what the image is, just that it was created by the photographer or, in this case, the photographers employer, TLC.

We are NOT talking about images created by AFOLs.

I'm pretty sure I'm not, or my law degree was a complete and total waste :-D .

You may not be talking about images created by AFOLs, but I certainly am. The majority of photos on Bricklink aren't official photographs. While the set photos may be protected by copyright, what about the individual parts photos taken by Bricklink? The majority of Bricklink's catolog did not come from LEGO. The Bricklink catalog is predominantly fan made.

For the most part, we are speaking of images created by AFOLs.

You are kidding right? :-D Bricklink is a reseller of LEGO products. LEGO already got it's profit when the original brick was sold and in any case AFOLs represent no more than 3-5% of the annual sales of TLC. How would shutting down BL create ANY positive effect on TLC's bottom line? I would bet that if BL sellers stopped buying from LEGO it would NOT be made up in direct sales to BL buyers. they would actually sell less to AFOLs which benefits no one.

You could be correct.

Still, my personal experiences suggest that Bricklink does indeed have some impact on LEGO's business. prior to discovering Bricklink I spent far more on new LEGO than I do now. If I wanted a certain element or elements, I would often pony up for a set. With Bricklink, I simply don't need to do this. I ordered my Castle princess without needing to buy the actual set she came with. Without Bricklink I would have undoubtedly purchased this set. I would say from personal experience that Bricklink has saved me $1000s of dollars, and I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone on this. Whether this actually has any adverse impact on LEGO is of course pure speculation.

Edited February 5, 2008 by blueandwhite

[john cleese]

I would completely boycott TLG if they closed BL. Now that would be TLG's stupidest decision.

EDIT: check out what Troy changed his name to 'Troy's Surplus Bloks : -P' lol

Edited February 5, 2008 by john cleese

[Starwars4J]

I would completely boycott TLG if they closed BL. Now that would be TLG's stupidest decision.

EDIT: check out what Troy changed his name to 'Troy's Surplus Bloks : -P' lol

Yeah, I noticed that while I was waiting for him to ship my stuff after it sitting around for a month :-| Never shopping there again...

That aside I can see why LEGO is doing it...or rather I can see two possible reasons. Either to protect their brand name (in which case they have a lot more to worry about than Bricklink), or to try to cause BL to shut down eventually. I can understand people saying they need to protect themselves, but there are ALREADY clones out there. There's nothing really to protect! They just fear BL is eating too much into their products, totally ignoring the fact that people buy sets in bulk to part out and sell. It makes EVERYONE money.

[Lamanda2]

Aha!

I was wondering why Troy's store name was changed from 'LEGO' to 'Bloks' when I was looking around there the other day, especially since it's so far from April 1st. ;-)

This clears things up..

I guess it only makes since really, I'm a bit surprised LEGO didn't do this sooner.

~Amanda

[tedbeard]

You may not be talking about images created by AFOLs, but I certainly am.

My mistake then. The words used to describe the images were "catalog images". Since copyright can only exist in TLC created catalogs that is what I assumed we were talking about. It would of course be impossible for TLC to claim copyright on images taken by AFOLs. :-$

[Cardinal Brick]

It doesn

[Johnny 5]

If I had A distinctive brand name I wouldn't want others using it for thier sales and profit, so I agree with TLG it was a good move to protect thier name.

[blueandwhite]

My mistake then. The words used to describe the images were "catalog images". Since copyright can only exist in TLC created catalogs that is what I assumed we were talking about. It would of course be impossible for TLC to claim copyright on images taken by AFOLs. :-$

No problem.

When it comes down to it, Bricklink is nothing more than a super powered pick-a-brick. I certainly understand LEGO's move to protect their brand though. The idea of Megabloks calling their bricks "Megabloks brand legos" just gives me the willies *wacko* . Let's hope that LEGO never loses its distinctiveness.

Later.

[JINZONINGEN73]

I would completely boycott TLG if they closed BL. Now that would be TLG's stupidest decision.

I don't think they could really get it shut down, but they certainly could do damage.

This whole thing is only slightly less annoying then when Lego ceased and desisted on Newgrounds.com, having MANY classic fan-made flash movies deleted by the admins there.

I ALMOST boycotted Lego over that. And yes, if they try to harm Bricklink, I WILL never buy another (official) Lego set ever again, no joke.

I have no doubt that LEGO despises bricklink (despite how much it has done for the AFOL community). They undoubtedly eat heavily into LEGO's bottom line, even if the bulk brick market has never been served well by LEGO. The fact that fans don't have to buy sets (and large quantities of brick that they don't want or will never use) doesn't serve LEGO well.

No, so far it seems Lego DOES like Bricklink. Sometimes when a replacement part can't be filled, Bricklink is suggested. If you read the link in the first post, you'll see other positive references.

I don't think Bricklink harms Lego's sales at all. You have guys there who buy HUNDREDS of some sets, just to part them out and sell them.

There are times when really expensive sets have just 1 or 2 good parts... in cases like that, I COULD buy it and feel burned for being a sucker, but instead have the option of paying just a fraction of that at Bricklink. Needless to say, I STILL wind up buying tons of smaller, more desirable sets anyway.

Everybody wins. :-)

[brickbrick]

This isn't really about attacking bricklink, it's preventing other people using bricklink as a precedent for the use of "lego" by other companies other than TLC.

They could have been much nastier about how they chose to go ahead with this (e.g. demanded bricklink got taken down, immediately deletion of accounts containing "Lego").

[JINZONINGEN73]

Yeah, I'm not totally ignorant to their reasoning. I do see the direction they're approaching from.

It's just after seeing how they SWOOPED down VIOLENTLY on Newgrounds, who weren't even selling anything, merely making fan videos about Lego... along with how they try to control dedicated Lego fan sites all the darn time... I think it best to be wary of moves they make related to the deletion of "anything".

Likewise, it's too bad they feel they must do this to stop anyone REALLY unclever from thinking these are stores related to Lego.

[blueandwhite]

Likewise, it's too bad they feel they must do this to stop anyone REALLY unclever from thinking these are stores related to Lego.

It's not like LEGO has a choice on this one. If they didn't act on potential infringements on their trade name, they probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on when defending it from their competitors. I don't think that they're all that concerned about small vendors passing themselves off as being associated with LEGO as much as they are simply worried about keeping their brand name. This is simply lip service for the courts and legal scholars who jump at every opportunity. LEGO is actually on the defensive here.

[JINZONINGEN73]

Another possibility is that Lego might not have even cared, but had to go forward on this as a condition needing to be met by potential investors and or potential insurers to the company who don't get the big picture.

Pure speculation! X-O

[Mile85]

I think it will be much useful for TLC to think about some much serious problems (worse quality of bricks, exact Chinese copies and so on), than to suddenly strike onto Bricklink.

Bricklink does a pretty good work for TLC, I am an active BL seller (even small from small country), and what I do, that i buy most of the sets only to part them out to my BL shop. Ratio between my private collection sets and part-out sets is around 1:10-1:20. I am quite sure, that most of BL shops are doing it same, and especially some very big US, UK, NL and D shops are buying unbelievable quantities of sets to part out in their shops...

My thoughts exactly! Brick quality is a big issue to me, some of the bricks are so cheepish nowadays. Many people seem to accept this though...

And it's gonna be impossible, to prevent ALL of using name "lego". And BL is the place where, using "lego" doesn't do any harm to TLC. + in in different countries(lanquages), the word "lego" has gotten a wider meaning than just lego brick.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Mile85