Lego & Copyright - would Lego ever bring builders to court over &#

[Garyallanach]

Lego & Copyright - would Lego ever bring builders to court over an 'inappropriate' model?

I have written an article on my own personal blog regarding the use of Lego in posters etc and the resultant copyright issues. I would be interested in people's feedback.

http://garyallanach.blogspot.com/ 'The Glee of copyright in political adverts'

For AFOL fans, it includes a Lego version of a Glee poster.

Thanks,

Gary

Edited June 4, 2010 by Garyallanach

[Ras 74]

Welcome to Eurobricks!

I haven´t had time to read your article yet.

But can you please edit the title of your topic to go on the field bellow.

Not many will know what "" means if it means anything.

We normally don´t let people just post and advertise themselfs with one post like this.

Please go here to post a presentation of yourself.

Hope you will enjoy our boards, and be active in the discussions.

[Garyallanach]

Hi Ras 74,

Unfortunately, the title cut out and am unable to edit so have restated the title in the main body in bold.

I look forward to any comments or feedback that readers have.

Thanks,

Gary

[Siegfried]

Personally I think you've got it all backwards; LEGO wouldn't sue, but the makers of "Glee" might.

I'm not really seeing much relevance to LEGO here at all to be honest.

[Garyallanach]

For some reason Lego cases seem to come up quite a lot in the courts. This issue I think will become more and more relevant as people try, for example, to become commercial lego artists or use Lego in advertising or post Youtube videos with subject matter that may not be compatible with the branding of Lego as a childrens' toy (per the Spinal tap case). You are correct Siegfried in suggesting that the Copyright issue is further complicated when the subject of the build involves a copyrighted or trademarked idea/ original.

[Siegfried]

For some reason Lego cases seem to come up quite a lot in the courts.

Really? Consider how often I read stuff like "the house fell apart like LEGO", and how often LEGO is written incorrectly I think they are very restrained. The last time I heard of them complaining was over this..

...but that was pulled after a complaint, no lawsuit needed. When were they last in court over trademarks?

[Blondie-Wan]

There are a couple things in this thread of which I hadn't heard before, and which I'm curious about:

This issue I think will become more and more relevant as people try, for example, to become commercial lego artists or use Lego in advertising or post Youtube videos with subject matter that may not be compatible with the branding of Lego as a childrens' toy (per the Spinal tap case).

Spinal Tap case? What Spinal Tap case is this?

...but that was pulled after a complaint, no lawsuit needed. When were they last in court over trademarks?

And what was that about? I can understand why TLG would have a problem with any association of its products with racism, but what was the idea behind the original image?

[Siegfried]

There are a couple things in this thread of which I hadn't heard before, and which I'm curious about:

The image in my post is a link, and I think Garyallanach wants you to read his blog. I just skimmed it...

[Garyallanach]

Perhaps I do want people to read my blog but not out of any sinister motive!

I had been reading a lot about this area with respect of copyright and trademark law, and just wanted to know if anyone had any experience or feedback in relation specifically to Lego.

For anyone interested in the Spinal Tap case, it received press interest in many countries; below is a link to the New york Times article on it

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/business/11lego.html

Trademark issues cover three areas really:

1) If Lego can trademark the brick design itself

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2010/01/big-s...rk-dispute.html

2) When companies or organisations are using the Lego name in different areas of business but which could be construed as being related to the Lego Group.

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stor.../22/daily5.html

3) When Lego is used in a manner which could be harmful to the Lego group's business/ reputation (such as the Spinal tap case)

I am interested in the latter really (and only in a personal capacity)

[escortmad79]

If they've trademarked the brick design how come Mega bloks, Best Lock & all the other lesser brands are able to continually flood the market with similar, poorer quality products some labelled as being Lego compatible?

[tedbeard]

I enjoyed the article but you glossed over the effect of the Spinal Tap case and the connection to SLAPPs. If you can "win" by simply threatening legal action and the attendant costs involved the law no longer really matters. So what if I am right? If I cannot hope to defend myself in court because it is too expensive the law is meaningless.

I like that you defend the right to use LEGO in creating something that you then sell. The pen idea is a great way to explain that part to someone.

[Big Cam]

Once you buy a product, you may do with it what you wish. Copyright comes back to using TLG's name, not product.

The racism ad is a good example of what could be considered defamation of character, since it in some form implies that LEGO has something to do with racism.

If I build something that is intended to hurt people, TLG can only say "our products are not designed to be used like this and we don't encourage this type of use" They would have no right to Sue me because they don't like what I've done with their product that I bought from them.

[AndyC]

Trademark issues cover three areas really:

1) If Lego can trademark the brick design itself

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2010/01/big-s...rk-dispute.html

2) When companies or organisations are using the Lego name in different areas of business but which could be construed as being related to the Lego Group.

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/stor.../22/daily5.html

3) When Lego is used in a manner which could be harmful to the Lego group's business/ reputation (such as the Spinal tap case)

I am interested in the latter really (and only in a personal capacity)

Er, no. You're confusing a whole bunch of very different legal issues (Trademarks, Copyright, Patents, and 'Passing Off' to name a few) under a term with a very specific meaning. The words aren't interchangable and the associated laws are very different, even within a country. It's probably also not too bright an idea to put anything that might be construed as legal advice on the web unless you make it very clear that it's not professional advice (for the record, I am not a lawyer!)

[larry marak]

If they've trademarked the brick design how come Mega bloks, Best Lock & all the other lesser brands are able to continually flood the market with similar, poorer quality products some labelled as being Lego compatible?

The patent, which TLG filed years ago, has been public domain in most countries for decades, though the life of a patent tends to vary with each nation's laws. It was only when TLG was sueing Tyco for their bricks and the use of the word Lego in their advertising that TLG discovered that they were violating the patent to the brick for over 20 years, as Kiddiekraft toys and its founders heirs actually owned the patent to bricks connecting by studs on top. After purching the rights to the patent from the heirs, Lego became the unchallenged patent holder of a by then expired patent.

For nearly a decade TLG has fought to treat their 2x4 brick as a trademark, and they've been shot down in almost every court on earth. But with deep pockets they can keep on sueing forever.

[Siegfried]

For nearly a decade TLG has fought to treat their 2x4 brick as a trademark, and they've been shot down in almost every court on earth. But with deep pockets they can keep on sueing forever.

TLG gave up on that years ago, and you of all people should know that.

[Peppermint_M]

I am sure I gave a great example once, regarding the design of the brick and why it can't be patented...

I shall attempt to locate it and link it here.

Edit

Here is the post!