Lego Loses Its Trademark

by Jordan Yerman | November 14, 2008 at 09:28 am

1569 views | 23 Recommendations | 19 comments

Lego is no longer trademarked. The blockmaker was unsuccessful in its court case to prove that its distinctive knobs (which, as we all know, connect the blocks to each other, as well as facilitate the attachment of silly putty, peanut butter, etc) were eligible to lock in a trademark, as their true purpose is purely functional.

The reason given is that the brick in question, beloved by millions of children – and adults when no one's looking – worldwide, is a functional, technical shape that is not the unique property of one company.

Lego's patent on its bricks did in fact run out some years ago; in theory, any of us could have a bash at making lookalike Lego.

Well, in theory, yes... though pretenders to the plastic throne will have to contend with a global building-block mindset that equates such a toy with the Lego brand. Just like when you copy a document, you xerox it; and when you clean the floor using a vacuum cleaner, you hoover it-- our association between colored blocks and Lego is such that any imitator (and there have been a few) faces a tough battle indeed.

As a child, my brother and I had Tente blocks. Not sure if these still exist, but I remember their sharp edges, versatile shapes, and more subdued color scheme. I also remember how much it hurt when one swallowed a Tente block.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

mgmirkin

at 10:05 on November 14th, 2008

So, what does it all mean? Can anyone slap the name LEGO on their blocks? Can LEGO not slap its own name on the blocks?

What exactly is a trademark and how does losing one affect the company? What's the tangible effect of the loss? Is it different from losing a patent? How so? Just for those of us not in the know...

A trademark or trade mark, identified by the symbols ™ and ®, or mark is a distinctive sign or indicator used by an individual, business organization or other legal entity to identify that the products and/or services to consumers with which the trademark appears originate from a unique source of origin, and to distinguish its products or services from those of other entities. A trademark is a type of intellectual property, and typically a name, word, phrase, logo, symbol, design, image, or a combination of these elements. There is also a range of non-conventional trademarks comprising marks which do not fall into these standard categories.

The owner of a registered trademark may commence legal proceedings for trademark infringement to prevent unauthorized use of that trademark. However, registration is not required. The owner of a common law trademark may also file suit, but an unregistered mark may be protectable only within the geographical area within which it has been used or in geographical areas into which it may be reasonably expected to expand.

The term trademark is also used informally to refer to any distinguishing attribute by which an individual is readily identified, such as the well known characteristics of celebrities. When a trademark is used in relation to services rather than products, it may sometimes be called a service mark, particularly in the United States.

A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state to an inventor or his assignee for a fixed period of time in exchange for a disclosure of an invention.

The procedure for granting patents, the requirements placed on the patentee and the extent of the exclusive rights vary widely between countries according to national laws and international agreements. Typically, however, a patent application must include one or more claims defining the invention which must be new, inventive, and useful or industrially applicable. In many countries, certain subject areas are excluded from patents, such as business methods and mental acts. The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent or exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing the invention.

So, I assume that the ruling means that the nubs on top of the blocks aren't trademakable? Whereas perhaps the LEGO logo is? Just trying to figure out exactly was was ruled against and how it impacts LEGOs or non-LEGOs?

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

Blue Star Lego

at 12:17 on November 14th, 2008

All that it means is that The Lego Company cannot monopolize the block elements and the interlocking capabilities therein. The interlocking pieces were a mainstay of the company and a technological marvel when they were introduced in 1949, but now people think of the knob-and-recess design as a matter-of-fact. That's probably why the proposition of Lego's sole propriety of the design was voted down.

Like the article says, the name Lego is almost entirely associated with the bricks, but "clone brick" companies like Mega Bloks, Best Lock, and countless Chinese knockoffs that sell for less money (at the cost of quality) have had slowly increasing market share. For example, Lego used to have licenses for both Spider Man and Dora the Explorer, now Mega Brands has the license for the brick versions of those franchises. The Lego Company's best interest would have been to corner the market with a patent on the "idea" of the interlocking brick. Who knows, maybe the competition will do the company some good?

shudaizi

at 12:32 on November 14th, 2008

2008 San Francisco Bay to Breakers participants -- obviously using Lego as inspiration

shudaizi has contributed a photo to this story.

KOM674

at 12:33 on November 14th, 2008

I'm now 49 years old and I enjoyed playing with Lego blocks when I was a kid.

KOM674 has contributed a photo to this story.

-Gareth-

at 12:55 on November 14th, 2008

LEGO should be able to trademark the blocks, they came up with them, and it's the original! Everyone knows about the knock-off wannabe LEGO blocks, and they just don't cut it!

-Gareth- has contributed a photo to this story.

Karf Oolhu

at 14:06 on November 14th, 2008

One of my earlier mocs - photgraphy has improved since this.

Karf Oolhu has contributed a photo to this story.

Barely

at 14:26 on November 14th, 2008

LEGO has definitely defined many generations since its invention. There are a lot of other companies (Discovery toys has a similar product) and I can't tell you how many times I have built something with loose legos around. It is interesting though that the functionality of lego style connector lost its patent fight, where as Harley Davidson has a patent on the sound. A sound isn't functional and important for the use of a motorcycle, where as the ego connection is. Makes me wonder.

njburrell

at 15:19 on November 14th, 2008

No matter what the name on the beloved blocks may say, it will still be called "LEGO"! Just like when you get an owie, you grab a, what everyone still calls it, a "Band Aid".

njburrell has contributed a photo to this story.

JimmytheJ

at 15:29 on November 14th, 2008

Happy to grant usage of my Wall-E.

I think Mega Bloks etc should have asked TLC's permission to use their stud/tube idea. It's like copying out a work of art, but badly. It's like Tesco's ("every little helps us acheive Global domination") own-brand take on Brio. It should not be! It should be the real stuff or Nowt.

skwidleyd

at 16:02 on November 14th, 2008

I am usure how this affects the current situation. Mega Bloks and Tyco Super Blocks (to name just two of many) are already compatible with Lego. I had thought they were no longer sold until I saw Mega Bloks in a store the other day. If companies already imitate Lego freely, I do not really see how this changes anything. Personally, I like all the various ideas the different companies come up with. I say let the competition roll! I bought the Lego Speed Racer sets and a few others because I liked the vehicles Lego came up with. Whichever company comes up with the best idea deserves to sell that idea and you know what? If all these sets fit together so my own imagination can run wild, so much the better!

skwidleyd has contributed a photo to this story.

alexrider7

at 18:18 on November 14th, 2008

Yes, I was there. I read it on a website and I was like... your crapp'n me. Then, I saw it in the newspaper. Then, I was like really mad. Those dang megablox communists stole Lego's idea. Yeah, notice I don't capatalize the 'm' in 'megablox.' Thats how bad they are.

I LIVE FOR LEGO. It is so stupid that Lego is no longer trademarked. My room doesn't have one megablox peice in it. And, if you want to know, none of my creations ever will. Ever. They. Will. Never. Trust me.

alexrider7 has contributed a photo to this story.

Paschen

at 19:24 on November 14th, 2008

I am sorry, but I do not think that this is right at all. This case will snow ball and affect every thing and every one.

bigvariable

at 23:14 on November 14th, 2008

I don't think I have broken Lego's trademark when I made these keychains. I never resold them to anyone; I simply used the blocks that I've had since childhood to make a few keychains for my own, friend, and family use.

bigvariable has contributed a photo to this story.

sindel3

at 04:51 on November 15th, 2008

WOW! What a story it's good to know what is going on in the world and in toy companies too.

Scrivener

at 23:33 on November 15th, 2008

Jordan:

I think you're using the term "trademark" here when you mean "patent."

"Lego" is a trademark owned by the company that USED to have an exclusive patent on the product. Now a court has ruled that the product is not "unique" and thus cannot be patented.

The Lego company still owns the trademark "Lego." But the court is saying that other companies can use the same design. But they'd have to call it something else, because the name "Lego" is distinct and thus still a proprietary trademark.

At least that's how this non-attorney sees it.

Hey, did you hear about the guy who invented a way to connect beer cans using the "Lego" design? He sticks beer cans into the holes in a plastic form that resembles a Lego block. Jay Leno had a bit on his guy on Friday night. Maybe someone has YouTubed it.

Cheers.

Guitarmanb4u

at 17:11 on November 16th, 2008

My children were always playing with Lego while they were little. We always bought it for them to play with. My 27 year old daughter still plays with them making the star war things. No matter what the name is, They will all be called Lego to me.

Guitarmanb4u has contributed a photo to this story.