Slashdot Mirror


Lego Loses Its Unique Right To Make Lego Blocks

tsa writes "The European Department of Justice has decided that the Danish company Lego does not have exclusive rights to the lego building block anymore (sorry, it's in Dutch). Lego went to court after a Canadian firm had made blocks that were so like lego blocks that they even fit the real blocks made by Lego. The European judge decided that the design of the lego blocks is not protected by European trademarks and so anyone can make the blocks." If true, hopefully this will open doors for people interested in inexpensive bulk purchase of bricks of specific sizes and colors. Perhaps at long last I can build a life-sized Hemos statue for my office.

19 of 576 comments (clear)

  1. English translation by jschen · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3784225,00.html The news is not that generic blocks didn't previously exist. It's that Lego is unable to retain the trademark.

  2. Re:Cheap = Good for parents by Black+Cardinal · · Score: 4, Informative

    We bought some Mega Bloks for our son, but the plastic they used (polypropylene?) is too soft to keep a good grip. Duplos are made out of ABS plastic that holds its shape much better, so the blocks stay locked and structures stay together. We can't even build a simple staircase out of Mega Bloks without frustration. Constructions have to have twice as many Mega Bloks as Duplos to have the same strength.

    While though the Mega Bloks are cheaper, we'll probably stick to Duplo and Lego for the future.

  3. Re:Cheap = Good for parents by Fishead · · Score: 4, Informative

    I agree. Mega blocks are crap.

    We picked up a huge bin at a garage sale last summer. Most of it was Lego, but there was just enough Mega Blocks to frustrate you. They don't fit right, they don't hold very good, and the colours suck.

    I am a big fan of competition. Hopefully this drives down the price of real legos.

    If they lost the trademark though, Mega Blocks can start marketing their product as lego. That would suck.

  4. I thought by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Informative

    If true, hopefully this will open doors for people interested in inexpensive bulk purchase of bricks of specific sizes and colors.

    I thought you could already do that.

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
  5. Re:ISO Standard by amorsen · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's actually damn hard to make the bricks. Lego found this out when they outsourced production a few years ago. It turned out to be a bad deal both for Flextronics and Lego, so now the factories are all back under direct Lego management.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  6. Lego didn't invent them in the first place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    The plastic building block we associated with "LEGO" was actually invented and sold in the late 1940's by an English toy designer named Hilary Page under the "KIDDIECRAFT" brand. He failed to patent it outside the UK and LEGO started manufacturing them without acknowledging their origin.

    After Hilary Page commited suicide, LEGO purchased the expired patents from Page's estate so they could pretend they invented them in the first place.

    LEGO did invent and patent the little tube on the bottom of the brick, which wasn't in Page's original design, which allows for more connection possibilities. Once that patent expired, other companies, such as Canada's MEGA, (creator of Mega Bloks) created clones. LEGO, of course, sued for trademark infringement. In the US, they lost, because you can't trademark and patent the same things - functional elements, which are covered by patents, can't be trademarked. Other countries treat this issue differently, hence LEGO enjoys some trademark protection even for the purely functional elements.

    Apparently, LEGO's view is that a patent should be valid as long as the company holding the patent continues to manufacture the product, and tends to be pretty aggressive about it. The irony they they effectively violated the patents of the original inventor is completely lost on them.

    Posting anonymously because I've had previous run-ins with LEGO's lawyers.

  7. Translation by KasperMeerts · · Score: 5, Informative

    Finally, I knew all this Dutch my parents learned me would pay off! This had better give me some free karma.

    Lego loses it's unique right to make Lego blocks

    Luxemburg - It'll be hard to swallow for the Danish manufacturer Lego now that the European Court of Justice has decided Wednesday that everyone can make a block that fits the original legoblock.

    Lego had gone to the European Court of Justice battling against the Canadian competitor Mega Brands, who has brought a block on the market that fits Lego's. The Court ruled today that the design of Lego is not protected by European trademark and that there can be no such thing as an unique right.

    The Lego block was invented in 1932 by Ole Kirk Christiansen in the Danish city Billund. The name LEGO is derived from the Danish words "LE GOdt" (play good). Later the word appeared the word could be interpreted in Latin as "I gather" (or 'I choose' or 'I read').

    LEGO is a Danish toy manufacturer that became famous because of the colored plastic blocks. The blocks are sold under the name "Lego"; that way they refer not only to the manufacturer, but it also became a generic brand. The manufacturer is the biggest toy manufacturer in Europe with a revenue of 7823 billion Danish Krone ( 1049 billion Euro or 1337 billion dollars ) in 2006. Meanwhile, LEGO has won the price "Toy of the Century" twice.

    The LEGO Group is the fifth biggest toy manufacturer in the world.

    --
    As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
  8. This story is completely wrong. by amorsen · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lego hasn't had a monopoly on the bricks for decades. (They have a monopoly on making bricks that actually work, but that's not for legal reasons, that's just because their competitors are incompetent.)

    Lego has used a red 2x4 Lego brick in advertisements, and they believed that this particular brick could be used as a trademarked "logo". The European Department of Justice decided that the brick picture is too generic to be trademarked. The decision will be appealed.

    So all it means is that competitors are allowed to put that particular brick in their advertisements and on their boxes. They already had the right to produce the brick.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  9. Re:Cheap = Good for parents by 2short · · Score: 5, Informative

    "I agree. Mega blocks are crap.

    We picked up a huge bin at a garage sale last summer. "

    Older Mega blocks are crap. Mega Blocks produced in recent years are just as mechanically good as Lego, and after this decision might start looking as good too.

    Lego has had various varieties of legal protections on their blocks in various countries. They had some patents on elements of their production process that prevented others from making good blocks cheap; hence the crappy Mega Blocks. Those patents expired a while ago, so MegaBlocks became good.
        Lego still had a trademarks in various countries on the look of the iconic red brick. Hence the different colour scheme you don't like. That trademark is now gone, so expect Mega Blocks to start looking nice.
        Lego still has, and presumably always will have, a trademark on the name "Lego". So they'll continue to benefit from their (well deserved) reputation for quality, and charge more for their bricks. But MegaBlocks might, now, be just as good.

  10. Lego can't compete by a.ameri · · Score: 5, Informative

    The problem is, Lego might be a household name, indeed in some countries it is a generic name for building blocks, but it is still a family-owned business. It's CEO and Chairman is a cool-looking grandson of the founder, and it resides in a rural town in Denmark called Billund, with a population of about 27,000 where nearly 90% of its manufacturing still occurs. The town is almost entirely dependent on Lego.

    Lego is among the world's best employers (if not outright best). Equal opportunity in action. Employees, including the CEO, do not have reserved parking spots at the HQ's carpark, offices mostly resemble community areas rather than walled rooms, free food and drinks are all over the place, not to mention some of the best sporting and health facilities provided to employees. Blue collar workers receive the same treatment, for most things from gym membership to access to the health clinic, there is no difference between the executives and simple manufacturing employee. People don't wear name tags, they nearly always wear casual, unless they have a meeting with an outside party.

    Lego has Idea Labs where people just experiment with new toys. It employs scientist, from chemists to child psychologists just to carry out all sorts of experiments. It is such a fun place, you'd be forgiven if you thought you where in Wonderland. It has a museum full of toys that it invented but failed to manufacture, mostly due to safety concerns. I can understand why some of them might have been thought of as dangerous, but boy are they cool!

    Of course, with all the above, with the cost of employing and manufacturing in Europe, it can't compete with the cheapest-of-the-cheap Chinese factory which just mass produces plastic blocks. I understand that in this case, IP laws do not really cover its business, and anyone is legally able to copy them, but IMO it's rather sad to see that such companies can't really exist in this world, that consumers don't value the history and the culture of a company. They just look at a price tag and make their decision solely based on that.

    Everyone I met at Lego is aware of these issues. They have carried massive restructuring plans since 2005, but they know they can't compete against most rivals whose costs are simply lower; yet they really want to preserve the unique culture that has made Lego, Lego for the past generations. Short of outsourcing manufacturing to some place in China, closing its museum and laboratory and airport and with it the town and becoming just another plastic manufacturer, I can't think of a way for them to survive. As I said, it's rather sad.

    --
    -- /* Those who don't underestand Unix, are condemned to reinvent it poorly */
  11. Google Translation by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Informative

    Lego was to the European Court of Justice and were active in the fight against the Canadian competitor Mega Brands, which is a block on the market that fits that of Lego. The Court ruled today that the design of Lego is not protected by the trademark and that there should be no question of monopoly.

    Here's the translated page. And no, BabelFish did not produce a translation of the same quality.

    Google frightens me sometimes. Almost every day now.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  12. Re:Let me attempt to translate... by msh104 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lego was naar het Europese Hof van justitie gestapt in de strijd tegen de Canadese concurrent Mega Brands, die een blokje op de markt heeft gebracht dat past op die van Lego. Het Hof oordeelde vandaag dat het ontwerp van Lego niet is beschermd door het Europees merkenrecht en dat er dus geen sprake mag zijn van alleenrecht.

    Perhaps less fun..
    But here is the more correct ( though quick and quite literal ) translation:

    Lego went to the "Europese Hof" (a very high justice department in europe) in a battle against the Canadian competitor Mega Brands, who created a brick that fits on the lego brick. The "Hof" decided today that the design of Lego is not protected by the European Market rights, and that there thus cannot be any case for exclusive ownership.

  13. Re:Let me attempt to translate... by theaveng · · Score: 5, Informative

    Babel Fish to the rescue:

    "Lego had stepped to the European Court of Justice in the fight against the Canadian competitor Mega fire, which a cube on the market has brought that watches out which of Lego. The court judged today that the design of Lego has not been protected by the European merkenrecht and that there can no talk be therefore of exclusive right."

    Hmmm. Well my fish is almost 40 years old.

    "Lego was, according to the European Court of Justice objected in the fight against the Canadian competitor mega brands, which is a cube on the market that has brought shall apply to those of Lego. The Court ruled today that the design of Lego not protected by the European trademark law and that there is no question of exclusive rights."

    Nope. Still sounds like nonsense.

    Here's what Deutsche Welle says: "The European Union's Court of First Instance turned down Lego's appeal to force the EU's trademarks and designs office to reissue its trademark for the shape of its standard red Lego brick with eight cylindrical knobs.

    "The EU court, however, sided with a 2004 decision made by the EU agency, which had canceled Lego's trademark after rival toy maker Canada's Mega Brands Inc. filed an appeal to Lego's application. Mega Brands produces similar plastic building blocks that compete with Lego."

    --
    FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
  14. Re:makes sense, meh by gfxguy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah... I look at this as a mixed blessing.

    I have a substantial collection of Lego, and I have a single MegaBlocks model... as much as I hate to say it, there's really a difference in quality. The Lego plastic is actually superior, and the quality of the molds must be better, too.

    So while I'd like to be able to buy bulk packs of pieces (which I've done via bricklink for some years now) at cheap prices (at an average approaching $0.10 piece for a little piece of molded plastic?), I certainly wouldn't accept lower quality just to get cheaper pieces.

    I'm all for competition, though. If Lego reduces prices (I know they whine they are barely making it... which is just baffling to me), then I'll be all over it. I mean, go ahead and charge $50 for a 400 piece Star Wars set... but let me buy bulk bricks to build my mega (no pun intended) structures, and I'll be a happy guy.

    Sometimes on bricklink you can find pieces you like for less than a penny a piece... unfortunately, while I admit I don't look very often, I haven't seen that kind of deal in some time.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  15. Re:makes sense, meh by mollymoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have a substantial collection of Lego, and I have a single MegaBlocks model... as much as I hate to say it, there's really a difference in quality. The Lego plastic is actually superior, and the quality of the molds must be better, too.

    Lego are utterly fantastic at making their bricks. They're mind-bogglingly good, in fact. To work properly, Lego bricks must be made to a tolerance of one micron, otherwise models would fall apart or the bricks be too hard to separate. Those little plastic bricks are as precisely engineered as the most precisely engineered components in the most expensive Swiss watch. They've been making them exactly the right size since the 1960s - the bricks you or you parents had in the 60s will still work perfectly with the bricks they make today.

    --
    Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
  16. Re:makes sense, meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    They've been making them in high quality since the mid 70's. I have Lego sets ranging from around the 50's to sets made in 2004 (albeit only a few in the 1965-90 and 1997-2004 ranges). The ones from the 1950's show quite a bit of wear and tear (structurally, not aesthetically), and will actually degrade large structures built using them (not as badly as Megablocks, but still weaker than newer Legos). It's not until (late) 1970 stuff that blocks start improving in quality, such that I can't tell the difference between a worn 1979 block and a worn 1999 block.

    They've only been making them excatly right since 1980.

  17. Re:Let me attempt to translate... by nuke-alwin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Luxembourg - The Danish manufacturer will have to swallow hard as the European Court of Justice decided on Wednesday that anyone may produce a block which fits on the original Lego block. Lego went to the European Court of Justice in a battle against the Canadian competitor Mega Brands who have brought a block to market which fits to those of Lego. The Court decided today that the design of Lego is not protected by European trademarks and that there can be no exclusive rights. The rest of the article is historical information about Lego.

    --
    "Have no fear for Atomic Energy" - Bob Marley in Redemption Song
  18. Re:makes sense, meh by x102output · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just visited a LEGO store at a mall in San Jose. They have a wall of Lego piece dispensers all individually filled with unique common Lego pieces. You can grab a cup for 7 bucks, or a bigger one for 14 bucks, and fill it up with as much pieces as you can fit. Definitely beats bricklink. check it out!

  19. Re:makes sense, meh by thechao · · Score: 4, Informative

    Probably too late for a proper reply. An old roommate of mine used to occasionally make dies. Like anything in manufacturing, pick two of three: accurate, hard-wearing, cheap. For high-speed production you need to make especially costly dies; even a cheap die for something the size of one Lego brick would set you back several hundred dollars, and you couldn't expect to use a very dense/high-quality plastic with it (due to injection pressures), nor expect it to last much beyond a few dozen or scores of casts for any sort of reasonable accuracy. I suppose for very high tolerances, sharp narrow edges (which Lego have), high speed, and hard plastics you would be paying many thousands (or more?) for the die; the costs grow enormously if you want a die for large pieces, i.e., more than a few square cm. And you would have to replace the die fairly often. The cost of the plastic is trivial compared to the capital cost of the die.

    As for technological advances... well, there's only so much you can do to make tooling steel better; basically, it is a materials-science question, and the advances there are not quick. For instance, except for CAD/CAM there have not been significant advances in tooling that would help in the manufacture of the die, that I know of, for probably the last 50 years.