Jump to content

Lego clone: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
removed K'nex. It just plain isn't compatible with lego. dochawk@gmail.com
Rescuing 2 sources and tagging 0 as dead. #IABot (v1.3.1.1)
Line 11: Line 11:
At least two of the largest clone manufacturers have been challenged in court by Lego. The lawsuits have been mostly unsuccessful, for courts have generally found the functional design of the basic brick to be a matter of [[patent]] rather than [[trademark]] law, and all relevant Lego patents have expired.
At least two of the largest clone manufacturers have been challenged in court by Lego. The lawsuits have been mostly unsuccessful, for courts have generally found the functional design of the basic brick to be a matter of [[patent]] rather than [[trademark]] law, and all relevant Lego patents have expired.


The Canadian company [[Mega Bloks]] was sued on the grounds that its use of the "studs and tubes" interlocking brick system was a violation of trademarks held by Lego. On November 17, 2005, the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] upheld Mega Bloks' right to continue selling the product in Canada.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2005/2005scc65/2005scc65.html |title=2005 SCC 65 |publisher=CanLII |date= |accessdate=2015-03-09}}</ref> A similar decision was reached by the [[European Union]]'s [[Court of First Instance]] on November 12, 2008, upholding an EU regulatory agency's reversal of opinion following an objection by Mega Bloks against a trademark awarded to Lego in 1999.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/12/business/lego.php |title=Lego loses trademark ruling in EU |work=The New York Times |date=October 12, 2008 }}</ref> On September 14, 2010, the European Court of Justice ruled that the 8-peg design of the original Lego brick "merely performs a technical function [and] cannot be registered as a trademark."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Mega+Brands+triumphant+after+Lego+loses+trademark+challenge/3527508/story.html |accessdate=December 31, 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100919154713/http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Mega+Brands+triumphant+after+Lego+loses+trademark+challenge/3527508/story.html|title=Montreal's Mega Brands triumphant after Lego loses trademark challenge|archivedate=September 19, 2010 }}</ref>
The Canadian company [[Mega Bloks]] was sued on the grounds that its use of the "studs and tubes" interlocking brick system was a violation of trademarks held by Lego. On November 17, 2005, the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] upheld Mega Bloks' right to continue selling the product in Canada.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2005/2005scc65/2005scc65.html |title=2005 SCC 65 |publisher=CanLII |date= |accessdate=2015-03-09}}</ref> A similar decision was reached by the [[European Union]]'s [[Court of First Instance]] on November 12, 2008, upholding an EU regulatory agency's reversal of opinion following an objection by Mega Bloks against a trademark awarded to Lego in 1999.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/12/business/lego.php |title=Lego loses trademark ruling in EU |work=The New York Times |date=October 12, 2008 }}</ref> On September 14, 2010, the European Court of Justice ruled that the 8-peg design of the original Lego brick "merely performs a technical function [and] cannot be registered as a trademark."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Mega+Brands+triumphant+after+Lego+loses+trademark+challenge/3527508/story.html |accessdate=December 31, 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100919154713/http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Mega%2BBrands%2Btriumphant%2Bafter%2BLego%2Bloses%2Btrademark%2Bchallenge/3527508/story.html |title=Montreal's Mega Brands triumphant after Lego loses trademark challenge |archivedate=September 19, 2010 |df= }}</ref>


The English company [[Best-Lock Construction Toys]] sued Lego in German courts in 2004<ref>[http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-130921934.html] {{dead link|date=March 2015}}</ref> and 2009.<ref>{{cite web|author=von RA Dennis Breuer |url=http://www.markenmagazin.de/pressemitteilung-des-bgh-nr-1582009-legostein-als-marke-geloescht/ |title=Pressemitteilung des BGH Nr. 158/2009: Legostein als Marke gelöscht &#124; markenmagazin:recht |publisher=Markenmagazin.de |date=2012-04-19 |accessdate=2012-10-09}}</ref> The German Federal Court denied Lego trademark protection for the shape of its bricks in the latter case.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&Datum=Aktuell&nr=32168&linked=pm |title=Pressemitteilung Nr. 147/04 vom 3.12.2004 |publisher=Juris.bundesgerichtshof.de |date= |accessdate=2015-03-09}}</ref>
The English company [[Best-Lock Construction Toys]] sued Lego in German courts in 2004<ref>[http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-130921934.html] {{dead link|date=March 2015}}</ref> and 2009.<ref>{{cite web|author=von RA Dennis Breuer |url=http://www.markenmagazin.de/pressemitteilung-des-bgh-nr-1582009-legostein-als-marke-geloescht/ |title=Pressemitteilung des BGH Nr. 158/2009: Legostein als Marke gelöscht &#124; markenmagazin:recht |publisher=Markenmagazin.de |date=2012-04-19 |accessdate=2012-10-09}}</ref> The German Federal Court denied Lego trademark protection for the shape of its bricks in the latter case.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&Datum=Aktuell&nr=32168&linked=pm |title=Pressemitteilung Nr. 147/04 vom 3.12.2004 |publisher=Juris.bundesgerichtshof.de |date= |accessdate=2015-03-09}}</ref>


The Lego Group did score a success in 2002, when its Swiss subsidiary Interlego [[Aktiengesellschaft|AG]] sued the Tianjin CoCo Toy Co., Ltd. company for [[copyright infringement]]. A claims court found many CoCo sets to be infringing; CoCo was ordered to cease manufacture of the infringing sets, publish a formal apology in the ''[[Beijing Daily]]'', and pay a small fee in damages to Interlego. On appeal, the [[Beijing]] High People's Court upheld the trial court's ruling.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ccpit-patent.com.cn/News/2003041001.htm |title=News |publisher=Ccpit-patent.com.cn |date= |accessdate=2012-10-09}}</ref>
The Lego Group did score a success in 2002, when its Swiss subsidiary Interlego [[Aktiengesellschaft|AG]] sued the Tianjin CoCo Toy Co., Ltd. company for [[copyright infringement]]. A claims court found many CoCo sets to be infringing; CoCo was ordered to cease manufacture of the infringing sets, publish a formal apology in the ''[[Beijing Daily]]'', and pay a small fee in damages to Interlego. On appeal, the [[Beijing]] High People's Court upheld the trial court's ruling.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ccpit-patent.com.cn/News/2003041001.htm |title=News |publisher=Ccpit-patent.com.cn |date= |accessdate=2012-10-09 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120707025218/http://www.ccpit-patent.com.cn/News/2003041001.htm |archivedate=2012-07-07 |df= }}</ref>


In 2016, Lego announced that it would be taking legal action against the Chinese company Lepin for selling near-exact replicas of existing Lego products.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://cphpost.dk/news/business/fierce-copyright-battle-mars-legos-push-in-china.html|title=Fierce copyright battle mars Lego’s push in China|last=|first=|date=|website=cphpost.dk|language=DK|dead-url=|access-date=2017-02-08}}</ref>
In 2016, Lego announced that it would be taking legal action against the Chinese company Lepin for selling near-exact replicas of existing Lego products.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://cphpost.dk/news/business/fierce-copyright-battle-mars-legos-push-in-china.html|title=Fierce copyright battle mars Lego’s push in China|last=|first=|date=|website=cphpost.dk|language=DK|dead-url=|access-date=2017-02-08}}</ref>

Revision as of 15:04, 13 May 2017

For Lego Clone Wars-related subjects, see Lego Star Wars.
Mega Bloks building block (above) and Lego building brick (below)
Best-Lock and Lego bricks compared. From left, Best-Lock followed by Lego repeated.

A Lego clone is a line or brand of children's construction blocks which is mechanically compatible with Lego brand blocks, but is produced by another manufacturer. The blocks were originally patented by The Lego Group in 1961 as "toy building bricks",[1] and the company has since remained dominant in this market. Some competitors have moved to take advantage of Lego brand recognition by advertising their own products as compatible with Lego, with statements such as "compatible with leading building bricks".[2]

The underlying patents of invention are long expired, opening the field to rivals.

At least two of the largest clone manufacturers have been challenged in court by Lego. The lawsuits have been mostly unsuccessful, for courts have generally found the functional design of the basic brick to be a matter of patent rather than trademark law, and all relevant Lego patents have expired.

The Canadian company Mega Bloks was sued on the grounds that its use of the "studs and tubes" interlocking brick system was a violation of trademarks held by Lego. On November 17, 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld Mega Bloks' right to continue selling the product in Canada.[3] A similar decision was reached by the European Union's Court of First Instance on November 12, 2008, upholding an EU regulatory agency's reversal of opinion following an objection by Mega Bloks against a trademark awarded to Lego in 1999.[4] On September 14, 2010, the European Court of Justice ruled that the 8-peg design of the original Lego brick "merely performs a technical function [and] cannot be registered as a trademark."[5]

The English company Best-Lock Construction Toys sued Lego in German courts in 2004[6] and 2009.[7] The German Federal Court denied Lego trademark protection for the shape of its bricks in the latter case.[8]

The Lego Group did score a success in 2002, when its Swiss subsidiary Interlego AG sued the Tianjin CoCo Toy Co., Ltd. company for copyright infringement. A claims court found many CoCo sets to be infringing; CoCo was ordered to cease manufacture of the infringing sets, publish a formal apology in the Beijing Daily, and pay a small fee in damages to Interlego. On appeal, the Beijing High People's Court upheld the trial court's ruling.[9]

In 2016, Lego announced that it would be taking legal action against the Chinese company Lepin for selling near-exact replicas of existing Lego products.[10]

Major Lego-compatible brands

References

  1. ^ US patent 3005282, Christiansen, Godtfred Kirk, "Toy Building Brick", issued 1961-10-24, assigned to Interlego A.G. 
  2. ^ Gardner, Tracy (14 August 2015). "Laser Pegs Hands-On Review - Light Up Construction Bricks". techagekids.com. Retrieved 1 April 2017.
  3. ^ "2005 SCC 65". CanLII. Retrieved 2015-03-09.
  4. ^ "Lego loses trademark ruling in EU". The New York Times. October 12, 2008.
  5. ^ "Montreal's Mega Brands triumphant after Lego loses trademark challenge". Archived from the original on September 19, 2010. Retrieved December 31, 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ [1] [dead link]
  7. ^ von RA Dennis Breuer (2012-04-19). "Pressemitteilung des BGH Nr. 158/2009: Legostein als Marke gelöscht | markenmagazin:recht". Markenmagazin.de. Retrieved 2012-10-09.
  8. ^ "Pressemitteilung Nr. 147/04 vom 3.12.2004". Juris.bundesgerichtshof.de. Retrieved 2015-03-09.
  9. ^ "News". Ccpit-patent.com.cn. Archived from the original on 2012-07-07. Retrieved 2012-10-09. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  10. ^ "Fierce copyright battle mars Lego's push in China". cphpost.dk (in DK). Retrieved 2017-02-08. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lego_clone&oldid=780186624"