| | | | |
| |
|
LEGO Sues to Block Imports in Patent Fight Over Toy Dolls
March 11, 2015
By Jenna Greene, The National Law Journal
The U.S. International Trade Commission on Wednesday gave a green light to toy
maker LEGO A/S to bring a patent and copyright infringement case against three
competitors that are seeking to appeal more to girls.
In January 2012, LEGO launched its Friends linelittle LEGO dolls named Mia,
Olivia, Emma, Andrea and Stephanie, who live in the imaginary world of Heartlake
City.
The company started its Friends linewhich includes the Heartlake Shopping Mall
and dolls with a multitude of shoe stylesto make Lego play more interesting
for girls, according to Legos complaint. Lego said it found in studies that 91
percent of its primary users are boys.
LEGO sued three competitors: LaRose Industries of Randolph, N.J.; Mega Brands
Inc. of Montreal; and Best-Lock Construction Toys Inc. of Miami.
The competitors are attempting to capitalize on LEGOs success by copying its
innovations and products and preying on the vulnerability of LEGOs youthful
consuming population, instead of developing their own product lines, LEGO
counsel Elizabeth Alquist and Eric TeVelde of Day Pitney wrote. The company is
also represented by and Tom Schaumberg and Michael Doane of Adduci, Mastriani &
Schaumberg.
The product won Toy of the Year for the best toy overall at the 2013
International Toy Fair in New York, and with sales that more than doubled LEGOs
initial projections.
Mega Brands, which was bought by Mattel Inc. last year, tried to persuade the
International Trade Commission (ITC) to knock out the complaint early. The
company argued that LEGO did not meet the domestic-industry requirement. LEGOs
global headquarters are in Denmark and its manufacturing of its products takes
place outside the United States, primarily in China. As such, there is a real
and serious question about its ability to meet the domestic-industry requirement
under Section 337, wrote Mega Brands counsel Gary Hnath, a partner at Mayer
Brown. He asked the ITC to evaluate the case under a new fast-track pilot
program.
LEGO argued that it conducts substantial licensing, research and development,
and technical activities within the United States, fulfilling the
domestic-industry prerequisite.
Hnath countered that even if thats the case, LEGO has to show whether the
purported licensing activities relate to the design patents and copyrights
asserted in this investigation. (Italics in the original).
The ITC commissioners sided with LEGO, voting March 11 to let the case proceed.
It will be tried by an administrative law judge, and could result in an import
ban on the infringing products.
Parallel patent infringement litigation is also pending in U.S. district court
in Connecticut.
From:
NationalLawJournal.com
United States International Trade Commission: Link of the
case.ITCblog.com
-end of report-
| | | | | | | | | | | | | In lugnet.mediawatch, Abner amf70@aol.com wrote:
|
The ITC commissioners sided with LEGO, voting March 11 to let the case
proceed. It will be tried by an administrative law judge, and could result in
an import ban on the infringing products.
|
But this one might actually have teeth.
Although I dont believe that a knowledgeable consumer will readily mistake the
two products, I can see how the shared shelf space might create brand confusion.
Also, I have a coworker whose daughter is crazy about the Friends line, and when
I showed him one of the My Life As minidolls he couldnt tell them apart.
Whoops.
My Life As is a limited line exclusive to Walmart, and the sets include no
unique pieces other than packaging, decals & the minidolls themselves. I
suspect that the product line involved little front-end outlay, so even if a
hard ban is enforced, it wont have too great an impact on Mega Brands. LEGO
will have a hard time demonstrating that theyve suffered losses or damages,
too.
Well see how it plays out. Both sides have made interesting arguments, so Im
curious to see it move forward.
| | | | | | |