 | | LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark Nov. 3, 2009 -Press Association/UKPA- LEGO, maker of the iconic toy brick, is launching a legal bid to win back its trademark. The company was last year stripped of the right to keep the brick's three-dimensional (...) (15 years ago, 6-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.general, lugnet.announce, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) I suggest that LEGO design a new brick to achieve the same "technical solution." Otherwise, this sounds like another in a long string of fairly open-and-shut cases along these lines. Dave! (15 years ago, 14-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) I wonder if the clones would have enjoyed the success that they've had were they to have created a brick system that didn't replicate the dimensions of LEGO bricks. Clearly a case of wanting your brick and repeating it, too. JOHN (15 years ago, 15-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) The answer to your question is obvious. Enlighten and others manufacture for a market that never could afford to buy Lego bricks. The success of Lego's clone of the Kiddiecraft brick has had very little influence on the success of later (...) (15 years ago, 17-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Not a valid analogy I believe. LEGO didn't clone Kiddiecraft; it took the idea and ran with it. Since their improvements were superior to the original, the original died off. Clones today exist because of their compatibility with LEGO, not (...) (15 years ago, 17-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Why should they? There are plenty of other companies that have already done so. You've got K'Nex, Lincoln Logs, Erector, and several other construction toy systems that have no resemblance to LEGO bricks, proving that you don't need to (...) (15 years ago, 17-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) The LEGO Company did not clone the Kiddiecraft brick. They licensed the design, then bought the rights to it outright, and then improved upon it with the addition of the tubes inside the bricks that prevent cross-stacked parts from sliding (...) (15 years ago, 17-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Well of course they wouldn't, but so what? The question isn't whether or not clones could thrive in the absence of the original; it's whether the original still retains exclusive rights to the studs-n-tubes design, and many courts have already (...) (15 years ago, 17-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Lego did not license the Kiddicraft design. They took it and *slightly* modified it. The Kiddicraft design, although patented in the UK, was not protected in Denmark. They bought all of the residual rights to the brick (in the early 1980s) (...) (15 years ago, 18-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) The duplication of designs not protected by patent is not "ripping off." (...) But it's not "their" market, and it hasn't been "their" market since the patent expired. What we've seen for several decades is competitor brands moving into the (...) (15 years ago, 18-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) But it is their system. What the clones should be doing is creating unique bricks that work within the LEGO system, not recreating them. JOHN (15 years ago, 18-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Well, then, my question is WRT the dimensions of the studs-n-tube design. Shouldn't TLG's dimensions be propriety? I mean, yeah, copy the design, but don't rip-off the dimensions. JOHN (15 years ago, 18-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Why can't they do both? Mega Bloks has a huge number of unique elements that are LEGO-compatible, in addition to the more basic and conventional pieces. If they were only to produce unusual elements and no basic pieces, then they'd almost (...) (15 years ago, 18-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Parasites, Dave! >:-P (15 years ago, 18-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Doesn't work that way. Without a core of standard basic elements, the best they'd be able to hope for is a business model similar to what you see with BrickForge/BrickArms/Little Armory etc. If all you can make are elements that enhance the (...) (15 years ago, 18-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) I completely agree with all of what you are saying, Dave. What I am saying is that it doesn't seem right for a company to sponge off of another without providing compensation or something. Licensing, for example. It is little wonder why clones (...) (15 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) From what I recall, LEGO received KiddieCraft bricks in 1947 along with their first molding machine. The bricks were (if I infer correctly) presented to LEGO as examples of what can be done with plastic injection molding. LEGO probably didn't (...) (15 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) That's not going to happen. After their experience with Samsonite, I guarantee TLG will want nothing to do with that sort of arrangement, especially in a market where they're already selling their own products. (...) More significantly, stuff (...) (15 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) While I agree with the morality, the legality is another issue. In essence, though, your point has already been addressed. Thanks to their patent, LEGO enjoyed an exclusive right to production for 20 or so years, allowing them to be the (...) (15 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Agreed. (...) I guess I am just an old dog stuck using that with which I've always known: LEGO. Even if another company were in fact able to do a better job than TLG, I doubt that I would convert. Yeah, yeah: capitalism. Though I would say (...) (15 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) That's a great point, Dave, and it brings to mind two related issues: 1. Competition. I wonder what path LEGO would have chosen in the mid-90s if they didn't have a significant market competitor to deal with. Mega Bloks was just starting to (...) (15 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) I guess here's the rub: To turn it around for a minute, suppose that MegaBloks had come out first, and produced poor quality bricks. Then, when their patent ran out, LEGO decided to make awesome bricks that matched the MegaBloks standard, (...) (15 years ago, 19-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) If TLG produced better quality bricks, I wouldn't see the advantage of making them compatible with a competitor's inferior product. (...) Yes they can. JOHN (15 years ago, 20-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) I would concede that point to you, Dave! But, in the future, please try to refrain from ending sentences with prepositions. It's embarrassing. (URL) (...) Well put, Dave! JOHN (15 years ago, 20-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Doh! Caught with my participle dangling for all to see. Scandalous! (15 years ago, 20-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) "This is the sort of language up with which I will not put." -Winston Churchill The false idea that you can't end a sentance with a preposition in English comes from the fact that you literally can't in Latin. You shouldn't just tack a (...) (15 years ago, 22-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Here's a better question. If that had been the case, would anyone have even had the desire to attempt to clone MB at all? There are several different construction toy systems out there, and so far the only one I've really seen any non-bootleg (...) (15 years ago, 22-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) You're assuming that TLC actually took cues from MB in terms of how to fix their business model. In terms of the AFOL market, all it meant to TLC was that their customers stopped buying as much stuff, not that they started buying the (...) (15 years ago, 22-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) Happens now and again. As I recall, toy vehicles that transformed into robots were marketed in the USA with almost no success, but Hasbro took the idea, attached a story line to it, and an animated show, and it took off like wildfire. I expect (...) (15 years ago, 23-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
|
(...) That's an interesting question to ponder. When LEGO-scale Mega Bloks came onto the scene, they filled a gap that LEGO had left open. Namely, MB produced simple sets with large quantities of basic elements in unusual colors, such as military (...) (15 years ago, 23-Nov-09, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
