Subject:
|
Re: LEGO® Launches Battle Over Trademark
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.mediawatch
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:13:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
13624 times
|
| |
|
|
| |
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.
|
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) only when they were beginning their legal actions against Tyco.
It was another 8 years until the Lego stud-and-tube design was developed and
immediately patented.
| |
Clones today exist because of their compatibility with LEGO, not necessarily
their improvements on LEGO. Although I must say that Mega Bloks have tried
the fusion of action figures and LEGO bricks idea and have had some success
with it. But I still maintain that the overarching appeal of the clones is
their compatibility with the LEGO system.
|
Although I completely agree that all of the Pacific-rim clones owe their
existence to their compatibility, Lego has not so far been successful in
defending their design as a trademark indicia.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
30 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
