| |
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.mediawatch, Abner Finley wrote:
> > <http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/releases/show.jsp?action=showRelease&actionFor=561890>
> >
> > LANCASHIRE, U.K.--(CCNMatthews - Oct 11, 2005)
> >
> > LEGO® Blocked by Best-Lock
> >
> > LEGO Suit against Best-Lock Europe LTD Dimissed in Final Ruling by German
> > Appelate Court (Oberlandesgericht Hamburg) and in Regards to Brick Trademark
> > Postponed.
> >
> >
> > The Appellate Court of Hamburg dismissed a suit by LEGO Company toward Best Lock
> > (Europe) Ltd. that allows no further appeal by LEGO. Regarding a trademark of a
> > three dimensional 2 x 4 pin standard building brick, the decision is postponed.
> > The trademark has been cancelled in Alicante (European Trademark Office) as well
> > as in Germany at the DPMA (German Trademark Office), but both cases are still
> > pending as LEGO appeals.
<snip>
> This is good news! I can’t think of a single reason why any company should be
> empowered to dictate which competitors are and are not allowed into the market,
> so this victory will benefit consumers and competitors alike.
>
> Besides which, anyone familiar with Best-Lock knows that it’s only obliquely
> compatible with LEGO, and even the casual consumer has little difficulty in
> distinguishing one brand from the other.
It's interesting that the Best-Lock logo uses their version of a 1 x 6 brick,
not a 2 x 4 brick design. Did they change from a 2 x 4 logo during the course
of this suit? Lego used to use the 2 x 4 as part of the "SYSTEM" logo, but they
have not used that design for a number of years.
I guess the problem that Lego has is that any brick with studs on it will be
identified as Lego by some consumers.
I'm just glad this suit is over. I wonder how much it cost to prosecute versus
the cost of producing some new window pieces, for instance. I wish Lego would
spend more time and money on defining their brand as a quality, versatile
product that is by its nature distinguished from other brands than pursue
supposed infringements on old patents, trademarks, etc.
How could they do that? Flip-lid boxes with inserts that show the new
specialized pieces like they used to have? Color consistency that would put
their competitors to shame (and that they could advertise on the box)? A
printed, collectible Lego logo brick in each set? I don't know. But there are
ways to distinguish oneself other than lawsuits.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
