3 ms·

> LEGO sued him for having something which somehow resembled a LEGO brick in his logo. Not true. They did not sue him, they just informed him nicely. Also, he

> LEGO sued him for having something which somehow resembled a LEGO brick in his logo. Not true. They did not sue him, they just informed him nicely. Also, he in fact had a logo newly registrated for his businss which was resembling an old trademark of lego. This was not about his youtube-channel but his attempt to make a serious business of it. So this was just problem between two companies making money, totally normal and AFAIK demanded by law. That guy was just spinniung tales and profiting on this to push his own business by playing the poor victim of a hobby-channel.

Shacklz 7y ago
> Also, he in fact had a logo newly registrated for his businss which was resembling an old trademark of lego. So they decide to piss him off over such a triviality? That's a terrible decision; if the guy's an enthusiast with an audience, you try to put him on a payroll and go full market fanfare for you; making him change his logo and pissing him off in the process has zero opportunities to increase profit for LEGO in any way and lots of ways to backfire.