5 ms·

Lego's legal team uses every possible angle under every possible IP registration method and in every major jurisdiction. They are similar to Apple in this regar

Lego's legal team uses every possible angle under every possible IP registration method and in every major jurisdiction. They are similar to Apple in this regard. Their attitude is one of maximum aggression down every possible avenue of attack. No defendant is too small, no infringement too petty.

dhosek 5y ago
Trademarks are in a weird place for IP law. They don't expire like copyrights or patents, but failure to defend them can cause the trademark to be invalidated, so if a trademark holder doesn't engage in this sort of behavior, they could end up losing all rights to the trademark. From the outside it seems like bullying and aggressive behavior, but for better or for worse, that's how things are set up.
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  "It's not our fault that we're assholes, it's just that being an asshole is to our advantage!" Uh-huh. IP law is the cudgel of choice when a company doesn't like what an individual is doing. It's loosey-goosey enough that they can always stir up a somewhat plausible complaint, and they only need a somewhat plausible complaint plus money to make a small person's life a living hell. Understanding the mechanism does not make it good or right.
  - kuschku 5y ago
    If you tried to call yourself Applehero, made videos about electronics, tried to trademark that term and sell merchandise with it, with a logo referencing Apple’s apple... well, you’d end up sued as well. Lego is already close to losing their trademark, they can’t let anything like this slide without risking their IP.
    - nitrogen 5y ago
      A 4x2 press-fit brick is more like using a rounded rectangle in a phone repair shop logo, not "Apple" itself.
      - Jon_Lowtek 5y ago
        for the uninitiated: rounded rectangles as a shape for phones is an apple design patent, they sued samsung for that
        mountainb 5y ago
        They have one for their charger shapes as well among many other things.
        ekianjo 5y ago
        A patent is for products not for logos
        Jon_Lowtek 5y ago
        Yes design patents are different from trademarks and the apple rounded rectangle phone design is a US design patent while the 2x2 lego brick is registered in the EU as a 3d trademark. Filing for a trademark on a shop name and logo may not be as easily challenged with only an existing design patent and no matching trademark. So yes, the metaphor in the parent is faulty in that small detail when it picks up the metaphor created in the grandparent to better explain what is going on.
      - kuschku 5y ago
        First, he called himself Legoheld and then he tried to trademark that name and his logo, specifically an image trademark for any visualization containing a 4x2 or 2x2 brick. Only one company can hold that trademark, Lego currently holds it, so if his trademark claim had succeeded, Lego would have lost theirs.
        DemocracyFTW 5y ago
  - mypalmike 5y ago
    Your attempt to paraphrase comes across as snide and insincere. It also would seem to indicate that you didn't comprehend the point being made regarding the current framework of trademark law and enforcement within which companies must operate.
  - smabie 5y ago
    Don't hate the player hate the game.
- eqvinox 5y ago
  > if a trademark holder doesn't engage in this sort of behavior, they could end up losing all rights to the trademark [citation needed] Other trademark owners aren't asshats like this about their marks and haven't lost them, have they? Yes you need to enforce your trademark. But not against reviews of your very products, even if those reviews make their authors money through YT ads. [Add.: and not in this way. I've read up a bit more, and they had a "valid" problem in that he used "LEGO" to refer to plastic brick systems in general. They do need to enforce that so the term doesn't become generic. But they could've just sent a message or letter first.]
  - timfi 5y ago
    Iirc the argument bind this would be along then lines oft precendes. I.e., you didn't defend your TM against person A so why are you sueing person B.
    - eqvinox 5y ago
      I wasn't implying a choice in who to enforce it against. I'm saying there's a wide spectrum what to try to enforce against. LEGO here even tried to enforce their trademark because the logo "looked like a LEGO brick". Apparently that didn't fly. (The "using LEGO as generic label" one was a separate instance and did cause the guy to remake a bunch of videos.)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- makeitdouble 5y ago
  > failure to defend them can cause the trademark to be invalidated This is a myth https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
  - mountainb 5y ago
    Read the Lanham Act instead of a blog post https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lanham_act https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lanham_act The real answer is 'it depends,' there is no pat hard and fast answer about the obligation to enforce a trademark. Also it becomes more ambiguous because trademark cancellation proceedings are quite expensive in terms of time and legal fees. You can do a lot of naughty things and get away with it if the prospect of fighting you in a cancellation proceeding becomes too daunting and expensive. The possible workaround is to get a declaratory judgment invalidating the trademark but that is not necessarily something achievable in most situations.

dhosek 5y ago

Trademarks are in a weird place for IP law. They don't expire like copyrights or patents, but failure to defend them can cause the trademark to be invalidated, so if a trademark holder doesn't engage in this sort of behavior, they could end up losing all rights to the trademark. From the outside it seems like bullying and aggressive behavior, but for better or for worse, that's how things are set up.

jjoonathan 5y ago
"It's not our fault that we're assholes, it's just that being an asshole is to our advantage!" Uh-huh. IP law is the cudgel of choice when a company doesn't like what an individual is doing. It's loosey-goosey enough that they can always stir up a somewhat plausible complaint, and they only need a somewhat plausible complaint plus money to make a small person's life a living hell. Understanding the mechanism does not make it good or right.
- kuschku 5y ago
  If you tried to call yourself Applehero, made videos about electronics, tried to trademark that term and sell merchandise with it, with a logo referencing Apple’s apple... well, you’d end up sued as well. Lego is already close to losing their trademark, they can’t let anything like this slide without risking their IP.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    A 4x2 press-fit brick is more like using a rounded rectangle in a phone repair shop logo, not "Apple" itself.
    - Jon_Lowtek 5y ago
      for the uninitiated: rounded rectangles as a shape for phones is an apple design patent, they sued samsung for that
      - mountainb 5y ago
        They have one for their charger shapes as well among many other things.
      - ekianjo 5y ago
        A patent is for products not for logos
        Jon_Lowtek 5y ago
        Yes design patents are different from trademarks and the apple rounded rectangle phone design is a US design patent while the 2x2 lego brick is registered in the EU as a 3d trademark. Filing for a trademark on a shop name and logo may not be as easily challenged with only an existing design patent and no matching trademark. So yes, the metaphor in the parent is faulty in that small detail when it picks up the metaphor created in the grandparent to better explain what is going on.
    - kuschku 5y ago
      First, he called himself Legoheld and then he tried to trademark that name and his logo, specifically an image trademark for any visualization containing a 4x2 or 2x2 brick. Only one company can hold that trademark, Lego currently holds it, so if his trademark claim had succeeded, Lego would have lost theirs.
      - DemocracyFTW 5y ago
- mypalmike 5y ago
  Your attempt to paraphrase comes across as snide and insincere. It also would seem to indicate that you didn't comprehend the point being made regarding the current framework of trademark law and enforcement within which companies must operate.
- smabie 5y ago
  Don't hate the player hate the game.
eqvinox 5y ago
> if a trademark holder doesn't engage in this sort of behavior, they could end up losing all rights to the trademark [citation needed] Other trademark owners aren't asshats like this about their marks and haven't lost them, have they? Yes you need to enforce your trademark. But not against reviews of your very products, even if those reviews make their authors money through YT ads. [Add.: and not in this way. I've read up a bit more, and they had a "valid" problem in that he used "LEGO" to refer to plastic brick systems in general. They do need to enforce that so the term doesn't become generic. But they could've just sent a message or letter first.]
- timfi 5y ago
  Iirc the argument bind this would be along then lines oft precendes. I.e., you didn't defend your TM against person A so why are you sueing person B.
  - eqvinox 5y ago
    I wasn't implying a choice in who to enforce it against. I'm saying there's a wide spectrum what to try to enforce against. LEGO here even tried to enforce their trademark because the logo "looked like a LEGO brick". Apparently that didn't fly. (The "using LEGO as generic label" one was a separate instance and did cause the guy to remake a bunch of videos.)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
makeitdouble 5y ago
> failure to defend them can cause the trademark to be invalidated This is a myth https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not-require-companies-tirelessly-censor-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
- mountainb 5y ago
  Read the Lanham Act instead of a blog post https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lanham_act https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lanham_act The real answer is 'it depends,' there is no pat hard and fast answer about the obligation to enforce a trademark. Also it becomes more ambiguous because trademark cancellation proceedings are quite expensive in terms of time and legal fees. You can do a lot of naughty things and get away with it if the prospect of fighting you in a cancellation proceeding becomes too daunting and expensive. The possible workaround is to get a declaratory judgment invalidating the trademark but that is not necessarily something achievable in most situations.