6 ms·

This is probably going to get a letter from LEGO's lawyers. If you want to be safe do not use the word LEGO. Use Bricks or in German "Klemmbausteine". Many pe

This is probably going to get a letter from LEGO's lawyers. If you want to be safe do not use the word LEGO. Use Bricks or in German "Klemmbausteine". Many people have had to deal with LEGO's lawyers and it ain't pretty.

edoceo 1y ago
Why are they like Nintendo when they could be like Sega? Embrace your community where they are.
- raverbashing 1y ago
  (Not saying it's related) But, which one of those are still running?
  - 71bw 1y ago
    Both?
  - vanderZwan 1y ago
    Both are. Sega just lost a console war a few decades ago and decided not to pursue that any more.
  - Cthulhu_ 1y ago
    Sega is generating more than $1.5 billion a year, they're fine.
  - Philpax 1y ago
    I'd go as far as to say that Sega's embracing of their fans is a big part of why they're still around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Mania#Development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Mania#Development
- Freak_NL 1y ago
  Trademark law leaves no space for that. The Lego Group has to actively defend their trademark. That means a name like LegoGPT is really on the obvious end of 'don't do that'.
  - makeitdouble 1y ago
    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...
    - shakna 1y ago
      Whilst they don't need to attack every form of speech, a name like 'LegoGPT' is not protected.
    - dudeinjapan 1y ago
      If LEGO's lawyers agreed with this article, they'd be out of business!
  - MrOrelliOReilly 1y ago
    Completely agree. This should be well beyond accusations of corporate bullying. It's one thing to mention Legos, it's another to actively include a brand name in your product! NikeGPT, CocaColaGPT and IkeaGPT will face the same issue ;)
    - Freak_NL 1y ago
      Mentioning Lego is absolutely OK, and you can sell used Lego as well and note that you are using genuine Lego bricks (resale laws simply allow that). Lego is really antsy about anything which might look like it is actually a Lego Group initiative though, and anything where Lego bricks are offered for sale in a modified state¹. 1: Never, ever, sell modified Lego bricks: https://www.brickfanatics.com/lego-wins-court-case-against-custom-maker/ https://www.brickfanatics.com/lego-wins-court-case-against-c...
  - cluckindan 1y ago
    The registered trademark is LEGO, in all caps. Also, they don’t tend to go after fan-made things like this, based on some googling they typically throw the book at counterfeit producers who are eating into their profits.
- Perz1val 1y ago
  > Embrace your community where they are. In the casinos?
- makeitdouble 1y ago
  Sega's [0] main business is pachinko (so gambling). To them Sonic brand being used by fans has very little consequences, if not building most needed goodwill toward their other brands. That's where Nintendo is fundamentaly different. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Sammy_Holdings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Sammy_Holdings
  - andrewchilds 1y ago
    TIL the pachinko connection perfectly explains the visual/sound/game design of the Sonic games.
  - MrsPeaches 1y ago
    Interesting that many of Sega’s games are now mobile focused. Also don’t forget that Sega was “originally an importer of coin-operated arcade games to Japan and manufacturer of slot machines and jukeboxes” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sega https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sega
  - foobahhhhh 1y ago
    Did that start with that merger in 2004 so back in the Sonic heyday it wasn't in to gambling?
    - makeitdouble 1y ago
      Yes. Sega was mostly into normal arcade games, and Sammy baught them for their expertise to improve Sammy's much more profitable gambling machines. It's Sammy's CEO that took the lead, and Sonic and console games became a mere side business.
- ygouzerh 1y ago
  They probably have a culture of "patents". They just won the market because historically they reused existing locking bricks concept from a company called Kiddicraft, found a way to make it more lockable... and patent it before the original company and other companies could implement it. We can say that they became famous half fir engineering reason, and half from their legal department...
ChrisRob 1y ago
Immediately thought the same thing! This will get busted very soon
amelius 1y ago
This is academic research, and I suppose it falls under fair use.
- 6stringmerc 1y ago
  Fair Use is Copyright and has a four factor test. Trademark is different than Copyright. Perhaps learning the difference might be educational…and fiscally prudent.
  - amelius 1y ago
    Fair Use != Fair use https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/fair-use-of-trademarks-intended-for-a-non-legal-audience/ https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/fair-use-of-trademarks-inte...
- msiebuhr 1y ago
  IANAL, but EU law doesn't have "fair use". It does have a _very specific_ set of uses where you don't have to ask for permission (or pay). As I understand, it is more limited than the US' "fair use" doctrine. EU being EU, I can only imagine there's a bunch of particular rules around research that may or may not work in the authors' favor.
KurSix 1y ago
Even YouTubers and small hobby sites have gotten takedown notices just for using the name in the wrong context
necovek 1y ago
They are actively using actual LEGO bricks, and as such they are not misrepresenting anything. Where there is gray area is in them not clearly stating they are unaffiliated with LEGO the company. OTOH, they also don't seem to be looking to monetize anything, so they are at lower risk from LEGO having a plausible claim that they are hurting their sales.
- dec0dedab0de 1y ago
  While it is perfectly valid to describe what they made as a designer or builder for LEGO, I do not believe they are allowed to use part of a trademark in a way that could be trademarkable itself, so basically good for everything but the name. But then again IANAL, and that is just how I understand the American law, and every country is different.
- 6stringmerc 1y ago
  This is an incredibly ignorant perspective on the nature and intent of trademark law and I’m hopeful you will learn about reality one way or another. As the saying goes, your feelings don’t matter in court.
andrewchilds 1y ago
Meanwhile, Amazon is perfectly happy to sell/promote this "Boy and Tiger Adventure Blocks Set" which simultaneously rips off LEGO and Calvin & Hobbes: https://www.amazon.com/Adventure-Rotatable-Compatible-Characters-Stocking/dp/B0DDT6JMJ2 https://www.amazon.com/Adventure-Rotatable-Compatible-Charac...
- Retric 1y ago
  Ripping off Calvin and hobs sure but not Lego. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Page#Kiddicraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Page#Kiddicraft LEGO is based off of earlier designs of interlocking bricks, they are well known because they got really good at affordability, high tolerances, and durability not because they invented the concept. Beyond that the original functional patents have long expired.

edoceo 1y ago

Why are they like Nintendo when they could be like Sega? Embrace your community where they are.

raverbashing 1y ago
(Not saying it's related) But, which one of those are still running?
- 71bw 1y ago
  Both?
- vanderZwan 1y ago
  Both are. Sega just lost a console war a few decades ago and decided not to pursue that any more.
- Cthulhu_ 1y ago
  Sega is generating more than $1.5 billion a year, they're fine.
- Philpax 1y ago
  I'd go as far as to say that Sega's embracing of their fans is a big part of why they're still around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Mania#Development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Mania#Development
Freak_NL 1y ago
Trademark law leaves no space for that. The Lego Group has to actively defend their trademark. That means a name like LegoGPT is really on the obvious end of 'don't do that'.
- makeitdouble 1y ago
  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...
  - shakna 1y ago
    Whilst they don't need to attack every form of speech, a name like 'LegoGPT' is not protected.
  - dudeinjapan 1y ago
    If LEGO's lawyers agreed with this article, they'd be out of business!
- MrOrelliOReilly 1y ago
  Completely agree. This should be well beyond accusations of corporate bullying. It's one thing to mention Legos, it's another to actively include a brand name in your product! NikeGPT, CocaColaGPT and IkeaGPT will face the same issue ;)
  - Freak_NL 1y ago
    Mentioning Lego is absolutely OK, and you can sell used Lego as well and note that you are using genuine Lego bricks (resale laws simply allow that). Lego is really antsy about anything which might look like it is actually a Lego Group initiative though, and anything where Lego bricks are offered for sale in a modified state¹. 1: Never, ever, sell modified Lego bricks: https://www.brickfanatics.com/lego-wins-court-case-against-custom-maker/ https://www.brickfanatics.com/lego-wins-court-case-against-c...
- cluckindan 1y ago
  The registered trademark is LEGO, in all caps. Also, they don’t tend to go after fan-made things like this, based on some googling they typically throw the book at counterfeit producers who are eating into their profits.
Perz1val 1y ago
> Embrace your community where they are. In the casinos?
makeitdouble 1y ago
Sega's [0] main business is pachinko (so gambling). To them Sonic brand being used by fans has very little consequences, if not building most needed goodwill toward their other brands. That's where Nintendo is fundamentaly different. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Sammy_Holdings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Sammy_Holdings
- andrewchilds 1y ago
  TIL the pachinko connection perfectly explains the visual/sound/game design of the Sonic games.
- MrsPeaches 1y ago
  Interesting that many of Sega’s games are now mobile focused. Also don’t forget that Sega was “originally an importer of coin-operated arcade games to Japan and manufacturer of slot machines and jukeboxes” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sega https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sega
- foobahhhhh 1y ago
  Did that start with that merger in 2004 so back in the Sonic heyday it wasn't in to gambling?
  - makeitdouble 1y ago
    Yes. Sega was mostly into normal arcade games, and Sammy baught them for their expertise to improve Sammy's much more profitable gambling machines. It's Sammy's CEO that took the lead, and Sonic and console games became a mere side business.
ygouzerh 1y ago
They probably have a culture of "patents". They just won the market because historically they reused existing locking bricks concept from a company called Kiddicraft, found a way to make it more lockable... and patent it before the original company and other companies could implement it. We can say that they became famous half fir engineering reason, and half from their legal department...

ChrisRob 1y ago

Immediately thought the same thing! This will get busted very soon

amelius 1y ago

This is academic research, and I suppose it falls under fair use.

6stringmerc 1y ago
Fair Use is Copyright and has a four factor test. Trademark is different than Copyright. Perhaps learning the difference might be educational…and fiscally prudent.
- amelius 1y ago
  Fair Use != Fair use https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/fair-use-of-trademarks-intended-for-a-non-legal-audience/ https://www.inta.org/fact-sheets/fair-use-of-trademarks-inte...
msiebuhr 1y ago
IANAL, but EU law doesn't have "fair use". It does have a _very specific_ set of uses where you don't have to ask for permission (or pay). As I understand, it is more limited than the US' "fair use" doctrine. EU being EU, I can only imagine there's a bunch of particular rules around research that may or may not work in the authors' favor.

KurSix 1y ago

Even YouTubers and small hobby sites have gotten takedown notices just for using the name in the wrong context

necovek 1y ago

They are actively using actual LEGO bricks, and as such they are not misrepresenting anything. Where there is gray area is in them not clearly stating they are unaffiliated with LEGO the company. OTOH, they also don't seem to be looking to monetize anything, so they are at lower risk from LEGO having a plausible claim that they are hurting their sales.

dec0dedab0de 1y ago
While it is perfectly valid to describe what they made as a designer or builder for LEGO, I do not believe they are allowed to use part of a trademark in a way that could be trademarkable itself, so basically good for everything but the name. But then again IANAL, and that is just how I understand the American law, and every country is different.
6stringmerc 1y ago
This is an incredibly ignorant perspective on the nature and intent of trademark law and I’m hopeful you will learn about reality one way or another. As the saying goes, your feelings don’t matter in court.

andrewchilds 1y ago

Meanwhile, Amazon is perfectly happy to sell/promote this "Boy and Tiger Adventure Blocks Set" which simultaneously rips off LEGO and Calvin & Hobbes: https://www.amazon.com/Adventure-Rotatable-Compatible-Characters-Stocking/dp/B0DDT6JMJ2 https://www.amazon.com/Adventure-Rotatable-Compatible-Charac...

Retric 1y ago
Ripping off Calvin and hobs sure but not Lego. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Page#Kiddicraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Page#Kiddicraft LEGO is based off of earlier designs of interlocking bricks, they are well known because they got really good at affordability, high tolerances, and durability not because they invented the concept. Beyond that the original functional patents have long expired.