LEGO gets tough on competitors

The face of that Best Lock figure is downright terrifying. As for how legal proceedings are likely to progress, CCC has likely summed it up pretty well.

I really really hate these companies that mimic LEGO and in a way it's actually quite insulting. There has certainly been worse like the knock off figures that are taking over eBay. And that's definitely something that Lego should look in to because not only are the stealing the piece proportions and design, but they are completely copying already made Lego minifigures and using the exact same design but just printed on crappier plastic and with off colours. off course these are Chinese run product lines. They are even listing them as Lego but once you get it you know it's a scam. I hope these companies stated will be stopped. There is only one REAL Lego!!

To me, these look more like the new style of Polly Pocket than Lego's Friends series, so I'm not sure they have a case with the dolls either. I say new, I remember when Polly Pocket was smaller than a tic tac...

The lite bricks are very cool indeed, and something I want myself. I don't think of Lego at all when I see them so I think Lego are jumping on them purely because of the word 'bricks'

If Lego was going to sure anyone, surely Nanoblocks should be the first? Undeniably similar.

Like it hate it when cars are copied by certain manufacturers I do hate it to see LEGO minifigs (and bricks and sets as well) being copied in an obvious and terrifying way. They just prey upon creative and unique developmental work that's been invested by LEGO. I consider this simply uncivilized. Having said this, I must admit that I'm not too happy about the increasing alliances with other brands leading to hilariously expensive sets. Even worse is the increasing number of weapons and minifigs equipped with guns and swords. The world is bad enough. But anyway, all this is outweighed by the fun, the relaxation, the inspiration and the networking the unique LEGO idea is giving to all of us! It must remain unique and not messed up by cheap copies.

That Best lock mini doll is terrifying, I think I'm gonna have nightmares for years now. :P

To me, it looks like the way the hips connect, rigid legs, the way the legs pivot from the hip and the hand/arm shapes and the fact the hands are fixed compared to standard minifigures make them similar enough. The faces are less similar but the rest are close enough to see where they are coming from. I'm sure LEGO has a patent for the way the legs connect and pivot alone and that would probably be enough to succeed.

I mean, if phone companies can sue over similarities of icons on the phones and succeed then surely this has a reasonable chance. (not a lawyer, just my opinion)

That Best Lock doll is going to kill me in my sleep. Can't wait for the updated version of "Communist LEGO".

While hideous, the Best Lock looks the most likely to escape judgement here--the torso is boxy and square at the edges, and the hip connection doesn't look the same either. Admittedly, that may just be the terrible render that is at fault, while the actual item is much more similar. Also, the shoulders can bend outwards.

The MEGA and Lite Brix doll figures, however, don't stand a chance IMO (I'm not a lawyer, so take that for what it's worth). The curvature of the arms, the torso shape, the hairstyles, and the faces--particularly the molding on the Lite Brix doll's face--demonstrate an obvious case of following too closely to LEGO's design, without even trying to alter or improve it.

If they had gone the route Hasbro did with its Kreons when compared to LEGO minifigures--making a distinct body shape, head shape, and adding articulation points--then I could see them having a reasonable defense. But as is, I think its pretty unlikely.

EDIT: it appears that MEGA produces two different versions of minidolls: the kind shown above and then their Barbie line. The Barbie 'dolls, while still somewhat similar to Friends 'dolls, look different enough to be safe, and are also more immediately recognizable as Barbie branded toys, rather than just LEGO ripoffs.

Richard from Brick Fanatics sure knows how to make friends huh?

Reply just now to someone who was supporting clone brands:

"Furthermore trying to defend a clone brand on a LEGO fan site will like you said get you lynched. If you are happy to mix cheaper clone elements in with LEGO that's your choice, if you like the themes they produce again your choice but please don't expect support from us.

Lastly its LEGO not Lego and then is no 's' on the end, these are two more issues that further damages the LEGO brand when people can't write the name correctly!"

We've been discussing this on FriendsBricks forum for about a month (naturally ;-) and there is a posted source of the initial ITC complaint that is easier to read and "see" the outline of graphics via Scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/255106183/LEGO-ITC-Complaint

After reading through it last month, I realized this could be one reason mini-dolls are not yet part of LDD library; their digital vectors would be easier to obtain.

While I support Lego fully, this is a dangerous road to take. Legal battles especially patent and IP cases are expensive. Not that Lego doesn't have the money, but focusing on good products and great licensing is what's grown this company into what it is today, not throwing away money on lawyers.

Nothing new really, LEGO has a long history of taking competitors to court. Though I have not heard much since they lost a number of them about 10 years ago.

^ If you're an industry leader, fighting to protect your IP is one of the best uses of your money. A company can't look the other way while their brand and market share is being eroded by widely accessible imitators. This isn't LEGO suing a daycare center because they painted unlicensed LEGO characters on their walls. These are companies that allegedly copied LEGO's IP in a blatant effort to siphon market share and confuse customers. That's exactly what a legal department is meant for.

Besides, it's not an either/or choice. A company has separate budgets for legal and R&D. It is not as though they will be laying off designers or cutting back on products simply because they file complaints or lawsuits. And conversely, it is not as though we'd be getting extra LEGO sets if they spend less than expected on legal costs this year.

I am all for copycats to be shoot down but it seems Lego is behaving like an overlord.

I've seen the Lite Brix ones at TRU...they're awful. Blatant copies, for one, and terribly made toys. IMO, the Best Lock fig stands the best chance. It has a boxier body and a bigger skirt, while the other two have nearly identical legs, heads, and joints. I really hope LEGO wins so these companies learn a lesson. To be a good toy, you must be original. Following the leader always makes the flaws in the copies more clear when you look at the original, and it gives the company a bad name. LEGO RULES!

Hmm.... I can't actually tell the difference between the Lite Brix one and my memory of a Friends figure- perhaps you can post an image of a Friends MiniDoll for comparison?

Also, I am all for LEGO taking down the knock-offs out there. The ruling that regular bricks aren't patentable was wrong, but how can you justify copying minidolls?

And I can't quite figure out how those minidolls are supposed to ride the horse...

I will admit to having bought a Lite Brix set that was massively marked down (To the point that it was a vey cheap way to get a lighting system for a future build) and the minimal that came with it did seem like a very poor quality version of a minidoll. It looked like it might have even been interchangable with Lego minimal parts.
Funny thing though the hair piece was even more rubbery than the Friends ones and the plastic was really thin at one point, looked like she had a bald spot!

Lego rarely seems to act on legal situations unless they honestly believe that they are violating their product. In this case several of the designs are practically identical and an argument could be made that they all share exactly the same design. Whether they all got the idea from Lego Friends or not is what will probably be decided.

@SprinkleOtter
If they were smart with the design then the saddle is probably removable enabling for the legs to essentially fit in the middle of the horse's back, similar to how the normal Lego horses work. Though I don't know for sure.

Lego doesn't have a choice in the matter of going after them or not. If they don't they'll actually lose that right to their design and these examples are too close to let slide.

The likeness here is in the feet & legs, how the inside of the bottoms of the feet connect to other play pieces, sizing, etc. as well as how the hands connect to other play pieces, sizing, etc. If any of these are spot on to the lego friends, Lego should win.

I'm not so sure about this. If anything, I'm surprised LEGO is pursuing this because Playmobil has had this style of doll for many years. Playmobil dolls are a bit chunkier, but do have the signature hands and bend in the middle, just like LEGO friends. Perhaps LEGO is the one that has some explaining to do.

I am a patent attorney. One test for infringement of a design patent is the "ordinary observer" test. According to this test, there is infringement "if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other."

I only took a very quick look at the complaint, but it appears LEGO may have a case here. The design patents are for the overall shape of the individual figure pieces and not for the colors or decorations or facial features or hair. If you consider the shape of the legs, torsos and heads that are in the patents, there seems to be a resemblance. The complaint has some side-by-side comparisons.

It's an intresting case as doll figures have been around for a long time and been made by lots of different people. For minifigures, you'd defintely say they are the LEGO company's through and through, but minidolls, less so.
I'd say the Mega Brands looks a bit more like a Fisher Price figure than a LEGO minidoll . Best Lock has a small element of playmobil about it, mainly the arms. But the LaRose Industries does look a lot like a LEGO minidoll and I think people would get confused by them.

@L67: in the Complaint the LEGO companies assert both registrations of copyright and design patents. As I understand matters, LEGO would have to prove that there had been a "copying" step in relation to the copyright registrations but would not have the burden of having to prove copying in relation to the design patents. This is because design patents are true monopoly rights and therefore the question is "is it similar enough?"

Is that right?

Lite Brix bricks and figures are a definite rip-off of LEGO. I had the mis-fortune of having to build a Lite Brix set for someone recently - blatant copy with terrible quality issues.

As for fake minifigures on eBay, there are sellers listing a fake DC or Marvel fake minifig with a real LEGO plate piece so that they can circumnavigate eBay's listing policies - There's a real piece of Lego as part of the sale item so the seller can use the word 'Lego' in the item title and description . Very misleading when your eBay search is "Lego Batman minifig"

I always find it ironic when LEGO sues or complains that other companies steal their ideas, because so does LEGO. All the building companies steal from one another, just like all the video game companies do and phone companies do. LEGO has several products that looks like Playmobile. The mini dolls look like toys from other companies. This is just very silly and I hope backfires in LEGOs face.

In a way i hope lego loses becouse as a true lego fan i feel that those minifigs should be burnt out of existance. I hear stuf about how its not done modding lego etc , but when lego makes a dol like this they get away withe it and then have the guts to sew others for that bad design! Ha!

I feel they are not good for young woman and for the lego idea that everybody is the same.
They project a materialistic and annorexic vibe over what was 1ce a good al be it underrated lego line.

No give me back the lego belville figures of which i bought a lot.
Dont get me wrong i like lego friends , the animals, the sets , the collors etc , but those figs!

What was lego thinking in making a doll out of size and so skinny Of which the legs and arms are so badly articulated :-s

They should faten up the figs and stop the materialistic way these dols seem to live.

That from a brand that finaly made a good female set on lego ideas.
And wich sold fine... so those dolls need to go.

They only fit in the brands that trie and copie them. But for lego its a disgrace.

@mountebank Essentially that is right. Copyright does not protect coincidental duplication, so yes there needs to be some proof of actual copying. On the other hand, patents are public documents and as such it is presumed that the public is put on notice of the patent regardless of whether or not someone actually looks for it. So ignorance of the patent or coincidental invention does not protect someone from patent infringement.

@Huw I should add that as with all things legal, there are many complexities. A few years ago the Federal Circuit (the exclusive patent appeals court in the U.S. other than the Supreme Court) ruled that the ordinary observer test is to be applied "through the eyes of an observer familiar with the prior art." So the test may not apply to someone who knows nothing at all about these toys, but at the same time may not require someone to be as intimately familiar with them as "fans of LEGO" are. It would probably be somewhere in between, a consumer who would easily recognize a LEGO product even if it was not marked as such. Sometimes survey data is introduced at trial to help show that people were deceived into thinking the competitor's product was LEGO.

The developers at Polly Pocket must have something to say about all this, yes?

That would depend if they have some Intellectual Property they can assert, have the means to launch a case (or at least sabre-rattle convincingly), and have the will to start something.

That best lock figure looks like a derp :P

As soon as I saw those Lite Brix figures I was struck by what a flagrant copy of the mini-doll they were. I fully support the LEGO Group's decision to litigate, and am glad this is going forward. They put too much effort into coming up with a figure design girls would love to just sit by and let their competitors profit from that work instead of designing their own figures.

Best-Lock, to their credit, DID try to innovate beyond just a slightly altered copy by squaring off the torso–hip connection and adding an extra point of articulation to the arms (and seemingly omitting the leg hinge) though unfortunately this just makes their figure that much more unsettling.

@osuharding1: You mean these? http://bricker.info/osets.html?brand=MEGABLOKS&family=Hot%20Wheels Those look NOTHING like Speed Champions sets, aside from being buildable toy cars with slightly similar size. There is no shared traits between the brands that Mega could have patented, since as usual Mega's sets are characterized by hyper-specialized parts that have no LEGO counterparts.

@L67: Thank you for your insights!

@The Green Brick Giant: The difference is that LEGO puts forward the effort not to duplicate anything that is copyrighted or patented by another company. Most of the time when LEGO products have any similarity to products by other brands, it is coincidental (both companies trying to depict the same subject, for instance) and certainly not a case of LEGO creating a unique building element that plainly resembles one the other company already has.

@Maxximus: The LEGO Friends mini-dolls do not resemble any Polly Pocket figures I've seen as closely as these clone brand mini-dolls resemble the LEGO mini-dolls. The Polly Pocket dolls have slightly similar body proportions but I can't find any examples that have the same "legs-torso-head-hair" construction, clip-like hands, hinged waists, and rounded feet (some might have one or two of these characteristics at best), whereas all of these clone-brand figures share most or all of these characteristics.

I'm suing Best Lock for giving me nightmares.

Find it funny that LEGO is freaking out over this instead of the countless counterfeit and outright theft of licensing and the figure designs for the super Heroes lines. I guess because they cannot sue Chinese companies unless they want to lose their market. So that is all the knock off companies solution, move your HQs to China.

Playmobil should sue lego over Dinosaur as they are bulky and made from 2 pieces same as their product.

Come one LEGO start making better stuff not this flat plasticine plates with studs that are deformed straight from the box, then people will not even look at competition.
How its possible my daughter can smack 2 duplo bricks at each other for 2 months and they are in same condition, and my all plates from my brand new set have rounded corners?

LEGO and Playmobil aren't as similar as people think. Being a fan of both, I know they're quite different. Playmobil figures are more articulated than minidolls in that their hands rotate, for instance, and their assembly is very different. And the Playmobil Fi?ures line copies the concept and a few of its figures from the CMFS. However, these clones shown here are much more blatant ripoffs, and should be sued. They're trying to confuse the parents who don't know better when their daughter asks for Friends, and that's deceitful and it copies the better product.

I wish they did this long ago...

also @stelario, if you think that lego should be sued, you shouldnt be reading this site, I started typing something else but since i dont want to get banned i wont.

What year did mega bloks introduce the Barbie building sets?

NVM, answered my own question: Dec 2012
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20121204005581/en/Mega-Bloks%C2%AE-Barbie%E2%84%A2-Give-Building-Toys-Stylish

Here's a comparison btw:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bA0nlH9TLf0/UMG32t__A9I/AAAAAAAACGc/11JA7OudteY/s1600/minidolls.png

I think Lego has a strong case. Especially against Mega and Light Bricks. It all comes down to the core figure design and largely the hinging and pivot points, which are just a little too close. The Best Lock design appears to have an extra shoulder hinge which might make it safe, assuming these are the Best Lock figs in question. Best Lock can be a little strange that way.

The one odd thing is they are going after those Mega "My Life As" designs, which are obscure even by Mega standards. They are or were a Walmart exclusive line. Lego is not going after the Barbie line. One wonders if perhaps this is a pre emptive trike against the not yet announced but known to be forthcoming Megabloks Monster High line?

And no the Friends Minidolls and the MAttel Polly Pocket are designed much different. Radically different hinging, PP has interchangeable clothes and shoes, etc. very different play niche.

Both MEGA and Best Lock ones are just ugly, in fact quite terrifying looking.

The Mega and LaRose figures are way too blatantly copies of the Lego Friends design. The Best Lock one not that much.

Either way I hope Lego lose, karma for segregating girl themes.

But Lego has a very strong case here.

Hey, if Apple can sue and win over rounded corners , Lego has quite a big chance to win here because those are seriously identical designs.

The light-up one does actually resemble a minidoll... the Mega one looks ugly... and then there's the Best-Lock one. That DUPLO torso... that zombified face... I wouldn't wish that piece of *BLEEP* upon my worst enemy. I highly suspect they just sued because it looked to terrible to exist.

^ looool. So true.

IMO, the first one is the only one that looks like a viable toy. The others are so bad they probably won't sell much anyway; suing them seems like overkill. Oh well, you do what you gotta do...

This happens everywhere, not just in plastic bricks. Anyone here driving a Ford Kuga? A 2014 Toyota RAV-4? Suzuki S-Cross?
All trying their best to be very much but not exactly like the Nissan Qashqai because the Qashqai is a commercial success.
You see the same in music. When Hanson had a hit with MMMBops, a few months later every record label had 'discovered' some 14-year old boy-band.
Lego don't have a lot of success these days with fighting copy-right thanks to China's interpretation of copyright (the right to copy whatever you want) so I wish them luck with this case.

An idea can't be owned. These rival products aren't exactly the same. Are they jumping on Lego's bandwagon? Yes. Is that illegal? No. Is there any confusion between Lego and other brands? No. Is Lego in danger of becoming a genericised trademark? Yes. Would this hurt brand recognition? Not if Lego remains the better quality product.

There's a moral argument to be made about exploiting someone else's idea but when it's an argument about billion dollar companies, morality doesn't come into it.

In this capitalist world, make the best product you can for the best price and the consumer will decide.

As a former lawyer I must say LEGO has a case. Of that there is no doubt. However I'm not so sure it will succeed. Of course there are coincidences considering the time frame these knock offs are being released and also the fact that the patents are public. These make it obvious that there is an abuse of the other companies of the development processo LEGO spent to reach a final product. And these companies do it unfairly without having to spend so much money. The thing is you must prove the intent to do so.

Also you must take under consideration the matter of seeing if a regular consumer, familiarized with other LEGO products, would find these knock off to be similar with LEGO, to a point one could assume one would buy the replicas instead of the original. In this case you have a case for LEGO because TLG is being monetarily harmed.

There is a lot to prove in such cases and that can be hard to do because all you really have are coincidences and to be fair enough, patent law can be quite strict concerning the designs. So some differences can make all the difference. BUT... you also have to check other stuff, like story, designs, prints, backgorund, IP, etc... I did not read the plea but there can be so many other motives to take legal action. I fear however that LEGO might not succeed in this. The main target they should focus on is the articulation of the minidolls waist/ torso relation.

The minidoll is designed in a way similar to the minifigure, that is, in a way you instantly recognize the feature as being LEGO. The fact that the other features of the replica minidolls look different might matter or not, as one might think it might be a "new" LEGO, hence creating confusion in the consumer or it is simply obvious it does not meet the quality criteria of LEGO. But also, as referred, patent law is quite strict so, I would have to handle one of the copies and check the patent designs (should they happen to have at all) to really understand how similar they are.

Things can be made easy if the other companies don't comply with the legal requirements to produce these type of toys. Of course, that depends on specific countries and their legal demands to such enterprises. I guess that in the states, LEGO will have a better chance of succeeding because of the type of legal system and that might work for them as the US is probably their second (maybe first) market. Then again... I haven't dealt with international commercial/private/industrial law in a long time. So I'm not that familiarized with US jurisprudence on these affairs of late.

EDIT -and having read the complaint, I now see that the lawyers focused on every single aspect of the minidoll. If I were to rule the complaint I would decide in favour of LEGO but would not grant them reason on every single aspect focused. LEGO does not prove that these companies are using LEGO's development to reach their product. They focus on apparent coincidences.

However on thing is more than evident appearance and that is the aspect ad use of the torso and legs of the minidolls. The faces and hairs are different even if similar. Again, LEGO is not owner of everything that might resemble their product. There is a margin of similarity that can be used, otherwise we'd be left with toys that could not use a face at all. Those features are similar but obviousçy different. So, I understand that the complaint will focus on all possible aspects, but this one is one that I would not grant reason to the complainants.

BUT, the torso and legs are something unique and the new companies could have made a different mechanism for bending the minifigure or arm position or hand grabbing position. In these cases, the similarities are just too obvious to leave unnoticed. And I say that because the dolls could have been made different.

However, they follow the same mechanism and desgin protected by LEGO's patent. That alone serves the complainant and prove only in this aspect that engineering/design by TLG was unlawfully used by other companies to develop parts for their sets
Verdict: LEGO wins

@madforLEGO
The reason they don't go after chinese counterfeiters is because there's no base for Lego to even do anything about it. China literally DOES NOT CARE about copyright law. Period.

If Lego had more integrity they'd cease all chinese production, but damn that chinese production is cheap!

@Faefrost: LEGO wouldn't have nearly as much of a case against the Mega Bloks Barbie sets because the proportions of the figures don't closely resemble the mini-doll parts that LEGO has patented.

@DanRSL: Chinese-made LEGO bootlegs have been a problem since long before LEGO started producing their own parts there (and not just bootlegs of simple bricks — check out Enlighten's "Maskers": http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=282553 ), so I'm not sure what LEGO's own Chinese production has to do with the ongoing problems of copyright and patent infringement.

Chinese-made bootleg LEGO has been getting more common in recent years, but I think that has less to do with where LEGO manufactures and more to do with the steps they've been taking to increase sales in Asia, which raise awareness of LEGO brands and create a fertile ground for copycat brands to take root.

They are not successful, but a problem is that if Lego chose not to sue right now and in 3 years a competitor made Friends clones that actually got very successful, Lego would have difficulty taking them to trial because they would use the Megabloks / best lock clones as defense argument "There's prior art, They are only suing us because we are successful, etc".

From the first time i saw lego: friends, it has always reminded me of polly pockets. So allthough i like Lego, I do feel that they are the one doing the copying instead of other people copying them. And I have seen more and more new blocks the last years in lego whose design i've first seen in megablocks.

The Poly pocket designs are different. Ideas are similar , sure. But toy companies are not forbidden from making dolls.

But in this case, Megabloks have blatantly copied the designs themselves.

I hope Lego wins! I think they have a fine case, they should easily win. I am always so annoyed (maybe thats not a strong enough word) when other companies copy Lego exactly (I especially dislike MEGA blocks, since they were one of the first to copy Lego). Since I know a bit about Lego's history, I know that Lego was definitley the first "block" company out there. In other words. . . Boo MEGA brands, boo Best Lock, and boo LaRose Industries! GO LEGO!

@Aanchir
There's no way I could prove this, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some amount of sharing of designs/molds/etc from Lego factories in China or maybe even the factories themselves producing off the clock.

There are numerous ebay offers like this http://tinyurl.com/l4gwfm8 that to me clearly had some access to legitimate Lego production facilities. Even if they don't have direct access, creating such an identical product is obviously a copyright problem.

You're probably right that the Asian market share push accelerated the counterfeiting (specifically "counterfeiting" and not just clones). China doesn't care because "pffft! Intellectual property? whatever!" and more counterfeits means more money coming into the country. Lego has to weigh whether the damage to their brand is worth the economic growth. So far it looks like they've made their decision.

Lego could be setting themselves up for a lawsuit from Mattel, as the Friends line from day one reminded me of Poly Pocket dolls, and looking at the Mega doll, I see more similarity to the Poly Pocket line than the Friends line.

In the end, change the product 25% in the U.S., and the chances of being sued for copyright begins to wain. Seems to me that a brand begun by stealing someone else's design, as Lego did, and has lost this type of court case in the past based on how the Lego brand began, has already allowed to U.S. courts to say that no, Lego, indeed these other companies are allowed to sell products which resemble yours, and other companies, offerings.

I love my hoard of Lego, but these battles have played out in the past, and shown how the courts view Lego's claims to sovereignty on these widgets. Also, Lego could find challenges to the minifigure now being more of an action figure, and having counter-suits exchanged on the premise of what/where the brand has crossed into other toy lines rights, as Lego has begun to market their product (at times) as more of an action figure brand with bricks, over a brick building brand with minifigures to accent the brick landscape.

Indeed, TLG is moving into places they may not wish to go.

@krklint - You are partially right in what you say. But the real matter here is not what is similar but what is practically identical. Friends does resemble pollypocket but size, mechanism and overall product are quite different. So using the same argument you used, LEGO is entitled to sell friends without creating confusion to the consumer or violating patent or copyright law. If you want to prove LEGO used Mattel's toy development process to reach a similar product of their own, that's a whole different matter that requires proof and not casual and visual coincidence. I only see LEGO winning this because of the engineering/design mechanism of the minidolls, specifically the torso and legs. They are the same apart from a milimeter or two. Why couldn't the other brands do something different? They could but they didn't. Intead they inspired themselves with a protected reference owned by LEGO. This means they used the engineereing/design process LEGO paid for without consent. The other brands with this method clearly intend to appeal to a mass market already estabilished and seek unlawful advantage. This also might create a certain level of confusion even to a regular LEGO consumer because though the LEGO logo isn't in the box, some people might find (many unaware parents just go for the cheap stuff and say the kid won't notice) the minifigures and block are way too similar. Consumer might even think it's a new wave of LEGO products. So, and though I think LEGO's complaint is way too excessive, namely when it concerns copyright infringement of theme, set and face/wig design, I think they do have reason when talking about the torso and legs - getting to that fianl product took its time and the competiton just took hold of the final result expecting an easy buck.

P.S.- should Mattel try to present a lawsuit in regards the construction set vs. action figures I think it would suffer from their own complaint as Mattel is seemingly almost everytime following the trend estabilished by LEGO and their strategies ultimately are very similar becaue of a singel aspect: LEGO has presented results.

Those knock-offs look horrifying.

@Reekardoo,

The comments about Lego's own attempts at such lawsuits are from the past, when Lego has attempted to sue similar companies, but failed due to the classic brick having been the creation of a different company. These lawsuits have been attempted in the past, with failure.

The design of the minifigure is not new to those who collect dolls; and though the purpose of these mini-dolls is to connect to bricks, the overall marketing has not been to build with bricks, but to play with dolls in brick-built settings. That should not be a great enough distinction to persuade American courts.

My goal was not to have Lego prove it used Mattel's design for their own model. The reality is that Lego used a pre-existing archetype for the minidoll which has existed for some time within other toy lines.

The quality of the other brand's products will not matter to the courts. As for the design of these dolls, Lego's design is too similar to the products of non-brick building lines to really win a lawsuit. Reality, one could argue that Lego's own design for the minifigure was created in a similar fashion to these off-brand competitors... and as such, holds no merit within court interpretations of copyright.

The final killer to any lawsuit is that if the final product is 25% or more different from the Lego brand, then the laws of copyright have not been infringed upon. The lawyers will make money, though :)

@krklint - copyright and patents are different things. I'm not sure on dates of release of the aforementioned products but the rights do expire. And as I have said, I think many points in the complaint are invalid. As for the allegation of the similarity between LEGO's minidoll and previous product I would need proof(such as the one presented in the complaint) to access and support such a claim. Until then, I find that to be invalid. On the other hand I think LEGO made a fair point when it comes to the minidoll in terms of concept. And this isn't yet a lawsuit, just a complaint to prevent these items to enter the U.S.

As for the archetype, yet again I fail to see the matrix so I can't really say I agree or disagree with you

Quality will matter if it is visually relevant for the consumer. And that will matter the courts, eventually.

As for the 25% rule it really isn't that rigid. I mentioned this before, as a whole (theme, concept, set part of the complaint) LEGO loses but in that small engineerin/desgin aspect it might actually win. So as a fundamental part of a set is infringing the rules, the whole set is doomed, not because of similarity (25% or whatever) but because it failed to respect legal regulation.

There is something very worrying about the face of the Best Lock figure. I think that face is possibly the last thing that several people have ever seen.

As an MBA student, I can definitely understand where Lego is coming from in terms of protecting their IP (as someone above mentioned) and acting in a profit maximizing manner. I think any and all companies should always do the same. Lego has a lot of money to work with so actively protecting and defending their unique product helps maintain their competitive advantage, a crucial goal for any company.

I'm still a little confused about how we reach a verdict on this subject, but reading the above posts have helped. I'm not well-versed on the legal side of this at all. The whole patent vs copyright issue is fascinating.