Lego Lawyers Say No One Else Can Be Named Lego
from the really-need-to-calm-those-folks-down dept
Remember last week when the Lego lawyers would scold you for going to legos.com instead of lego.com? That should have made it clear that the lawyers there take these issues quite serious. So, perhaps it isn’t a surprise to find out this bit of news: Cofie writes “A dispute between a painter and a toy-maker was reported in ‘The Copenhagen Post’ this week. Apparently the toy producer Lego, a Danish company and maker of the toy building blocks known around the world, is suing a Danish artist because she uses her middle name, Lego, as her signature on artworks. So, the toy company is basically saying that Louise Lego Andersen’s art work could be mixed up with their toy company. According to the story the name Lego goes back to before the company began. It is a perfectly legal middle name. This is yet another example of the misuse of the law with regard to brand names. It’s meant for preventing ambiguity, but when cases like this appear, who’s fooling who?”
Comments on “Lego Lawyers Say No One Else Can Be Named Lego”
Am I wrong?
Am I wrong or don’t Trademarks need to be watched closely so they don’t end up generic terms like Kleenex and Xerox?
Perhaps they are starting lawsuits they know they can’t win so that when a legitimate trademark issue arises noone can claim they haven’t been diligent?
Lego responds to my email
Here’s Lego’s response to my email to them about their splash page:
Thank you for your email from 09/09/05 regarding our web site.
We appreciate your comments about the trademark and/or copyright information pop-up you received while searching for us on the internet. As you might imagine, in our ongoing effort to protect our valued trademarks, we must make every effort to ensure that the LEGO brand name and associated images are reserved for the exclusive use of our Company and the products manufactured by us. For additional information on the use of our trademarks and copyrighted material, please refer to the guidelines provided in the Fair Play section on our web site at http://www.LEGO.com.
The information about the correct usage of our trademark was not meant to offend anyone just to protect our most valued asset. However, your comments have been forwarded to the appropriate Manager for review.
Please do not hesitate to contact us again if we can be of further assistance. We wish you many more happy hours of creative building with LEGO brand toys in the years to come.
Sonia
LEGO Direct Consumer Services
interestingly enough
I worked for a company that sued LEGO for trademark violation over a line of their LEGO Blocks that violated the company’s trademarked name (despite being in completely separate sectors — one was an timing-device manufacturer and the other a toy maker.) So, don’t think that just because the products are in unrelated sectors of the economy that they’ll forgo claims against one another.
Innovation versus Litigation
Just another desperate attempt by a desperate company whose market share is dwindling every passing year. Why innovate when you can litigate?
Re: Innovation versus Litigation
*love* the Mega Blocks. Very innovative, and they don’t rely upon the Lego ™ concept of “we’ll provide a pre-constructed ABS shell for a building. The kids will shure have fun moving the shell around, even if they don’t actually get to build anything anymore.”
I say this as someone who owns more than 400 lbs. of bricks, so I do know what I’m talking about. This is my opinion, you have the right to disagree.