Fakes? IMPORTANT!

[Dr Kilroy]

I founded some minifig's headgear without 'Lego' caption. Here are the photos:

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/maskedpi...rs/dscf3468.jpg

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/maskedpi...rs/dscf3469.jpg

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/maskedpi...rs/dscf3470.jpg

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/maskedpi...rs/dscf3471.jpg

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/maskedpi...rs/dscf3473.jpg

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/maskedpi...rs/dscf3472.jpg

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/maskedpi...rs/dscf3474.jpg

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/maskedpi...rs/dscf3475.jpg

I've got also 3 cowboy hats without 'Lego' caption. Please comply them with your parts and tell me are they fakes or not. I recall, it's REALLY IMPORTANT!!! Please reply fast.

Greetings, Dr Kilroy

[Omicron]

Mind telling exactly where you found them?

-Omi

[Dr Kilroy]

Ok, of course. Red hat, cowboy hat and female wig - I bought them with used 4558 Metroliner. Male wig, 2 cowboys hats - friend gave me it, wig is propably 100% clone, cowboys hat is rather original. This tchief's hat is 100% Lego, I've got it from 7899.

Edited September 29, 2009 by Dr Kilroy

[brickzone]

I would suggest they might be older Lego - even now some pieces using older moulds don't have as much details on the inside as newer moulds.

[Wout]

It looks all like lego to me.

The female wig was produced between 1975 and 1987, so that's maybe why you don't recognise it.

[Dr Kilroy]

Do you comply them with your pieces?

[Wout]

No, so I cannot get you 100%

[Dr Kilroy]

Ok, I also think it's Lego now, but if you have any suggestions you can also post them here.

[Peppermint_M]

They are lego.

Most clones and ripoffs re-brand or are of inferior quality. Older parts have different markings to current moulded Lego.

Many clones also have a peg in the center of the headgear (fully hollow head studs on their figures mean they slot in firmly) and the better quality clones have significantly different moulding and plastic quality.

Hope I helped

[avoidz]

Looks like some of the LEGO I have from the early- mid-1980s. I don't think they are fakes.

[Big Cam]

Do you comply them with your pieces?

Your english is hurting, this doesn't make sense.

But those are all LEGO pieces, just becasue they don't have LEGO on it, doesn't mean its a fake. The stamp could have malfunctioned or the press didn't press hard enough.

I've seen them 2 of them in sets, I wouldn't be concerned.

Also why was this so time sensitive?

[Dr Kilroy]

I know my English is hurting. Time was so sensitive beacuse I had to contact BL seller who sell me those parts. Ok, please close this topic.

[RileyC]

I founded some minifig's headgear without 'Lego' caption. Here are the photos:

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/maskedpi...rs/dscf3468.jpg

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/maskedpi...rs/dscf3469.jpg

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/maskedpi...rs/dscf3470.jpg

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/maskedpi...rs/dscf3471.jpg

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/maskedpi...rs/dscf3473.jpg

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/maskedpi...rs/dscf3472.jpg

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/maskedpi...rs/dscf3474.jpg

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/maskedpi...rs/dscf3475.jpg

I've got also 3 cowboy hats without 'Lego' caption. Please comply them with your parts and tell me are they fakes or not. I recall, it's REALLY IMPORTANT!!! Please reply fast.

Greetings, Dr Kilroy

I can tell you that the last two pictures of that same hat come form the street basketball set that was released in 2003 (I think). I do have that set so I know it isnt fake.

I hope that helps

[escortmad79]

There are counterfit bricks doing the rounds, in 2 seperate BL orders recently I have received bricks supposedly being genuine Lego.

Looking at them at a glance they look genuine but they don't connect properly with other bricks & when you look at the logo close up, it's smaller writing & not level!

The 2 bricks in question have been a black 1x1 brick & a white 2x2 macaroni

[ZeeK]

I've had the same question and I was able to receive the answer at LA forum - it appears that some early headgear was initially produced from non-ABS plastic and the molding not included LEGO logo (pigtails and police hats were early minifig accessories)

So - no worries, it's all LEGO in perfect condition. Many congratulations - you're lucky to have such elements.

[Blondie-Wan]

As it happens, I was actually thinking of posting something along this line of inquiry soon myself. I don't have a particular need to know at the moment (that is, I haven't recently acquired any supposedly vintage LEGO of suspect quality from some secondhand source, nor am I about to that I know of), but I was really concerned about whether this issue might arise at some point in the future.

If at some point I buy or trade for some rare old set or piece(s), how can I be sure the part(s) is/are genuine LEGO? Years ago I don't know that the possibility of counterfeit elements would even occur to me, but these days, when small groups of fans-turned entrepreneurs like BrickForge and BrickArms and so on are apparently able to easily produce high-quality, perfectly LEGO-compatible custom pieces in quantity, I can't help but wonder. If they can make their own custom elements out of materials like those LEGO uses, and do so affordably despite the vastly reduced scales of production, what's to stop some unscrupulous individual or outfit from recreating older, discontinued elements (or even entire sets) and offering them up as the genuine articles?

[brickzone]

Probably nothing stopping people doing so, but I would imagine the match wouldn't be that exact.

As regards old sets - there is already the problem that the set may not have genuine parts, in the sense that though all parts may be Lego, they may not be the correct vintage (many Lego parts have subtly changed over the years - even normal bricks have changed, as well as almost all parts being produced in softer/shinier/slightly translucent plastic in recent years).

So the only surefire way is MISB from a trusted seller, or second best, probably a genuine-enough looking sale from an ordinary person selling off old Lego, where the photo clearly shows the box and Lego (in such cases it's usual enough that the Lego is at least the correct vintage, as even if the parts came from another set owned by the seller, in a typical case of kids Lego there's probably only a max difference of about 8 years or so from oldest to newest). Third best is a sale of Lego without box where you can see other listings of other sets of similar vintage (again, any mix-matching won't matter as the parts should be the correct vintage).

I've bought a lot of old sets *not* MISB but relatively cheap and in great condition from Germany. I've also bought Lego from UK which sometimes is coated in dust but barely played with (when cleaned it's like new). In such circumstances it's pretty unlikely to have "fakes" even if you do sometimes end up with scuffed/scratched Lego or the odd piece missing (but if you are paying cheap - that doesn't really matter - especially as all the "wins" make up for the occasional duff lot).

[JimBee]

I have one of those black hats without the logo. I was curious about that too, but they are most definitely real Lego. You can usually tell by just looking at the piece to see if it is good quality (not transparent, un-sharp edges, etc.).

[CP5670]

If at some point I buy or trade for some rare old set or piece(s), how can I be sure the part(s) is/are genuine LEGO? Years ago I don't know that the possibility of counterfeit elements would even occur to me, but these days, when small groups of fans-turned entrepreneurs like BrickForge and BrickArms and so on are apparently able to easily produce high-quality, perfectly LEGO-compatible custom pieces in quantity, I can't help but wonder. If they can make their own custom elements out of materials like those LEGO uses, and do so affordably despite the vastly reduced scales of production, what's to stop some unscrupulous individual or outfit from recreating older, discontinued elements (or even entire sets) and offering them up as the genuine articles?

I had brought up this possibility once, but in a different sense. What if a legitimate business comes up that is offering discontinued Lego parts/colors at the same or better level of quality as Lego? If they don't have the Lego logos on the studs, there is nothing stopping someone from doing that, and I think it would be a great thing for MOCers. I wouldn't really care where the pieces came from as long as the quality is there.

[blueandwhite]

I had brought up this possibility once, but in a different sense. What if a legitimate business comes up that is offering discontinued Lego parts/colors at the same or better level of quality as Lego? If they don't have the Lego logos on the studs, there is nothing stopping someone from doing that, and I think it would be a great thing for MOCers. I wouldn't really care where the pieces came from as long as the quality is there.

I would think you would be in violation of copyright (a guess on my part). I know that Mega Bloks successfully argued that LEGO couldn't copyright the LEGO brick, however I'm not certain about other, more specific designs. I'm guessing that there would be some legal hurdles to go through. Offering basic bricks is one thing; offering monorail tracks and pitchforks may be another can of worms alltogether.

From a personal POV, I wouldn't want to mix clone products into my collection. Moreover, I would worry about these forgeries saturating the secondary market and being sold as a replacement for genuine LEGO. I've always appreciated the notion of keeping my collection 'pure', so for me this would be one of the most devestating developments in my collecting history. I would probably need to rethink my position on bricklink alltogether.

[CP5670]

I would think you would be in violation of copyright (a guess on my part). I know that Mega Bloks successfully argued that LEGO couldn't copyright the LEGO brick, however I'm not certain about other, more specific designs. I'm guessing that there would be some legal hurdles to go through. Offering basic bricks is one thing; offering monorail tracks and pitchforks may be another can of worms alltogether.

From a personal POV, I wouldn't want to mix clone products into my collection. Moreover, I would worry about these forgeries saturating the secondary market and being sold as a replacement for genuine LEGO. I've always appreciated the notion of keeping my collection 'pure', so for me this would be one of the most devestating developments in my collecting history. I would probably need to rethink my position on bricklink alltogether.

Things like monorail tracks would probably be covered by patents, not copyright, which would have expired by now. I was thinking more along the lines of old gray bricks though, as well as transparent bricks and windscreens that haven't been made in decades.

I used to have the same thoughts as you, but my perspective has changed in the last few years after Lego itself started dropping in quality so sharply. I still don't like mixing certain types of modern Lego into my collection, which largely consists of the higher quality 80s and 90s Lego, but I don't want to stop buying Lego and limit myself to my existing parts either. It's interesting you brought up Bricklink, as that has been the biggest problem from my point of view. The various quality problems have made buying on Bricklink a lottery these days, and it's impossible to tell what exactly you are getting there. For a while I hardly bought anything from there that wasn't black or blue, but you can only do that for so long before your MOCs start to look boring.

[blueandwhite]

Things like monorail tracks would probably be covered by patents, not copyright, which would have expired by now. I was thinking more along the lines of old gray bricks though, as well as transparent bricks and windscreens that haven't been made in decades.

I used to have the same thoughts as you, but my perspective has changed in the last few years after Lego itself started dropping in quality so sharply. I still don't like mixing certain types of modern Lego into my collection, which largely consists of the higher quality 80s and 90s Lego, but I don't want to stop buying Lego and limit myself to my existing parts either. It's interesting you brought up Bricklink, as that has been the biggest problem from my point of view. The various quality problems have made buying on Bricklink a lottery these days, and it's impossible to tell what exactly you are getting there. For a while I hardly bought anything from there that wasn't black or blue, but you can only do that for so long before your MOCs start to look boring.

While it's true that patents typically last only 20 years, the non-functional aspects of certain elements may still be subject to copyright. In the case of the LEGO brick design, I think the courts ruled that the brick design was purely functional (it's been a long time since I've read the case). Who's to say that other bricks/elements will be subject to the same ruling. Certainly elements like the pitchfork have an element of artistry which could be subject to a copyright. The design of such elements isn't purely functional. Also, what about the common-law argument for passing-off? Given that the idea here is to make a forgery so perfect that it could easily be mistaken for the LEGO original, I'm wondering if a small company would be willing to go toe-to-toe with LEGO in a legal battle. Even if the company did prevail, the cost of waging a legal battle with LEGO would be pretty significant. I would love to hear from a lawyer on this stuff.

[AndyC]

You would hope that anyone doing that as a service to the community would have the sense to make it obvious they were compatible rather than genuine pieces, perhaps by placing their own logo where the lego one usually appears. Of course if the intention was to deliberately decieve people, I guess there is only so much you can do to avoid it.

[CP5670]

While it's true that patents typically last only 20 years, the non-functional aspects of certain elements may still be subject to copyright. In the case of the LEGO brick design, I think the courts ruled that the brick design was purely functional (it's been a long time since I've read the case). Who's to say that other bricks/elements will be subject to the same ruling. Certainly elements like the pitchfork have an element of artistry which could be subject to a copyright. The design of such elements isn't purely functional. Also, what about the common-law argument for passing-off? Given that the idea here is to make a forgery so perfect that it could easily be mistaken for the LEGO original, I'm wondering if a small company would be willing to go toe-to-toe with LEGO in a legal battle. Even if the company did prevail, the cost of waging a legal battle with LEGO would be pretty significant. I would love to hear from a lawyer on this stuff.

We've seen clone brands (and not just the bootleg ones) copy many things other than basic bricks from Lego, so it seems to be possible. The only difference here is that the quality would be up to scratch.

But yeah, I don't know much about the legal aspects of this either. In the case of monorail tracks, they haven't been produced in a long time and will almost certainly never be in the future. The small company (especially if it's like Brickarms, etc. and is made up of a few AFOLs) may well just assume that TLG doesn't care, and stop production in the event that they do complain.

[Legoist]

I don't like companies cloning Lego bricks and compete with Lego, but if a small company produces parts that Lego doesn't want to do anymore, I think it would be a good thing for everyone. Someone mentioned monorail tracks and pitchfork: why isn't Lego producing them at the moment? Presumably because they're not profitable, although this is to be taken as a truly generic statement. But if another company could manage to make it profitable, how would this damage TLG?

However, I think the best thing would be if such a company would work in full agreement with TLG. That small company could become simply a temporary supplier of a certain set of parts that TLG isn't producing at the moment. The company would be fully entitled to clone the agreed parts without breaking any law, essentially becoming a delegate for TLG until TLG itself decides that they will start again producing those parts.

The whole reason of patents, trademarks and copyright is that they should be used. If they are not used to produce something but only to prevent producing something, then they are pointless... And I actually think that TLG would not be against such a scenario with smaller companies, as long as the small companies manages to keep up with the Lego standards of quality, why would they be against it? The battle with cloning brands like MB is another thing, because they are just trying to overlap with Lego sales by achieving lower prices, thanks to not paying for research and development costs since they're cloning. But the hypothetical small company in the scenario above would not be overlapping, it would be more like an extension.