Lego vs Zuru

[leafan]

Bloomberg have an interesting article about Lego taking legal action against a competing brand from Zuru called Max Build More.

Original Article Here.

"Lego A/S wants to make sure any plastic toy figurine unwrapped in an American home during the holidays isn’t what the toymaker calls a copycat of its own products.

The Danish toymaker is asking a federal judge in Connecticut to prevent Zuru Toys Inc. from selling some of its Max Build More and Mayka lines of construction toys at Walmart Inc. stores. In a lawsuit filed on Thursday, Lego claims the Zuru products copy the distinctive look of Lego Minifigures, and would confuse consumers into thinking they were Lego toys.

“While the Lego Group welcomes fair competition, Zuru’s nationwide launch” of the Max Build More products at Walmart’s retail and online stores in October “was anything but fair play,” Lego said in a filing with the court.

Lego, like many toymakers, is known for being aggressive in protecting its brand, which includes popular movies, theme parks and sets based on the Star Wars and Harry Potter brands. The main patents on its iconic connecting blocks have expired, so it relies instead on patented designs, and the copyrighted and trademarked looks of the figurines -- from Luke Skywalker to Batman.

Unless it’s stopped, Lego said, “Zuru will continue to exploit the actual and inevitable consumer confusion caused by its inferior infringing products during this prime holiday buying season, while causing irreparable harm to the Lego Group’s goodwill and reputation.”

Lego has filed a request for an emergency restraining order to halt Zuru’s sales of the figures, and said the Max Build More products should be kept off the market until the infringement lawsuit is completed. A hearing has been scheduled for Friday afternoon in New Haven, Connecticut.

Europe’s biggest toymaker was founded by a carpenter Ole Kirk Kristiansen, who started making wooden toys in the 1930s and named his company after the Danish phrase for “play well.” The company has remained in the family and is now run by Kristiansen’s grandson.

Zuru has an origin story that’s similar to Lego’s, albeit having taken place almost a century later. The Hong Kong-based company was founded by New Zealand siblings about 15 years ago and started with the eldest brother Mat Mowbray’s school science fair idea for a hot air balloon kit set. It’s turned the Mowbrays into celebrities in their home country.

Zuru sells a range of products, including fidget spinners with images of the Marvel Avengers characters, but is best known for its Bunch O Balloons, which lets you fill multiple water balloons at once, and was the subject of patent litigation when Zuru sued a competitor over what it claimed were knockoffs.

The World’s Biggest Toymakers Aren’t Having Much Fun

Thomas Dunlap, a lawyer with Dunlap, Bennett & Ludwig in Leesburg, Virginia, who’s represented Zuru in the Bunch O Balloons and other intellectual property cases, said the company is reviewing the new Lego complaint.

Zuru advertises on its packaging that the Max Build More products are “Lego Blocks Compatible.” It bills the figurines as “mini figures” while Lego’s are called Minifigures.

The case is Lego A/S v Zuru Inc., 18-2045, U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).
(Updates with hearing scheduled in sixth paragraph.)"

For those interested, here is what Max Build More figures look like.

Thoughts/Comments?

[x105Black]

They look different enough for me.  Here's a better picture for those interested:

Spoiler

I feel bad for any kid that gets these instead of LEGO.

[Johnny1360]

8 minutes ago, x105Black said:

 

I feel bad for any kid that gets these instead of LEGO.

For sure, I can still remember my disappointment and mostly frustration from crappy megablock like products, that I received as a child, 50 years ago. Especially when you are told "but it's just like LEGO" curse you American Bricks. 

[MAB]

I hope lego lose this case. I don't have a problem with them going after knock-offs of their patents, but these are different. I don't see why these are any different to the characters sold by Block Tech like these, for example:

 

They are crap, but cheap. I imagine Zuru might need to change “Lego Blocks Compatible” to "Compatible with other brands" but other than that, I don't see where the confusion is. It's fair enough that LEGO wants to protect it's patents, but it should not be allowed to stop other companies making figurines that are compatible. So I hope LEGO lose.

 

[rodiziorobs]

I'm with the consensus here--I think this is TLG being overzealous with their brand protection. Which is probably why they are doing it, honestly. They probably expect to lose, also, but by picking this fight they are more clearly drawing where the line is.

For me, the figures are pretty distinct, from their physical proportions and poseability to their expressions. Some of them, TBH, are better than minifigures. If I see some in the store I might check them out and see if they are any good.

[Peppermint_M]

Those guys look really cool! Like Kreons without the carved chin. I am always a fan of pocket sized figures and toys. When I was a kid my sister and I always had toy cars, tiny figures and little plastic toys in our pockets, ready to play with wherever.

TLG really are jumping out on something far distinct from their own product. As I said, these look like the Kreons (defunct now right?) that Hasbro sold. They never did take a shot at Hasbro, but Zuru are little guys in comparison so of course they're going to use bully-boy tactics. 

Bit of a shame really.

[koalayummies]

I'm with Lego here, they're just protecting the kids from disappointment. Also possibly lead.

[leafan]

21 hours ago, koalayummies said:

I'm with Lego here, they're just protecting the kids from disappointment. Also possibly lead.

I'm not sure about America, but here in the UK lead is banned to be used in consumer products for 99% of things, being as it's poisonous.

I really doubt that any toy figure ready for release in stores contains any sort of lead.

[koalayummies]

2 hours ago, leafan said:

I'm not sure about America, but here in the UK lead is banned to be used in consumer products for 99% of things, being as it's poisonous.

I really doubt that any toy figure ready for release in stores contains any sort of lead.

It was meant to be humorous post....

Based off the fact (proven) that yes, Chinese manufactured toys are sold every year worldwide that test positive for lead, chromium, BD and other toxic substances some of them from reputable brands like Mattel, Bindeez, Marvel Toys despite federal laws, bans, regulations and so on. Just google "china toy lead" as I don't want to derail this thread talking about the toxic substances in quick-profit toys that wind up on store shelves in countries with laws against it. There's also laws against murder too but it still happens.

[Johnny1360]

8 hours ago, leafan said:

I'm not sure about America, but here in the UK lead is banned to be used in consumer products for 99% of things, being as it's poisonous.

I really doubt that any toy figure ready for release in stores contains any sort of lead.

Yes of course it is banned here in the USA as well, regardless some toys coming from other countries do in fact often contain lead tainted materials. 

[leafan]

17 hours ago, koalayummies said:

It was meant to be humorous post....

Based off the fact (proven) that yes, Chinese manufactured toys are sold every year worldwide that test positive for lead, chromium, BD and other toxic substances some of them from reputable brands like Mattel, Bindeez, Marvel Toys despite federal laws, bans, regulations and so on. Just google "china toy lead" as I don't want to derail this thread talking about the toxic substances in quick-profit toys that wind up on store shelves in countries with laws against it. There's also laws against murder too but it still happens.

Ah you see...your humour didn't come across when reading your post.

I guess lead could be in Lego too then. Shit.

[koalayummies]

6 hours ago, leafan said:

Ah you see...your humour didn't come across when reading your post.

I guess lead could be in Lego too then. Shit.

Lego suing to protect kids from disappointment because these things are serious garbage that should be stopped. Of course if one disagrees that these are mediocre junk then I could understand why its not seen as a funny interpretation of the hypothetical rationale for this suit.

Toxic substances wasn't the humorous part, that was the truthful wisecrack. Thought that was fairly well known.

Edited December 16, 2018 by koalayummies

[leafan]

2 hours ago, koalayummies said:

Lego suing to protect kids from disappointment because these things are serious garbage that should be stopped. Of course if one disagrees that these are mediocre junk then I could understand why its not seen as a funny interpretation of the hypothetical rationale for this suit.

Toxic substances wasn't the humorous part, that was the truthful wisecrack. Thought that was fairly well known.

Not really, I agree that the Zuru stuff looks like crap, I just didn't see the humour in what you said because it wasn't funny.

Personally, I think morally it's wrong to bully smaller companies out of the market like this, especially since, as others have noted, there are bigger players doing it.

As a counter to that, I remember something about companies weakening their claim on copyrights if they don't sue (win or lose); but I'm no expert in the subject.

[TeriXeri]

I don't directly mind "fake" lookalike brands (I don't buy it), but I do hate low quality of some of the stuff even if it's their own designs.

LEGO shouldn't be mentioned on any of the packaging/instructions however.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2018 by TeriXeri

[MAB]

13 hours ago, koalayummies said:

 

Toxic substances wasn't the humorous part, that was the truthful wisecrack. Thought that was fairly well known.

1

As already noted, some LEGO parts come from China and not all of them can be inspected, just like other clone brands being sold in the US and UK/EU. So if other brands that pass safety tests should be banned, then so should LEGO.

[Lego Mike]

I've seen Lego losing shelf space to this brand and others here in South Korea for about two years now. Like, seriously, large retailers have taken about half of the space that used to be full of Lego. Now it's other stuff like Beyblade and what the heck ever it is. Why? PRICE. PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE.

If Lego wants to continue being a "boutique brand" (which it is, despite or because of being the largest toy company in the world), it's going to have to accept smaller companies offering cheaper alternatives.

Sorry, Lego, but you can't seriously expect to keep this style of toy to yourself. I mean, is Hershey going around the world, suing everyone for making candy bars? Is Coca-Cola suing everyone for making cola? It wasn't really even uniquely a Lego idea to begin with, was it? Be honest.

I very rarely buy non-Lego block sets. Some licensed, original sets by Oxford are fun on a purely visual level. 99.9% of the time, I'm true blue for Lego. But liking a company doesn't mean you can't be honest about it, and it really looks like Lego's trying to throw their weight around here. I think consumers have a right to cheaper alternatives in a fair market, and I don't think Lego has any right to expect exclusivity in its brick system after 60 years.

The questions to me, then, are whether a non-Lego brick company is blatantly stealing set concepts and visual properties and whether we might expect a new company to start getting their act together and producing some seriously good sets. For the former, most companies, especially from China and Korea, are still cloning things wholesale. But for the latter, ironically, some companies in China and Korea are making some legitimately nice stuff.

Bottom line: Seems to me that Lego's not used to sharing the playground, so its instinct is to bully the other kids off the court.

Edited December 17, 2018 by Lego Mike
Typos and grammar, typos and grammar...

[koalayummies]

19 hours ago, leafan said:

Not really, I agree that the Zuru stuff looks like crap, I just didn't see the humour in what you said because it wasn't funny.

Personally, I think morally it's wrong to bully smaller companies out of the market like this, especially since, as others have noted, there are bigger players doing it.

As a counter to that, I remember something about companies weakening their claim on copyrights if they don't sue (win or lose); but I'm no expert in the subject.

Morally there is nothing wrong with what Lego is doing. You put yourself in the shoes of Zuru and say that they're bullying. You're thinking of Zurus bottom line while I'm thinking this company's lack of original ideas was bound to get them in a legal battle eventually.

Then I put myself in the shoes of Lego and say they're protecting their brand.

And also protecting the kids from utter disappointment.

Edited December 17, 2018 by koalayummies

[Johnny1360]

To me those do look quite similar to the LEGO offering but if someone likes them and wants to buy them, well that's there choice, mine is LEGO. As a kid I rarely got LEGO, it was to expensive for my folks, the only way I ever got it was as a gift from some "rich" person. Now though things are different for me and I only buy LEGO, my choice. 

[Aanchir]

Hmmm… mixed feelings here. For the most part Zuru's figure and figure accessory designs seem distinct enough from LEGO ones that it would be a hard case to win on those particular grounds. And of course, it's understood that the basic brick, being a purely functional rather than ornamental design with a long-expired patent, is not a protected IP.

That said, Zuru does seem to be copying some other much more recent parts that might still protected by current patents or copyrights. Like https://brickset.com/parts/design-90201 (introduced in 2010), https://brickset.com/parts/design-11208 and https://brickset.com/parts/design-15208 (introduced in 2013), and https://brickset.com/parts/design-14419 (introduced in 2014).

Moreover, at least SOME of the boxes say "LEGO Brick compatible" which I believe is a legal no-no. The preferred terminology seems to be "compatible with other leading brands" as it does not imply a relationship with a particular competing company or attempt to leverage a particular competing company's popularity. The fact that other boxes I see when I do a Google image search for these products DO say "Compatible with Major Brands" suggests that this was just some initial carelessness on Zuru's part and they're already trying to cover their butts.

Needless to say LEGO is choosing what may be a risky battle but I certainly can't say that Zuru is innocent of any wrongdoing here and I certainly won't be rushing to their defense, when they've more than demonstrated their ability to create products that don't amount to blatant knock-offs of other brands' products. Moreover, LEGO could potentially lose the rights to some of their IPs if they didn't make a visible effort to protect them against even minor instances of infringement, so there is a certain degree of obligation on their part not to simply let stuff like this slide.

Edited December 17, 2018 by Aanchir

[leafan]

On 12/17/2018 at 5:56 PM, koalayummies said:

Morally there is nothing wrong with what Lego is doing. You put yourself in the shoes of Zuru and say that they're bullying. You're thinking of Zurus bottom line while I'm thinking this company's lack of original ideas was bound to get them in a legal battle eventually.

Then I put myself in the shoes of Lego and say they're protecting their brand.

And also protecting the kids from utter disappointment.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Clearly I was saying that I can see it from both sides.

Lego *may* have a legal obligation to protect it's brand (whether this falls under that is arguable), but that does not make it morally right.

If any of you play Blizzard games and remember them shutting down private server Nostalrious, you'll know where I'm coming from - but they did that to protect their brand. Was it morally right though?

[anothergol]

Well, Lego has all the reasons to be scared by clone brands taking over, since it's what they did themselves afterall.

I'd be Lego I'd be scared by non-chinese clone brands that can spread everywhere (like Mega Bloks did) that won't be afraid to cover ALL the pop culture, as well as military stuff. Lego is limiting themselves & leaving a market ready to be taken.

On 12/17/2018 at 10:16 PM, Aanchir said:

Moreover, at least SOME of the boxes say "LEGO Brick compatible" which I believe is a legal no-no.

I don't think it is, at least not everywhere. I believe the reason you don't see it all the time, just like you don't see comparative advertising that often (against which Lego also fights), is that it's risky & easy to avoid. But I don't believe it's less legal than a third-party smartphone case listing the models it's compatible with.
Eventually it's probably another of those cases where it's allowed when it's "informative & helping the consumer", vs "benefitting from using the Lego brand", and eventually up to a judge to decide.

About those being ugly, sure, but conpared to these?

Edited December 19, 2018 by anothergol

[Kalahari134]

10 hours ago, anothergol said:

I don't think it is, at least not everywhere. I believe the reason you don't see it all the time, just like you don't see comparative advertising that often (against which Lego also fights), is that it's risky & easy to avoid. But I don't believe it's less legal than a third-party smartphone case listing the models it's compatible with.
Eventually it's probably another of those cases where it's allowed when it's "informative & helping the consumer", vs "benefitting from using the Lego brand", and eventually up to a judge to decide.

The smartphone case isn't trying to be a substitute for the phone though. Unlike "these bricks are cheaper but work almost as well".

[BrickBuilder1]

I agree with most on here that the knock-off sucks, but also that TLG is kind of chasing something totally unnecessary. I don't see them winning this, unless of course, Zuru's lawyers are as crappy as their Lego knock-offs.

[koalayummies]

15 hours ago, leafan said:

Lego *may* have a legal obligation to protect it's brand (whether this falls under that is arguable), but that does not make it morally right.

Lego should protect their brand, but that does make it a moral dilemma. The moral dilemma here is taking another person or companies established ideas and products and trying to profit off of it with similar knockoffs marketed as being compatible. You say Lego suing this company is morally wrong, I say what this company was doing before the suit was slimy, unethical and thieving.

You asked what people think. You have a disagreement. That's pretty much the end of this back and forth. If Lego was your product and your company you'd just let it slide, that's understood. If you were Zuru you'd feel like you were being bullied and treated meanly and unfairly despite flagrantly copying other companies products, that's also understood. The takeaway here is that whoever TLG has working their brand management is the right people by not letting these ethically challenged wannabe competitors get away with this slimy behavior.

[fred67]

Ahh... whatever.  My two cents: TLG does not have a legal obligation because TLG is entirely held by the family and the foundation created by the family (it's not publicly held - you can't buy LEGO stock, period).  They have no obligation to shareholders, only themselves, and can do whatever they want.

It behooves them to protect their trademarks, copyrights (sets) and patents (parts), of course, or risk losing legal protections, but the courts have already ruled in competitors favors when the patents have expired, and when the knock-off doesn't violate current patents (as would be the case here).

The "moral" wrong is tying up the court system for a case they won't win when the courts could be used for more productive matters.

As far as "slimy and unethical," all I can say is what goes around comes around; we don't have to repeat the LEGO story again, I hope.  This is not a justification for copyright violations (like what Lepin does), or trademark violations (what a lot of clones do w.r.t. IP), it's that some company made compatible, but not identical, figures of unlicensed characters.  It's a waste of a lawsuit.