Lego vs Zuru

[anothergol]

7 hours ago, Kalahari134 said:

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

I don't know where you live, but "this is cheaper but works almost as well" is competition, allowed/encouraged nearly everywhere & is the fundation of capitalism.

Again, if you don't see it much in ads or packagings, it's because you may have to prove that "it works as well", which is a little too vague to be proven. Whereas they could totally brag about being made of 100% the same material, because that is a fact that can be proven in court. And if it just works "nearly as well", it's probably not something you want everyone to know, anyway.

https://www.smartuplegal.com/learn-center/can-i-use-a-competitors-name-in-advertising/

 

1 hour ago, fred67 said:

It's a waste of a lawsuit.

I'd assume that Lego has its own lawyers who have to justify their salaries/utility & do shit like this all the time.

It's a lotery ticket for them, because even if Lego has only a slim chance to win, if they do (for whatever reason, there are lawyers who know the law, and lawyers who know the judge), the case will be used against every other competitor and will be a massive win for Lego.

Afterall Lego isn't doing anything special here, it's common lawyers assholeness. Kellogg's sues everyone who uses a toucan in their logo, especially little companies who can't fight back.

Edited December 19, 2018 by anothergol

[leafan]

6 hours ago, koalayummies said:

You say Lego suing this company is morally wrong, I say what this company was doing before the suit was slimy, unethical and thieving.

Slimy and unethical is your opinion, but thieving - really? Lego as we know it came from doing the same thing as what is happening here. Also, I'm pretty sure Lego wasn't the first company to do bling bag figures.

BTW I welcome your discussion, but you came across as condescending which is why you got an arsey reply. I consider this the end to that.

In the end I think Lego are doing this because win or lose, it may just stop them selling the products over the Christmas period, which would deliver a win whatever the result in court.

Afterwards, Lego can decimate their sales by releasing the Lego Movie 2 collectible minifigures range.

[Dazzzy]

4 hours ago, fred67 said:

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.

 

 

Hi fred67,

I'm a new user to the site so please forgive me, but could you please point me in in the right direction of the "LEGO story" (that's assuming there's an existing topic related to it)?

Thank you kindly.

[fred67]

4 hours ago, Dazzzy said:

Hi fred67,

I'm a new user to the site so please forgive me, but could you please point me in in the right direction of the "LEGO story" (that's assuming there's an existing topic related to it)?

Thank you kindly.

Being lazy and just letting Google do the work for me.

Long story short, Hillary Fisher Page, one of the founders of Kiddiecraft, is generally credited as inventing what Kirk Kristiansen (founder of LEGO) copied.  It's true that LEGO eventually made improvements that actually made the building bricks more usable (what we use today), but what LEGO originally started producing was patented in another country at the time.

LEGO actually ended up buying Kiddiecraft out, ostensibly to avoid "they did it first" defenses when LEGO sued companies for copying them.

 

[Dazzzy]

Just now, fred67 said:

Being lazy and just letting Google do the work for me.

Long story short, Hillary Fisher Page, one of the founders of Kiddiecraft, is generally credited as inventing what Kirk Kristiansen (founder of LEGO) copied.  It's true that LEGO eventually made improvements that actually made the building bricks more usable (what we use today), but what LEGO originally started producing was patented in another country at the time.

LEGO actually ended up buying Kiddiecraft out, ostensibly to avoid "they did it first" defenses when LEGO sued companies for copying them.

 

Wow! I didn't know that. Thank you, fred67 for shedding some light on the situation.

[Peppermint_M]

You know, a lot of people are using the "Think of the children" argument and yet a lot of the kids don't care what the branding is. They care about the quantity and the theme of something.

This is sold in a local "bargain" shop chain (B&M Bargains). It is kept with the Mayka Tape, other brick brands like K'nex, Block-Tech and, yes, any LEGO that is in stock at this time. The kids think "WOW Wrestling!" some of the brand savvy kids will say bricks, others say LEGO (Often then corrected by a parent) but they are most interested in the fact that they are getting wrestling. 

Then you have the quantity argument. LEGO is expensive, some of it ludicrously so (I'm looking at you, baseplates). You can get way more bricks for a much lower price.

A set of 35 mixed doors and window that is sold for under £5 (actually only £2 from the retailer right now). You can bet that I would have had these to build with as a kid. Bargain price and lots of bits to build houses with. 

So someone getting a box of Zuru figures isn't as much a disappointment as AFOLs like to think.

[MAB]

And some will say "Wow, that's Big Show" before they even think of LEGO.

 

[leafan]

5 hours ago, Peppermint_M said:

This is sold in a local "bargain" shop chain (B&M Bargains). It is kept with the Mayka Tape, other brick brands like K'nex, Block-Tech and, yes, any LEGO that is in stock at this time.

B&M represent, Peppermint! Haha. My Uk buddies will know that place well.

Since around September they've started to stock a lot of Lego but aside from the recent 20% off sale, I wouldn't label any of them as "Bargains".

Sorry for the de-rail.

[koalayummies]

17 hours ago, leafan said:

BTW I welcome your discussion, but you came across as condescending which is why you got an arsey reply.

Killing with kindness eh?

Edited December 20, 2018 by koalayummies

[fred67]

The "won't somebody please think of the children!" argument is only that most clone brands are far from the quality of the clutch/release that LEGO branded bricks have.  I have no problem with clone brands (as long as they don't copy LEGO sets), and I actually have a few I couldn't pass up (like a USS Enterprise from Kre-O, which I still wouldn't have bought if it wasn't on Woot for a fraction of it's MSRP).

So imagine a kid gets a spaceship from a cheap clone brand (some of them are actually not bad - LEGO is the best, but MB seems to have come a long way), and the ship keeps falling apart because of poor clutch?  Then they get frustrated and ditch it, and think that "LEGO" (generically) sucks.

[MAB]

One of my kids got a clone set for her birthday (I think Block Tech, I didn't look too closely). I was a bit uneasy with her getting it mixed in with the normal LEGO, but it turns out the clutch is really quite good. In fact, I'd go as far to say as good as LEGO.  And the really good thing is that she wants to keep it built and not mix it in!

[fred67]

I admit - I keep the sets built, and extra pieces go into a "not-LEGO" bin so that I don't mix.

[anothergol]

On 12/20/2018 at 7:11 PM, fred67 said:

So imagine a kid gets a spaceship from a cheap clone brand (some of them are actually not bad - LEGO is the best, but MB seems to have come a long way), and the ship keeps falling apart because of poor clutch?  Then they get frustrated and ditch it, and think that "LEGO" (generically) sucks.

The few clones I've tried weren't bad at all, I'd give them a 9/10. They have other problems though: missing parts, bad prints, bad parts that slipped through.

But Lego isn't perfect either, prints are too often off-center and dimmed by the part's color, also clutch power is rather random. How many of these have *zero* clutch power?

Lego has good support, though. One part of it is their own (their customer support being pretty good), the other is the community, and Bricklink.

Edited December 22, 2018 by anothergol

[HawkLord]

I don’t know why Lego would be worried. They beat out Hasbro’s Kreons and those are no longer produced. Bridge Direct and McFarlane both have failed lines, especially with TRU gone. Mega Bloks is the only competition and that’s just barely. Lego has no other company that can compete anywhere close to their product or licenses. 

Lego should pass on a lawsuit and just let these guys take their chances. Then when Lego crushes them, it’ll set yet another example.  

[anothergol]

On 12/20/2018 at 7:11 PM, fred67 said:

So imagine a kid gets a spaceship from a cheap clone brand (some of them are actually not bad - LEGO is the best, but MB seems to have come a long way), and the ship keeps falling apart because of poor clutch?  Then they get frustrated and ditch it, and think that "LEGO" (generically) sucks.

It's a bit sad btw, because it means that Lego has lost its main purpose, and that for many kids it's just time to spend to build something they will never break apart.

Today's sets don't even hold by clutch, they bracket the shit out of everything. Which is fine, except it doesn't help unassembling. But anyway, this is what I grew up with, they weren't exactly holding very well, and it wasn't a problem at all, because a week after they were unassembled to build something else. (and the robot arms I mention in a post above? When they were in this set they had proper clutch)

[Aanchir]

21 hours ago, anothergol said:

It's a bit sad btw, because it means that Lego has lost its main purpose, and that for many kids it's just time to spend to build something they will never break apart.

Today's sets don't even hold by clutch, they bracket the shit out of everything. Which is fine, except it doesn't help unassembling. But anyway, this is what I grew up with, they weren't exactly holding very well, and it wasn't a problem at all, because a week after they were unassembled to build something else. (and the robot arms I mention in a post above? When they were in this set they had proper clutch)

I think you're making a pretty big generalization there. A LOT of kids still take sets apart to build their own. I've seen plenty of MOCs by kids both online (e.g. proud parents sharing the goofy things their kids built on Facebook or Twitter) and in real life (e.g. at the Brattleboro Museum's annual LEGO building competition, in which kids make up the vast majority of the builders).

I also don't see much sense in arguing that the use of brackets discourages kids from taking models apart — if anything, it greatly increases the number of original creations kids can make, both by giving them more options for sideways building and by teaching them locking techniques that they can use to keep their own creations from falling apart in minutes.

Considering all the creations I remember making as a kid that were flimsy as heck and/or broke before I ever got a chance to photograph them, I'm sure I would have benefited greatly from the kinds of pieces and techniques that show up in today's sets! In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the factors in Bionicle taking over as my main theme of interest from 2001 to 2009 was that its Technic-based construction made it so much easier to create sturdy original creations than the limited locking techniques I'd acquired from System sets.

[anothergol]

10 hours ago, Aanchir said:

I think you're making a pretty big generalization there.

I don't, it's just that you think that "for many kids" means "for all kids".

I am 100% sure that the amount of Lego sets that you'll find still fully assembled in a kid's room is much higher than 20-30 years ago. (part of it also being that sets are cheaper, people are richer, kids are more spoiled with lots of sets)

10 hours ago, Aanchir said:

I also don't see much sense in arguing that the use of brackets discourages kids from taking models apart

When you need a specific part that's in a set, if it's not on the surface, you're not gonna unassemble a lot of brackets just to get it. And it's worse (but justified) for Technic sets that sometimes require reading the manual backwards to unassemble.

10 hours ago, Aanchir said:

I wouldn't be surprised if one of the factors in Bionicle taking over as my main theme of interest from 2001 to 2009 was that its Technic-based construction made it so much easier to create sturdy original creations than the limited locking techniques I'd acquired from System sets. 

It made it easier & faster to create mechs at all, sturdy was just a bonus

[leafan]

An update to this story from the World IP Review website:

Toymaker to appeal Lego injunction at Fed Circuit

"A Hong Kong-based toy company is fighting back against an injunction obtained by Lego barring the sale of its minifigures in the US.

Court documents filed last week at the US District Court for the District of Connecticut said that Zuru has filed an appeal at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against the injunction.

Lego sued Zuru in December last year over minifigure toys, which the Danish toymaker said infringed its trademarks, copyright, design patents and trade dress.

In July, the district court issued a preliminary injunction barring Zuru from manufacturing, distributing or selling the allegedly infringing products.

In the original suit, Lego said that Zuru’s toys were “confusingly, strikingly and substantially similar to the overall look and feel of the Lego Minifigure figurine”.

Zuru was originally founded in New Zealand and now has its headquarters in Hong Kong.

The company describes itself as a “disruptive and award-winning company that designs, manufactures and markets innovative toys”.

Zuru says that it employs, directly or indirectly, 5,000 staff across 10 countries and distributes to major retailers in 120 countries.

Lego has been active in looking to clamp down on rival toys which it says infringe its IP.

In July, Lego won an injunction at the Connecticut district court against British company Best-Lock Construction Toys.

Lego originally filed the suit in 2011, calling out Best-Lock ads which Lego said had highlighted the “well-known interchangeability of Best-Lock figures and their body parts with Lego's”.

The court found that Best-Lock’s products were “indistinguishable” from Lego’s, and rejected Best-Lock’s argument that Lego copyright registrations for the toy designs were invalid."

[AmperZand]

@leafan, Thanks for the update ?

Some of the posters to the thread about a year ago thought LEGO over-zealous in defending its IP. But IP rights need to be asserted or are lost, so LEGO has little choice but to come down hard on any possible infringers.

[CMI]

LEGO had won the lawsuit against ZURU on Jan 15th. The Federal Court of Appeal had upheld the LEGO's minifigure patent but strike down other injunctions. Also China court denied LEPIN's appeal in Jan 16th. You may read it here.

Edited January 24, 2020 by CMI

[BrickG]

Doesn't seem to be an issue here anywhere near LEPIN. I actually am surprised LEGO is going after these guys. The figures don't look LEGO and there's like 100 off-brands that do the "compatible with major brands!" thing which I don't think LEGO can do anything about. I'd actually think LEGO will lose this.