HA Bricks in Legal Troubles

[UltraViolet]

Wouldn't this decision just push all the brick modding services to the off-brands for their materials?  I honestly don't see how this helps LEGO sell more of their own products.  Was this a test case to see if they can go after every tiny seller in North America, or is the law different enough here that they can only restrict sales to US/Canada?

[Phil B]

1 hour ago, Phil B said:

BrickOwl is still independent, and not owned by TLG.

 

Now for some food for thought: As a patent and license holder, The LEGO Group needs to actively enforce its intellectual property rights, otherwise it risks losing those rights. I have personally owned registered trademarks before, and I needed to enforce those trademarks otherwise they would be forfeited. It might be that they went for HA Bricks because it was an "easy" case and helped them maintain legal precedent on enforcing their rights, something which is harder to do in a Chinese court (even though they are likely many years into exploring how to enforce their trademarks there). Not saying it is fair to HA Bricks, but just to provide some perspective.

 

From Reddit: (

)

Mr_Studs

•14d ago

MOC Designer

 

 

I am going to weigh in here as an owner of a business that produces custom sets produced with LEGO® bricks for corporate clients, Playwell Bricks Design Studio.

I have received a C&D in the past few months for exactly the same reason as the business mentioned in this case. After a thorough conversation with the LEGO® legal representative in my country, I understood their concerns and fully cooperated with their requests. Case closed, there was no further action taken.

While I am not privy to the actual events surrounding this particular case. I will offer my understanding based on my conversations and experience.

Like any business TLG has to defend its trademarks, because, left unchecked, they are basically granting anyone the right to abuse them. In particular, the 2x4 brick, the minifigure and the term "LEGO®" are the main areas of concern for them. For instance, companies producing non-LEGO® brand bricks could then claim they are able to call them "lego" bricks if TLG did not challenge the use of the term by businesses like mine. This is what TLG is diligently safeguarding.

I see on their website the business in question has violated the trademarked term "LEGO®" many times. This is the same that happened with my website. Even the use of the term custom LEGO® sets is not allowed, which was one of the issues in my case. And yes, I had disclaimers all over my website as well.

While there are certainly negative aspects and bad PR for TLG this is the path they are forced to take to protect itself. I have spoken to several of the LEGO® legal team, and they pursue these cases generally because they simply have to, not because they want to.

My business has worked very closely with LEGO® on several projects and I speak to the legal team and other officials often. While it is a major inconvenience for businesses like mine, and very hard to know all the rules as they are very opaque, I do understand TLG's reasoning and why these matters continually pop up. I have spoken with several other business owners who have received similar legal correspondence and it almost always revolves around trademark infringement, not the use of the LEGO® bricks themselves.

While I do wish TLG would work more closely with businesses like ours, but I also understand it would be very hard for them to navigate such a relationship. It is something even I have to tread carefully around in my work with them and how I work with our clients.

I hope this adds a bit more enlightenment for people with questions about these issues. If you are a business owner and have questions. Please feel free to reach out to me and I can share what little knowledge I have gleaned through my experience.

[Vilhelm22]

They should either actively produce expert type stuff themselves, or support these smaller businesses.  Currently what they’re doing is destroying a hobby that they didn’t give much support to in the first place.  Nice job there, LEGO.

I can see company sales for Mould King and the like to be on the rapid increase in the future to LEGO’s own detriment through their greed at this one moment over a single company.

[TuffTuffTuff]

This is so bad. LEGO is beating our enthusiasm and passion for this hobby. It is so sad.

I usually stay away from third party stuff (except wheels, tracks and electronics), but now I am considering taking that leap.

I can understand that LEGO does not want bricks to be modified or printed. But forcing habricks to shut down completely and ruining somebody who spent so much time on our hobby ... that hurts deeply.

But there are other companies which are interested in our demands and deliver.

LEGO is so stupid, they should have solved the issue with some sort of agreement.

 

 

 

[Duq]

All I can say is [censored] you, you [censored] greedy corporate [censored].
This is total BS. It does not hurt the brand. Their own inferior quality is hurting them. To go after a one-man shop that's generating business for them, not costing them a penny, and put him out of business? Is that really what LEGO has turned into?

Time to reconsider why I'm spending the amount I spend on a company that cares so little about its customers anymore.

[Barduck]

58 minutes ago, UltraViolet said:

Was this a test case to see if they can go after every tiny seller in North America, or is the law different enough here that they can only restrict sales to US/Canada?

I hate to say it but residents of the states may think they are safe but I’m not so sure. Nike has done the same with someone that customised sneakers of them and won because of the brand’s name still being on them, won’t be hard now to do the same by TLG

Edited May 28 by Barduck
Typo

[Hod Carrier]

I do understand the strength of feeling about this, but I do fear we're at risk of slipping into hysteria. We've had a couple of very informative contributions from @Phil B in this thread today, which I feel give a very balanced view from the perspective of someone who has been in a broadly similar position to HA Bricks and can explain a bit more why this is (or at least may be) happening.

I also wonder whether we are overstating the importance that we as a community really have to LEGO. The argument that retailers like HA Bricks are helping LEGO to grow the hobby is unlikely to hold much water given that we are a niche within a niche, even within the AFOL community which makes up only a fraction of their customer base. They neither need us in this capacity nor will they miss us if we turn our backs on them. But even if the contention were true, does that really give carte blanche for folk to infringe on registered trademarks or other legal rights, especially when, as @Phil B demonstrates, there is a way to navigate through this issue without ending up in court. And why shouldn't LEGO, like every other brand, exercise it's right to legal protection of it's property, whether physical or intellectual?

Like most of us here, I am not privy to the full chronology of this, but I doubt that this situation went from zero to court action immediately without some other discussions and whatnot in the interim.

Edited May 28 by Hod Carrier

[ivanlan9]

The way this conflict has been described here is that HABricks tried to negotiate, but TLG rejected their every offer and insisted on extremely punitive fines and punishments.  That doesn't fit with how @Phil B described his interaction with TLG, which appears to have been characterized by mutual respect and the desire to work things out.  HABricks got none of that.

At this point, not only am I thinking of not buying any Lego ever again, I'm considering donating my entire collection to a children's museum.  I've got stuff going all the way back to 1989 (which yes, includes every 9v train produced, except the build-your-own steamers), and the entire collection is worth over $100K.

This is the plan anyway, as that's specified in my will.  I'm 77, so the only real difference is getting the tax break while I'm still around to benefit from it.

[UltraViolet]

I really don't understand.  They can't go after their only serious threat, which is all the knock-off producers in China, so they instead choose to completely crush a single individual who isn't manufacturing?  If one of my bricks snaps in half because LEGO used a bad batch of ABS pellets, that's apparently just fine, but if I cut a brick in half for an express purpose, lets say it's an art piece, and tell you it has a LEGO logo on the molding and sell it to you with you knowing full well it's been modified, I get my entire life destroyed?  Is LEGO really trying to suggest that a big company can buy actual LEGO bricks, nick one corner off them, then have any credibility for re-selling them as "genuine"?

I don't trust where this is going at all.  LEGO bought Bricklink and promptly forbid making and selling custom items through the platform, even though everyone understands it is a resale marketplace for primarily used and out of production bricks, and it is also a separate business entity that doesn't claim otherwise.  If I exhibit at a LEGO-sanctioned convention, are they going to have me prove that there are no non-genuine or modified parts in my builds?  Are they going to ban half the vendors?  Don't kid yourself that it won't eventually go that way.  There are many massive LEGO train layouts where the baseplates and much of the roadbed and track are third-party, as otherwise it would be ruinously expensive to acquire the materials.  Surely, even if an exhibitor is not selling anything, the implication that it's "LEGO" at a LEGO-themed convention is not a distinction the general public will make.  Would that not undermine their business model just as much or more than a single person printing custom images on genuine bricks?

[Phil B]

44 minutes ago, ivanlan9 said:

The way this conflict has been described here is that HABricks tried to negotiate, but TLG rejected their every offer and insisted on extremely punitive fines and punishments.  That doesn't fit with how @Phil B described his interaction with TLG, which appears to have been characterized by mutual respect and the desire to work things out.  HABricks got none of that.

<snip>

Just to be clear, the interaction with TLG was a snippet from a user on Reddit - I have not interacted with TLG myself.

[dtomsen]

Well, the HA Bricks website is closed...for now hopefully 

[Hod Carrier]

7 minutes ago, Phil B said:

Just to be clear, the interaction with TLG was a snippet from a user on Reddit - I have not interacted with TLG myself.

Ah OK. It wasn't clear from your earlier post that you were quoting from a third party. Either way, the point still stands.

52 minutes ago, ivanlan9 said:

The way this conflict has been described here is that HABricks tried to negotiate, but TLG rejected their every offer and insisted on extremely punitive fines and punishments.  That doesn't fit with how @Phil B described his interaction with TLG, which appears to have been characterized by mutual respect and the desire to work things out.  HABricks got none of that.

To be fair, we don't know that. The difference is that it appears that the SME quoted by @Phil B were happy to accept the terms offered by LEGO whereas HA Bricks did not, probably because of differences in the two businesses' offerings, and that LEGO refused compromises offered in return, creating an impasse that lead to legal action.

33 minutes ago, UltraViolet said:

I really don't understand.  They can't go after their only serious threat, which is all the knock-off producers in China, so they instead choose to completely crush a single individual who isn't manufacturing?

Chinese courts are notorious for ruling in favour of their own indigenous producers, even where copying has been blatant. Ask virtually any brand about it.

Edited May 28 by Hod Carrier

[UltraViolet]

I am quite confident that we have not seen the last of this - LEGO going after hobbyist individuals.  You don't risk your public image and spend vast sums of money on a court case where you have no hope of receiving the kind of money being demanded, merely to fry one tiny fish.  They are trying to set legal precedents, and shockingly so in the EU where anti-competitive behavior by mega-corporations is actually being fought against heavily and very publicly.  It's not enough for them to scare everyone into voluntarily shutting down their businesses - every small reseller in the world should be quaking in their boots right now.  And that's if you've EVER run such a business in the past, even if you have already closed down years ago.

[Phil B]

There is a lot of panic in this thread. The message from the verdict is: Don't use the LEGO trademark if what you are selling is not original LEGO. As a reseller, you should be fine. As someone who makes custom parts compatible with LEGO, you should be fine (provided you don't advertise using or referencing the LEGO trademark). As someone who does custom printing on LEGO parts, you should be fine (just don't advertise it as LEGO).

[dtomsen]

11 minutes ago, Phil B said:

There is a lot of panic in this thread. The message from the verdict is: Don't use the LEGO trademark if what you are selling is not original LEGO. As a reseller, you should be fine. As someone who makes custom parts compatible with LEGO, you should be fine (provided you don't advertise using or referencing the LEGO trademark). As someone who does custom printing on LEGO parts, you should be fine (just don't advertise it as LEGO).

I simply don't agree.
My reading, don't make LEGO a business unless you are TLG.
You might be fine. You might not and the proverbial hammer might hit you out of the blue.
Which will hurt our particular niche as TLG won't cater to it and others dare not, at least not the little guys.

Edited May 28 by dtomsen

[JochemvdMeulen]

I have read the verdict and if I understood it correctly: You cant sell modified or printed bricks marked with the Lego trademark. (As in Lego marks all there bricks with their trade mark on the studs) As this "damages" the structural integrity of the bricks. And this could damage de reputation of de LEGO trademark.

[UltraViolet]

I don't understand how you are supposed to support LEGO and their "top quality" stance by using and identifying their bricks without actually saying it's "LEGO".  I have some understanding about how this particular seller in this case was not careful enough about 'technicalities' of language, but I honestly can't see how this ruinous outcome was necessary.  LEGO basically insisted they would accept nothing less than destroying a single person.  The only possibly safe route for anyone is to buy off-brand bricks when selling modified parts, but if you are selling modified parts, not selling any non-modified LEGO parts alongside them.

Now given that, how would you know if you can trust the quality of bricks you are buying from a 3rd-party seller if they are not even allowed to identify the manufacturer?  This is why I don't trust anything on AliExpress automatically - the sources and the quality can vary wildly, and in most cases you can't trace who the actual manufacturer is.

6 minutes ago, JochemvdMeulen said:

I have read the verdict and if I understood it correctly: You cant sell modified or printed bricks marked with the Lego trademark. (As in Lego marks all there bricks with their trade mark on the studs) As this "damages" the structural integrity of the bricks. And this could damage de reputation of de LEGO trademark.

That's hilarious - if you print on a brick with a non-reactive ink or paint, you're likely actually protecting the brick against UV damage.
It's quite clear that no one is going to be able to sell modified LEGO bricks.  Anyone who still wants to be in business is going to have to source from their competitors in China, competitors they can't control.  This is truly boneheaded.

[JochemvdMeulen]

25 minutes ago, UltraViolet said:

It's quite clear that no one is going to be able to sell modified LEGO bricks.  Anyone who still wants to be in business is going to have to source from their competitors in China, competitors they can't control.  This is truly boneheaded.

Or you sand of all the Lego markings.

[TuffTuffTuff]

Just ordered some M and MS wheels before the website got shut down.

I really hope habricks will be back with their great custom parts and maybe selling instructions instead of complete set.

To be honest, I never understood how it can be profitable to create complete sets with genuine Lego bricks. It is so time consuming and you end up with high prices. However, I appreciate all the great stuff habricks did for us.

So please, don't give up, don't let them destroy our hobby.

[UltraViolet]

I just ordered custom train wheels from Breckland Bricks.  Sure hope they aren't under the gun next.

[Toastie]

17 minutes ago, JochemvdMeulen said:

Or you sand of all the Lego markings.

Or you use the superior GoBricks bricks - they have no markings like "GB" just numbers ...

1 hour ago, Phil B said:

I have not interacted with TLG myself.

That's the thing, isn't it?

TLG hires lawyers - from what I understood when watching some YT channels regarding legal issues related to TLG (as said, "they" tore down some small businesses in Germany in the recent past), some lawyers also approach TLG, "offering" low hanging suits to them - and they reply: Do it, or they don't reply. As far as I know, in all this "destroying small businesses" law crap, it is more or less up to the hired lawyer(s) or law firms having a certain reputation (or not), how it goes. Some lawyers are essentially "reasonable" to a certain extent, others like to see blood, solely for seeing blood - and I don't want to know how much the compensation (or better bounty) is, TLG offers for "some success", "success", or "total success".

Surely one never sees or talks to any TLG staff or gods! These are simply saints - they don't want to have blood on their hands.

Best,
Thorsten

P.S.: Currently brwosing Pantasy's webshop - and will hop over to BlueBrixx after that ... I wonder why they don't shut down BB in Germany ... there muszt be good reasons

[michaelgale]

I must admit, that we (Fx Bricks) were only recently made aware of the result of this action taken against HA Bricks.  I have not had time to fully digest the details of this action and what implications it has against not only Fx Bricks, but other members of our fan community.  In any case, it is a chilling reminder of the precarious legal landscape in which companies such as ours operate.  

I take no issue with TLG enforcing trademark and IP rights; but definitely take issue with the way it engages with "friendly" 3rd party commercial entities and with the fan community in general.  Specifically, I wish TLG would simply be clear about what behaviours and practices constitute a violation of trademark.  Violation of IP rights is more clear-cut, e.g. copying a product.  However, what constitutes a violation of trademark is much less clear.  

We can not only empathize with HA Bricks in more than spirit.  In 2021, we (and JB Spielwaren) were subject to a letter from TLG's legal representatives regarding the use of trademark on our Fx Track store listings.  Fortunately, we were able to amicably resolve this issue with some modest changes.  However, it is not with a sense of looming anxiety and paranoia that other violations are potentially lurking in every product listing, blog post, retail box artwork, product manual, advertisement, video, etc.  Having a clear set of guidelines (with examples) would be helpful.  

In a perfect world, TLG and a vibrant 3rd party product eco-system should be able to co-exist in a mutually beneficial "win-win" way.  It would take some clear rules and guidelines and perhaps a semi-formal framework of commercial agreements; but I'm sure it's possible.  However, for now, I live in the real world.  And in this world, we tread very carefully and remain eternally grateful for the support of an awesome fan community!

[dtomsen]

23 minutes ago, Toastie said:

P.S.: Currently brwosing Pantasy's webshop - and will hop over to BlueBrixx after that ... I wonder why they don't shut down BB in Germany ... there muszt be good reasons

I'm quite sure TLG would love nothing more than to put BlueBrixx out of business for good but BlueBrixx is a rather large multi-million euro corporation by itself with its own team of lawyers who have fought those from TLG on numerous occasions by now - lost and won a few, a few still ongoing but settled most out of court afaik.

HA Bricks is a tiny operation by comparison without the resources needed for a potentially neverending legal battle.

Edited May 28 by dtomsen

[Phil B]

21 minutes ago, michaelgale said:

<snip>

We can not only empathize with HA Bricks in more than spirit.  In 2021, we (and JB Spielwaren) were subject to a letter from TLG's legal representatives regarding the use of trademark on our Fx Track store listings.  Fortunately, we were able to amicably resolve this issue with some modest changes.

 </snip>

This is also what the user on Reddit whom I quoted earlier referred to... the use of LEGO's trademarks when selling your own products (whether or not they are modifications of LEGO's products is not relevant).

Edited May 28 by Phil B

[UltraViolet]

18 minutes ago, michaelgale said:

I must admit, that we (Fx Bricks) were only recently made aware of the result of this action taken against HA Bricks.  I have not had time to fully digest the details of this action and what implications it has against not only Fx Bricks, but other members of our fan community.  In any case, it is a chilling reminder of the precarious legal landscape in which companies such as ours operate.  

I take no issue with TLG enforcing trademark and IP rights; but definitely take issue with the way it engages with "friendly" 3rd party commercial entities and with the fan community in general.  Specifically, I wish TLG would simply be clear about what behaviours and practices constitute a violation of trademark.  Violation of IP rights is more clear-cut, e.g. copying a product.  However, what constitutes a violation of trademark is much less clear.  

We can not only empathize with HA Bricks in more than spirit.  In 2021, we (and JB Spielwaren) were subject to a letter from TLG's legal representatives regarding the use of trademark on our Fx Track store listings.  Fortunately, we were able to amicably resolve this issue with some modest changes.  However, it is not with a sense of looming anxiety and paranoia that other violations are potentially lurking in every product listing, blog post, retail box artwork, product manual, advertisement, video, etc.  Having a clear set of guidelines (with examples) would be helpful.  

In a perfect world, TLG and a vibrant 3rd party product eco-system should be able to co-exist in a mutually beneficial "win-win" way.  It would take some clear rules and guidelines and perhaps a semi-formal framework of commercial agreements; but I'm sure it's possible.  However, for now, I live in the real world.  And in this world, we tread very carefully and remain eternally grateful for the support of an awesome fan community!

I was going to make exactly your point - LEGO needs to be clear up front about what constitutes violations instead of waiting for someone to step into their murky trap.