HA Bricks in Legal Troubles

[MAB]

17 hours ago, dtomsen said:

HA Bricks / Hein thought he had a strong case and could win in court. His lawyers too.
Even so, if TLG demanded he basically close shop what else could he do than go to court and take his chances?

He could have stopped doing what he shouldn't be doing when he was warned a couple of times about it. There are enough clone brands out there. He could have continued business by agreeing to stop modifying LEGO parts and selling them using the LEGO branding and instead started to modify unbranded parts for sale. That way, he could have kept his business going whether it was the hobby aspect or profit that was the motivation. He wouldn't be able to piggy back on LEGO's reputation but then many small companies that make products that enhance LEGO building are able to thrive without using LEGO's trademarks. Especially if he was already established and known in the community, if it filled a niche for products that didn't exist before then it would still fill that niche after. Yet instead he took the alternative route of refusing to stop, forcing LEGO to take it to court and he lost.

[Duq]

4 hours ago, MAB said:

He could have stopped doing what he shouldn't be doing when he was warned a couple of times about it. There are enough clone brands out there. He could have continued business by agreeing to stop modifying LEGO parts and selling them using the LEGO branding and instead started to modify unbranded parts for sale. That way, he could have kept his business going whether it was the hobby aspect or profit that was the motivation. He wouldn't be able to piggy back on LEGO's reputation but then many small companies that make products that enhance LEGO building are able to thrive without using LEGO's trademarks. Especially if he was already established and known in the community, if it filled a niche for products that didn't exist before then it would still fill that niche after. Yet instead he took the alternative route of refusing to stop, forcing LEGO to take it to court and he lost.

Or he could have taking up knitting as a hobby, but he didn't.

He did what he did because he believed what he did was correct and he was prepared to fight for what he believed was right.

Lego could have not tried outsourcing and when they cancelled that contract could have not kept their process. But they did what they did because they thought it was the right thing to do and here we are 20 years of inconsistent colours and brittle bricks later...

[MAB]

1 minute ago, Duq said:

Or he could have taking up knitting as a hobby, but he didn't.

He did what he did because he believed what he did was correct and he was prepared to fight for what he believed was right.

That's fine if that is what he believed, but it turned out he was wrong. He now knows that he cannot modify LEGO bricks and still sell them calling them LEGO bricks. And now he will pay for that belief, although the crowdfunding may help him out.

4 minutes ago, Duq said:

Lego could have not tried outsourcing and when they cancelled that contract could have not kept their process. But they did what they did because they thought it was the right thing to do and here we are 20 years of inconsistent colours and brittle bricks later...

That is totally unrelated. That was an in-house business decision that does not impinge on another company's trademarks. Companies change suppliers or in-house processes all the time. Sometimes due to cost cutting, sometimes due to other practical reasons. If customers don't like it, they can shop for other brands.

 

[dtomsen]

MAB: Question: Do you build your own LEGO train models or LEGO trains in general?

Edited May 31 by dtomsen

[Jon Reynolds]

Firstly, I think there is a lot of over-reaction amongst AFOLs with reference to "I'm never buying Lego again" etc.  Those of us who are lucky to have lived a few decades will know this isn't a turning point or the end of freedom for businesses associated with Lego products/market.

Secondly, I have a lot of sympathy for HA Bricks.  As an AFOL focussed on trains and also a partner to a seller of custom Lego kits, I feel torn on this one.  Most of us are not legal experts but we know the 'devil is in the detail' so our largely emotional arguments here will probably fail in a court of law. 

Thirdly, I can see where Lego are coming from.  In the EU (and the UK), there are strict rules around 'toys'.  Without going into the complexities of the law, if it looks like a toy, its should be treated as a toy.  This means that 'Lego' bricks sold to AFOLs have to meet the same standards as 'Lego' bricks sold to Children.  My understanding is that HA Bricks' sets didn't meet these standards because they included 'Lego' bricks that had not been tested as safe for children.  I do not know if this is the main reason for the case but it seems to be an indefensible one.

I have admired the products offered by HA Bricks (in particular the obsolete Messerschmidt wagon set)  and was close to purchasing one a couple of years back.  If I were to open a business offering custom Lego train sets, HA bricks would be a big influence and inspiration - Something to offer more relevant real-world alternatives to the the official Lego offerings but with the same quality expectations that we all have with genuine Lego elements.  I think this formulae would have been 'allowed' by TLG provided there had been no modification to those elements, although this is only my assumption based on the case reports.

So, I think there is a future for businesses reselling Lego elements in their unmodified form.   At least I hope so!

Jon

 

Edited May 31 by Jon Reynolds
Spelling

[Toastie]

7 hours ago, Jon Reynolds said:

amongst AFOLs with reference to "I'm never buying Lego again"

I fully appreciate your assessment. Also, I very much like your take on this.

However, as one of the "never" sayers in this thread: I really have had it with TLG.

And that is easy for me to say: I am old, I have so many LEGO sets, bricks and pieces, it "began" in 1965, got essentially ballistic after Mindstorms (RCX & co) was introduced in 1998, much later I reverted to Technic Control after learning from EB members about a LEGO era that never showed up on my radar before ... In the following years of 1998 I was just lucky enough to get hold of a good number of 9V train sets; the totally cool era - the Hobby train set!!! - and what not. For me, just for me, the downfall began with the never ending loop of "passenger" and "freight" trains. PF was a shock to me, but I could eventually adapt to, PoweredUp was totally cool, but I struggled with adapting again to another incompatible system ... and then I learned that there was more (there always is) out there; let us just say Go East. Far or not so far. I know that others don't like it (at all) - but I don't care. As long as I have enough LEGO bricks, I'll post in the appropriate forums here on EB, and when it is mostly non-LEGO, I'll do it in the Community forum here on EB. So: All is good.

What really pulled the plug, though, was TLG's behavior regarding small, one-or-so-person businesses, regardless of what is legally correct or not. Chickening out when the bigger businesses mess around, but smashing the sledgehammer otherwise. That's all. My take, that's all.

I truly respect all other perceptions on this "issue", if it even is one to others. 

So, once again, "So long, and thanks for all the fish", TLG. (EDIT: Sorry, I forgot @Duq: I got it right this time. Here is to Douglas Adams )

All the best,
Thorsten

Edited June 1 by Toastie

[*thomas*]

Maybe it has been mentioned before, but one of this biggest issues is the use of minifigs by other companies. Being it either original lego figs or counterfeit items.

[brickronny]

20 hours ago, MAB said:

He could have stopped doing what he shouldn't be doing when he was warned a couple of times about it. There are enough clone brands out there. He could have continued business by agreeing to stop modifying LEGO parts and selling them using the LEGO branding and instead started to modify unbranded parts for sale.

Do we know that he was warned before? Did LEGO try to settle this on other ways before suing him?

[dtomsen]

1 hour ago, brickronny said:

Do we know that he was warned before? Did LEGO try to settle this on other ways before suing him?

Yes, afaik a cease and desist letter was sent by TLG before the case went to trial and HA Bricks did offer back a compromise to remove the custom ball bearings and printed minifig parts but this was refused by TLG as not enough.
In court TLG refused to try another compromise when asked by the judge basically playing hardball and won decisively.

Edited June 1 by dtomsen

[CP5670]

On 5/28/2024 at 10:08 AM, Barduck said:

All the more reasons to stop buying genuine LEGO and look at the other brands. In many cases the quality of the off-brands is even better than “the real thing”, they don’t break, they have no color differences and clutch is just as good. Plus they offer things Lego never will. Some even pay you for your Mocs like letbricks. And they don’t complain about altering pieces or printing on parts, they applaud it

I've had this view for a long time. Some of the clones have just as good quality as Lego if not better, and Lego quality is not what it once used to be. It would be healthier for fans if Lego had a serious competitor on a global scale (none of the current clones are) and fans used different bricks in their creations. I still use 99% Lego in my creations because my existing collection is all Lego and it's easiest for me to buy Lego bricks from the usual sources (bricklink, PAB walls, etc.), but I do occasionally use clones and custom parts, especially for bricks that don't exist or are long discontinued in Lego form.

[ivanlan9]

This.  I've decided I'm not quite ready to donate all my Lego (I don't have as much as @Toastie, but I have been buying & building since 1990, and I have a LOT), but I am ready to declare that I, too, have had enough of TLG.  "Playing hardball" and "winning decisively" is bullying, plain and simple, and they're doing it because they can.  I vote against politicians for this (in my state the legislators ALL act like this is normal:  "I got mine, to hell with you" is their mantra.  So I vote against them every one.  Why should I treat TLG any different?  Gee, I wonder if they know how I'm mistreating my bricks!

I don't think we should reward bullying behaviour, and I also believe that one pebble, strategically place, can stop an avalanche.  Thus I commit to never buying Lego again.  I'm not going to even buy used.  Not that I need to:  with hundreds of thousands of pieces filling up my house, I'll still have plenty to do before I kick the bucket.

[Plumber]

I guess we will never know for sure the full details of how this dispute evolved to the point of this result.

Evidently the Dutch legal system agreed that HA Bricks was 'sailing too close to the wind' in law.

Just as evidently, to the man in the street, HA Bricks represented no real risk of litigation, reputational loss or financial loss to TLG, in reality probably quite the opposite.

On that basis I agree completely with the opinion: ' Just because they can doesn't mean they should' TLG's behaviour here seems wildly out of proportion.TLG make a big thing out of being a good corporate citizen and moral organisation that refuses to promote aggression (no military sets), In my opinion this action is completely at odds with that policy regardless of how intransigent HA bricks MAY have been.

Since AFOL's as a whole and niches within our community in particular have little chance of any noticeable effect on TLG by ceasing to purchase Lego, the only way I can see to make our point is to put our money where our mouths are and contribute to the crowd fund (which I have just done). This may demonstrate to TLG in  the only terms they (and their lawyers) understand, our disapproval of the punitive action they have taken against a co-participant in our hobby.

Perhaps I could also suggest to those like FX bricks and Bluebrixx etc. that have profit making business in this area, that there is a business case to show solidarity here in a financial manner.

[MAB]

On 6/8/2024 at 7:50 PM, CP5670 said:

It would be healthier for fans if Lego had a serious competitor on a global scale (none of the current clones are) and fans used different bricks in their creations.

What would make a company like MegaConstrux or Cobi or one of the others a serious competitor? I doubt any clone brand will take away significant enough market share to get anywhere near LEGO's sales. To be a serious competitor, they'd have to have a huge licensed portfolio, as well as cover more niche themes like trains, as well as everyday type stuff like City does. LEGO does have some serious competitors, albeit in a totally different way, in other types of play (especially online/gaming) and changing attitudes towards toys in general. Toys, especially at the expensive end, are becoming adult collectables rather than something for kids. There are big competitors out there for collector items.

20 hours ago, Plumber said:

Just as evidently, to the man in the street, HA Bricks represented no real risk of litigation, reputational loss or financial loss to TLG, in reality probably quite the opposite.

The man in street probably didn't hear about it and if he did, he didn't care about it. Outside of LEGO train fans, and LEGO fan forums, I doubt the story even registered. And I also imagine many LEGO fans don't see an issue with LEGO protecting its image.

20 hours ago, Plumber said:

Since AFOL's as a whole and niches within our community in particular have little chance of any noticeable effect on TLG by ceasing to purchase Lego, the only way I can see to make our point is to put our money where our mouths are and contribute to the crowd fund (which I have just done). This may demonstrate to TLG in  the only terms they (and their lawyers) understand, our disapproval of the punitive action they have taken against a co-participant in our hobby.

I also doubt LEGO cares if he pays his own court costs or if he gets them paid by his supporters through crowd funding. Over the years vocal fans have left the hobby either after a spat with LEGO or with rival fans, yet LEGO continues to grow. Even apparently big influencers really don't have much influence. If someone disappears, someone else soon replaces them.

Edited June 10 by MAB

[corkscrewloop]

One thing... Many exhibitions and communities do not allow the use of pieces coming from different manufacturers. What is normal in model train hobby feels like a no go here... We should maybe open our minds?

[Plumber]

32 minutes ago, MAB said:

The man in street probably didn't hear about it and if he did, he didn't care about it. Outside of LEGO train fans, and LEGO fan forums, I doubt the story even registered. And I also imagine many LEGO fans don't see an issue with LEGO protecting its image.

I think that was exactly the point I made in my subsequent paragraph so on that we agree.  Also I don't believe anyone here has disputed TLG's right to protect its trademarks etc.so on that we also agree!  The fact that the general populace are ignorant of these events does not change my opinion that if they *were* made aware they would consider the behaviour of TLG in pursuing this minow to such a level to be excessive.

1 hour ago, MAB said:

I also doubt LEGO cares if he pays his own court costs or if he gets them paid by his supporters through crowd funding. 

Once again we agree, TLG will not give two hoots about the source of the money per se, but, given our lack of any other voice it is the one way that we can demonstrate that some of their most ardent fans are not happy with their attitude.

1 hour ago, MAB said:

Over the years vocal fans have left the hobby either after a spat with LEGO or with rival fans, yet LEGO continues to grow. Even apparently big influencers really don't have much influence. If someone disappears, someone else soon replaces them.

Exactly why HA Bricks was no threat to TLG. Having achieved a judgement on the trademark they could have stopped there like the bigger person but they instead chose to be vindictive, that is what I find so distasteful.  I guess we will have to agree to differ on this aspect.

[dtomsen]

3 hours ago, MAB said:

What would make a company like MegaConstrux or Cobi or one of the others a serious competitor? I doubt any clone brand will take away significant enough market share to get anywhere near LEGO's sales. To be a serious competitor, they'd have to have a huge licensed portfolio, as well as cover more niche themes like trains, as well as everyday type stuff like City does.

Many other brands do have licenced themes, everyday stuff like City and niche themes like trains, for example Mould King and BlueBrixx. Cobi, Gobricks, CaDA and others aren't exactly small manufacturers anymore either even though they are all clearly dwarfed by TLG.

The point being, TLG does have serious competition in at least two of its main markets, Germany and China. And arguably the competition there is making headway on TLG's overall marketshare. Otherwise why the current judicial rodeo or the general ferociousness from TLG towards the competition?

3 hours ago, MAB said:

I also doubt LEGO cares if he pays his own court costs or if he gets them paid by his supporters through crowd funding. Over the years vocal fans have left the hobby either after a spat with LEGO or with rival fans, yet LEGO continues to grow. Even apparently big influencers really don't have much influence. If someone disappears, someone else soon replaces them.

The crowd funding is primarily to show support to Hein Alkema himself and help him survive financially, not to make TLG notice. What a bizarre take.

Edited June 10 by dtomsen

[dtomsen]

1 hour ago, corkscrewloop said:

One thing... Many exhibitions and communities do not allow the use of pieces coming from different manufacturers. What is normal in model train hobby feels like a no go here... We should maybe open our minds?

Yeah but we shouldn't disregard the LEGO part of the AFOL acronym. It's a fan community after all and thus the branding on top of the bricks do matter to most.

Most AFOL exhibitions and communities I know allow 3rd party parts and accessories and have for a long time, especially due to us train builders (and the Technic guys) so things are slowly turning around (and in the process getting much more blurred).

The model railroad community in general couldn't care less whether it's LEGO or other brands. It's all the same to them.
So model railroad exhibitions have absolutely no rules in that regard when participating with LEGO train stuff which I actually find rather liberating and in some ways eye-opening regarding our many self-imposed AFOL rules and idiosyncrasies.

Edited June 10 by dtomsen

[corkscrewloop]

15 minutes ago, dtomsen said:

Yeah but we shouldn't disregard the LEGO part of the AFOL acronym. It's LEGO communities after all and thus the branding on top of the bricks do matter to most.

Most AFOL exhibitions and communities I know allow 3rd party parts and accessories and have for a long time, especially due to us train builders (and the Technic guys) so things are slowly turning around (and in the process getting much more blurred).

The model railroad community in general couldn't care less whether it's LEGO or other brands when our LEGO Train Club participates. It's all the same to them.
So model railroad exhibitions have absolutely no rules in that regard which I actually find rather liberating and in some ways eye-opening regarding our many self-imposed AFOL rules and idiosyncrasies.

Thanks for the reply and well said! The question is, if the branding on the brick creates boundaries and limitations, shouldnt one protect themselves to step away from branded bricks? And your other point seems to be the key... rather participate on exhibitions beyond. So rather in the model train community, where no one cares from what manufacturer the bricks are coming... good point!

[Toastie]

41 minutes ago, dtomsen said:

<SNIP>  I actually find rather liberating and in some ways eye-opening regarding our many self-imposed AFOL rules and idiosyncrasies.

Amen to that. And to your entire post, very well phrased. I am 100% with you.

Thank you an all the best,
Thorsten

[CP5670]

4 hours ago, corkscrewloop said:

One thing... Many exhibitions and communities do not allow the use of pieces coming from different manufacturers. What is normal in model train hobby feels like a no go here... We should maybe open our minds?

This is true but the rules have never really been enforced, I have seen many people use clone bricks at Brickfair and Brickworld. The problem is a lot of the big shows are supported by TLG in the form of free sets, which would go away if clones were explicitly allowed. But they have removed many other types of support over the years (they used to have big discounts at local Lego stores for show exhibitors back in the day) and I could see this disappearing anyway. In the long run it's much better for fans to not be so dependent on TLG.

[Shiva]

On 5/18/2024 at 8:15 PM, Dirk1313 said:

I would say the main mistake and topic that LEGO can sue HA Bricks for is how they advertise their sets and what they print on the packaging and instructions. These claims of „100% LEGO bricks“ will give LEGO the leaverage to be at least partly successful with their strategy. But from my point of view asking for customer data and a recall of all sets is far over the top.

 

What would happen if, someone got hurt, even if unlikely, by a product that says it is 100% LEGO.

Or parts broken and they contact LEGO's replacement parts department. Then get mad that LEGO does not provide those part. And quite possible in USA, sues LEGO.

Sorry, but I see this as a case of... "shot oneself in the foot"

@Jon Reynolds well, I think the above screenshot, is the main reason + the things you mentioned, another part of it.

[Phil B]

if you look at other websites, like CircuitCubes ... even though they supply authentic LEGO bricks with their sets, and their Bluetooth cube is compatible with LEGO, they don't commercialize this publicly. That sounds like the way to go to stay clear of the, unfortunately necessary, trademark and copyright protection C&Ds coming from TLG.

[Toastie]

13 minutes ago, Phil B said:

even though they supply authentic LEGO bricks with their sets

Certainly not on all their sets - the sets I ordered for my suspended mono rail train from Pantasy were shipped with 100% non-LEGO bricks (system and technic) as there was no LEGO logo on them.

Best,
Thorsten

[Phil B]

5 minutes ago, Toastie said:

Certainly not on all their sets - the sets I ordered for my suspended mono rail train from Pantasy were shipped with 100% non-LEGO bricks (system and technic) as there was no LEGO logo on them.

Best,
Thorsten

You are right, @Toastie, and I was wrong. I looked at mine and they don't have the logos. There goes my argument ....

[dtomsen]

47 minutes ago, Phil B said:

if you look at other websites, like CircuitCubes ... even though they supply authentic LEGO bricks with their sets, and their Bluetooth cube is compatible with LEGO, they don't commercialize this publicly. That sounds like the way to go to stay clear of the, unfortunately necessary, trademark and copyright protection C&Ds coming from TLG.

Small correction.
The bricks supplied with Circuit Cubes sets don't have any branding on top so aren't authentic LEGO - at least not those in my Bluetooth Upgrade Kits.
Great batteries, motors and all but the quality of the bricks supplied can best be described as adequate.

Edit: I see @Toastie was faster than me

Edited June 11 by dtomsen