Phil B

You don't need the digital file to get a parts list. The parts list is documented in my post below: Basically, you need a full complete copy of 10022 (with all the bricks for all 3 models), plus the 57 pieces outlined in that bottom parts list. (all parts are trans-clear except for the door and the 3x3 round corner plate, those are in Light Gray.

Thanks! Very helpful reference. Much to learn ...

What I am more intrigued by is that the original picture seems to show a modular autotrain concept - in the distance you can see car-length modules containing multiple layers of cars. I wonder when that was introduced and why that concept didn't last ....

As long as they stop calling themselves AFOLs and start using the term AFOBs, I have no issues with people losing their affinity with the LEGO brand ...

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

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.

The problem I have with some of the responses/opinions here is that they frame TLG as actively trying to stop AFOLs from enjoying their hobby. I have outlined before that this is not the case, TLG is forced to pursue violations to keep their trademarks. And they are likely pursuing the "easy" cases first, because going after the "hard" cases (all those large brick manufacturers in China for example) is .... hard (and expensive and least likely to get results).

I fully agree with this statement. And just for the record - I am not a staunch defender of LEGO, but I also don't see them as the enemy .. trying to get some balance against the "the sky is falling" statements that were made earlier.

https://www.uspto.gov/page/about-trademark-infringement You cannot expect LEGO to spell out every way you can cause this confusion - rather, you need to ensure yourself that your product does not infringe on a trademark, and then it is up to LEGO to provide proof you did violate their trademark if they want to sue you (and they will first send you a Cease & Desist order, which it seems like you can discuss and remediate without ever needing to go to court).

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).

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).

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

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.

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.

Overall I like the tram very much. The only thing that bothers me are the windows on the ends of the closed unit - they do not correspond to the original at all. Can you place a window frame under a 45 degree angle where the macaroni bricks are now? Or even just the impression of a window by means of a vertical separation instead of the macaroni bricks?