Sven J

"Real impact on business" or "paranoia"? https://www.autobild.de/artikel/markenrecht-37881.html And they've "stolen" ist themselves... https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuttgart# https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_Steed

Well, their behaviour is obviously ridiculous. A well-known Italian high-priced crap sportscar manufacturer (name beginning with F...) is similarly paranoid about their logo.

Technically, as long as no registered name or design is used, it is no infringement.

Exactly that. Regarding sets, I think there is now a general agreement that alt-brands should have their separate section(s), whatever they may finally look like. How to deal with MOCs seems to be a little more complex; probably not everyone who votes for one of the 4 options has read this whole 28-page thread before...

That would be fine for me.

Yes, I think so. But the court ruling explains (long-windedly and hard to read, I agree) which aspects have to be considered in judging the validity of 3D IP registrations.

They are listed with images in the appendix. However, since this court desision, some of the parts (e.g. the brackets) have been challenged by other companies on EU level.

Maybe this is exactly the reason WHY they have no better digital formats?

Well, this might be a starting point, but you'll need pleeeeeenty of time... https://nrwe.justiz.nrw.de/lgs/duesseldorf/lg_duesseldorf/j2025/14c_O_203_23_Urteil_20250703.html

Yes, I know. But as I wrote, I don't see that there is a broad agreement yet. Personally, I very much support your first solution. For people like me who are interested mainly in theme-oriented MOCs, the second version would be very inconvenient, as you would have to browse through a large number of sub-forums when looking out for interestimg new stuff.

As far as sets are concerned, yes, absolutely. Regarding MOCs and where to place them/how to organize the MOC area, I feel there's not yet a wide consensus, or am I mistaken?

Not all these parts are actually registered, undisputed 3D designs. Very many of them have the tag "design declared invalid" or "invality procedure pending".

I once heard from the model railway industry that creating moulds for new models is by far the most expensive part of the game, but I may be misinforned. And it doesn't really belong in this thread anyway.

Gobricks and Bluebrixx, for example, DO sell individual parts (there may be others, I don't know). But why should they constrain themselves to that? If the parts are legit, then so it is to sell sets consisting of these parts, isn't it? (Of cours I'm only talking of sets that aren't copies of other companies' ones).

Wouldn't it be possible (not to say obvious) that this is not in order to save R&D costs (the alt-brands have to design the casting toolings anyway!), but because consumers expect the parts to be 100% compatible, both mechanically and visually, with the elements they already have?

Thank you! I really appreciate your honesty on that matter.

Ok, I give in to that. Replace "refuses to make" by "doesn't make". That's a bit of "selective moral", isn't it? Of course I do see economic restraints, but if ethics matter, wouldn't it then be better to buy nothing at all? But that's way OT, I suppose, so let's get back to the future of EB.

This is simply not true. Look at this post of mine, for example, or think about those extremely handy "single studs" Lego refuses to make, not to speak of different slopes, double-sided plates etc.

That's a perfect summary of 24 pages of discussion. Seriously now: I'm really happy that this whole discussion seems to have led to a mutual understanding of (almost all) the participants here. Also, it's great that even possible lines of compromise have been suggested and discussed, and 99,9% in a civil way. As I said before: That's why I love Eurobricks (even though I don't post here as often as I should). Playful and young at heart, mature in manners.

Thank you too @MAB!

Thank you @JesseNight!

Please excuse my ignorance if this is a stupid question, but what is an "apollo stud"?

Your last two posts appear in a much smaller typeface on my screen (notebook, Firefox browser). @aFrInati0n Thanks for explaining! Understood! !

@General Magma Can you please use a larger (i.e. the site's standard) typeface? There are elderly people like me reading here, with their eyes being not so good any more.