• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Featured, Trademark

Lego’s Trademark Challenged in EU

Submitted by Rachel Gordon on September 26, 2010 – 7:43 PM1235No Commenthttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2010%2F09%2F26%2Flego%25e2%2580%2599s-trademark-challenged-in-eu%2FLego%E2%80%99s+Trademark+Challenged+in+EU2010-09-27+00%3A43%3A53Rachel+Gordonhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D1235

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jronaldlee/

When I was a kid, I had many different toys, including a dollhouse, shelves full of board games, and tons of plastic blocks with small studs on top that would connect with each other. I would always call these blocks my “Legos,” but now I can’t remember if they were actually produced by the Danish company Lego, or if I was inadvertently violating their intellectual property rights. I wish I had a toy time machine so I could go back and teach my six-year-old self about trademarks.

Generic names for products are not eligible to be registered as trademarks. For example, if a company was able to register the term “bookcase” as a trademark, all of the other companies producing bookcases would have a difficult time describing their products. “Furniture that has many shelves and is used for storing books” just doesn’t roll off the tongue as easily. In some cases, a company markets a unique product, but other manufacturers later make the same thing, and the name the first company used has become the generic term. Examples of this include escalator and cellophane.

To keep its name as a trademark, Lego must continue to make efforts to not let the name become a generic word for plastic blocks with studs on top. The company has undertaken advertising campaigns to make this point, and it uses marketing campaigns to educate consumers, including a page on their website about “Fair Play.” Although Lego seems to be succeeding in this area, it recently lost another intellectual property battle.

The European Union recently ruled that the shape of the Lego brick can not be registered as a trademark. The company registered their 2×4 red brick as a trademark in the EU in 1999, and the registration was challenged by the company that makes Mega Bloks, a rival brick toy.

A trademark is used to mark a product from a unique source, and it allows a company to distinguish its product in the market. A wide variety of elements can serve as trademarks, including words, symbols, logos, colors, and shapes. In the case of colors and shapes, trademark rights are not automatically conferred. First, the registrant must prove secondary meaning, showing that the relevant public has come to associate the goods containing the mark with their unique source. In addition, the functionality doctrine requires that a trademark can not be registered for a feature that serves as functional part of the item. Another type of intellectual property protection, the patent, exists to protect innovations that have a functional purpose. One of the differences between trademarks and patents is that a trademark can be conferred indefinitely, as long as a company continues to use the mark in commerce, while a patent can only be owned for a limited time, allowing the public the right to use the functional invention after the monopoly period.

Mega Bloks challenged Lego’s trademark by claiming that the shape of the three-dimensional brick, which is two studs wide and four studs long, is a functional shape. They claimed that the shape is “necessary to obtain a technical result.” Lego responded by saying that their design contains other unique characteristics, including the size and design of the studs on top of the brick. Lego claimed that their competitors do not need to use the same exact shape as the Lego brick to create a toy block that performs similar functions. The court ruled in Mega Bloks’ favor, finding that if Lego was allowed to trademark the shape of its brick, it would impede other companies from producing a similar type of toy block.

I agree with the EU court that Lego can not have a trademark on the shape of the brick, because then other manufacturers would not be allowed to make this kind of toy. I remember how much fun it was playing with this type of toy when I was a kid, and I think it should be allowed to be produced freely by any company that wishes to enter the market. As for what to call these toys, I promise to try not to use Lego as a generic term, but it’s hard when people look at you funny when you talk about playing with your “plastic bricks with studs on top.”

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Rachel Gordon

Rachel Gordon is a 3L at WCL with an interest in IP Law, Food and Drug Law and Health Law. Rachel serves as the co-Symposium and Events Editor for the IP Brief and the Technology Director for the Health Law and Justice Initiative. Her legal work experience includes working as a Dean's Fellow for the WCL Office of International Exchange and Study Abroad and a Research Assistant for the Health Law and Policy Institute. In August 2011, Rachel will join the WCL General Practice Clinic as a student attorney. Rachel holds a B.S. in Food Science, Operations and Management from Cornell University. She is originally from Long Island, New York.

Rachel Gordon has written 5 posts for the IPB.

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Shortly after the oral arguments between Monsanto and Bowman, WCL hosted both parties for a post argument discussion. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the case, requiring annual purchases of Monsanto’s soybeans.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million

Supreme, one of the most coveted skate-inspired clothing brands, is suing women’s clothing brand Married to the Mob and its founder Leah McSweeney for trademark infringement to the tune of $10 million.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

DVD Pirate Supports Troops, America, Freedom Google’s Smartphone Patents a Potential Target of FTC Investigation Happy Birthday Twitter IPA! Three Stripes, You’re Out! Judge Rules Against Generic Drug Manufacturers in Crestor Patent Challenge Posner Speaks [Again] on Patent Reform: A Critique Diversity and IP on the Federal Circuit MGA’s Bratz Dolls Survive Another Lawsuit NPR Show Settles Lawsuit Against Creationist Radio Program Real Science Friday CNN Sues Haiti Live Networks Over Use of “HLN” Mark Space-Buzz: Astronaut Sues Singer Over CD Cover Giants Forgot to Register Logo Copyrights and the Fashion Industry: A Love-Hate Relationship?
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business
  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan
  • Oxycontin and the Implications of Pay-For-Delay

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License