HA Bricks fined BIG time for altering Lego parts, not for selling MOC's.
What will this mean for other MOC-ers? BrickMania for example sells self-designed
parts that fit on their vehicles? And the printing on torso's as well? Will
this be banned too?
Is this an attempt by Lego to secure it's MOC-line here on BL? Or is it JUST
the fact the altering of parts is NOT allowed?
I'm no lawyer, maybe someone with a background in law can elaborate on this?
HA Bricks fined BIG time for altering Lego parts, not for selling MOC's.
What will this mean for other MOC-ers? BrickMania for example sells self-designed
parts that fit on their vehicles? And the printing on torso's as well? Will
this be banned too?
Is this an attempt by Lego to secure it's MOC-line here on BL? Or is it JUST
the fact the altering of parts is NOT allowed?
I'm no lawyer, maybe someone with a background in law can elaborate on this?
Or maybe, The Lego Company?
I'm no stranger to copyright and trademark infringements; it's why I
was able to retire at 37. But this article doesn't translate well or is
missing key details about the modification of the parts. In the US you can find
direct links to the complaint and judgements, do you have access to those you
can share? From what you're saying they were printing/modifying LEGO parts
in to new pieces that don't currently exist in LEGO's arsenal.
Bedrukking van LEGO-bouwstenen en minifiguren zonder toestemming van de LEGO-groep.
This means PRINTING of torsos and SELLING them is NOT PERMITTED.
Toevoegen van een metalen kogellager aan een LEGO-bouwsteen. Aantasting merkfuncties
Modifing bricks with bearings and SELLING THESE (as parts or in sets) is NOT
PERMITTED
One could say you’re cherry-picking the summary and making generalizing conclusions.
What TLG argued is that HAbricks used the LEGO brand to sell modified parts,
that the custom parts were not (suffienctly) separated/distinguished from the
LEGO parts.
So, my take would rather be:
— Printing torsos and selling them IS permitted PROVIDED you don’t advertise
them in a way that would make think it’s LEGO torsos printed by LEGO.
— Modifying bricks with bearings and selling them (as parsts or in sets) IS permitted
PROVIDED you don’t say it’s LEGO parts or LEGO sets.
Bedrukking van LEGO-bouwstenen en minifiguren zonder toestemming van de LEGO-groep.
This means PRINTING of torsos and SELLING them is NOT PERMITTED.
Toevoegen van een metalen kogellager aan een LEGO-bouwsteen. Aantasting merkfuncties
Modifing bricks with bearings and SELLING THESE (as parts or in sets) is NOT
PERMITTED
One could say you’re cherry-picking the summary and making generalizing conclusions.
What TLG argued is that HAbricks used the LEGO brand to sell modified parts,
that the custom parts were not (suffienctly) separated/distinguished from the
LEGO parts.
So, my take would rather be:
— Printing torsos and selling them IS permitted PROVIDED you don’t advertise
them in a way that would make think it’s LEGO torsos printed by LEGO.
— Modifying bricks with bearings and selling them (as parsts or in sets) IS permitted
PROVIDED you don’t say it’s LEGO parts or LEGO sets.
As always, the devil is in the details.
Correct, there is a _lot_ going on here. I'm still reading through the complaint
but this guy did as lot of no-no's.
E. [name] orders, within two weeks after service of this judgment, without
any (oral or written) accompanying text, to send a signed letter on its own stationery
by registered post to all its professional customers of the Relevant Products
in the European Union, with only the following text in the language in which
he normally communicates with the relevant customers:
“The preliminary relief judge of the District Court of The Hague recently ordered
us to inform you of the following in this way.
We recently offered toys (with product names [insert product name]) that the
preliminary relief judge ruled that they infringe the trademark rights of the
LEGO Group.
By order of the preliminary relief judge, we immediately removed the products
mentioned from our range and will no longer supply them in the future.
We kindly but very urgently request that you immediately return all toys delivered
to you by us with the above product names. We will of course reimburse the full
purchase amount and any transport costs.
[… callback of all the products sold to professionals …]
Yep. TLG used a big hammer going with interim relief.
Did they try a cease & desist first or are they making an example 🤔
I gotta tell ya, I'm astonished at how quick and efficient the Dutch court
system is. It takes me a full year just to get a copyright case prepared, submitted
and scheduled in US Federal court. They weren't overly tough with their
Cease and Desist letter either.
To be completely honest, my first thoughts here are that the guy could have avoided
so much of this if he didn't:
1: Modify parts.
2: Apply custom printing (I originally interpreted "print" as molding
new parts.)
3: Create custom packaging.
but did:
4: Just used available parts, cornered the market on said parts, and put the
designs on rebrickable where people were directed to his store with 100% of said
bricks.
[… callback of all the products sold to professionals …]
Yep. TLG used a big hammer going with interim relief.
Did they try a cease & desist first or are they making an example 🤔
I gotta tell ya, I'm astonished at how quick and efficient the Dutch court
system is. It takes me a full year just to get a copyright case prepared, submitted
and scheduled in US Federal court. They weren't overly tough with their
Cease and Desist letter either.
To be completely honest, my first thoughts here are that the guy could have avoided
so much of this if he didn't:
1: Modify parts.
Especially without meeting product safety regulations
2: Apply custom printing (I originally interpreted "print" as molding
new parts.)
Especially without meeting product safety regulations
LEGO can protest against the repackaging and resale of its products because the
quality of their parts has been reduced. The resulting parts either do not comply
with product safety regulations (the bearing) or this was not proven (the printed
parts). The parts have been modified without LEGO approval, but are still marked
with the LEGO logo and will be associated with LEGO by customers.
3: Create custom packaging.
4: Use logo's of existing companies. This suggests a relation between LEGO
and that company when the parts are seen somewhere later, while that relation
does not exist and is not approved by those companies.
The note that the LEGO group “does not sponsor, authorize or endorse […] these
products” is insufficient.
but did:
5: Just used available parts, cornered the market on said parts, and put the
designs on rebrickable where people were directed to his store with 100% of said
bricks.
[… callback of all the products sold to professionals …]
Yep. TLG used a big hammer going with interim relief.
Did they try a cease & desist first or are they making an example 🤔
I have been reading through the verdict and TLG actually did send a cease & desist
on January 8th. HA Bricks replied to that on January 22nd claiming there was
no trademark infringement because there is exhaustion with regard to the LEGO
building blocks and minifigures traded by him.
2.23.
De advocaat van Lego Juris heeft bij brief van 8 januari 2024 [naam] gesommeerd
uiterlijk 15 januari 2024 elke inbreuk op de LEGO-merken te staken en gestaakt
te houden, in het bijzonder door niet langer “various (customized) products (e.g.
building sets), which infringe the LEGO Group’s rights” te produceren, te koop
aan te bieden en te verkopen.
2.24.
Per brief van 22 januari 2024 heeft de gemachtigde van [naam] op de sommatiebrief
gereageerd en zich op het standpunt gesteld dat van merkinbreuk geen sprake is,
omdat met betrekking tot de door [naam] verhandelde LEGO-bouwstenen en minifiguren
sprake is van uitputting.
[… callback of all the products sold to professionals …]
Yep. TLG used a big hammer going with interim relief.
Did they try a cease & desist first or are they making an example 🤔
It looks like they did both. Cease and desist, which the seller chose to fight
and so LEGO fought back. A costly decision, but now there is a fundraiser aiming
to get 50K euro for him to cover the legal fees and court costs.
[… callback of all the products sold to professionals …]
Yep. TLG used a big hammer going with interim relief.
Did they try a cease & desist first or are they making an example 🤔
It looks like they did both. Cease and desist, which the seller chose to fight
and so LEGO fought back. A costly decision, but now there is a fundraiser aiming
to get 50K euro for him to cover the legal fees and court costs.
TLG did send a second letter first which HA Bricks ignored as well so its kinda
his own fault he got sued (in my opinion).
2.25.
Nadat [naam] in reactie op een tweede aanschrijving door de advocaat van Lego
Juris er geen blijk van had gegeven alsnog aan de sommatie te zullen voldoen,
heeft Lego Juris deze kortgedingprocedure ingeleid.
It looks like they did both. Cease and desist, which the seller chose to fight
and so LEGO fought back. A costly decision, but now there is a fundraiser aiming
to get 50K euro for him to cover the legal fees and court costs.
TLG did send a second letter first which HA Bricks ignored as well so its kinda
his own fault he got sued (in my opinion).
[…]
Well, I guess he’ll get the funds anyway (or the person who set up the fundraising
will…). You can raise funds for anything nowadays, you just need to present
it “correctly”: outrage, David vs Goliath, they’ll be after you next….
In My Own Creation, yorbrick writes:
TLG did send a second letter first which HA Bricks ignored as well so its kinda
his own fault he got sued (in my opinion).
I missed the part about ignoring the second letter, but generally the more obstinate
you are and the harder/longer you fight directly correlate to the stiffness of
the penalty. It's like how in criminal court in the US if you plead guilty
up front you get a smaller fine and jail time than if you not guilty and go all
the way to trial and lose.
Most of these (at least in the US) settle out of court before ever going to trial
so either things are different abroad or he legitimately thought he could fight
this. Can anyone in The Netherlands find info on DJ Mensink? I'm not having
any luck and I'm morbidly curious what area of law they specialize in.
In My Own Creation, yorbrick writes:
TLG did send a second letter first which HA Bricks ignored as well so its kinda
his own fault he got sued (in my opinion).
I missed the part about ignoring the second letter, but generally the more obstinate
you are and the harder/longer you fight directly correlate to the stiffness of
the penalty. It's like how in criminal court in the US if you plead guilty
up front you get a smaller fine and jail time than if you not guilty and go all
the way to trial and lose.
Most of these (at least in the US) settle out of court before ever going to trial
so either things are different abroad or he legitimately thought he could fight
this. Can anyone in The Netherlands find info on DJ Mensink? I'm not having
any luck and I'm morbidly curious what area of law they specialize in.
ICT, intellectual property, competition law, Corporate practice ...
In My Own Creation, yorbrick writes:
TLG did send a second letter first which HA Bricks ignored as well so its kinda
his own fault he got sued (in my opinion).
I missed the part about ignoring the second letter, but generally the more obstinate
you are and the harder/longer you fight directly correlate to the stiffness of
the penalty. It's like how in criminal court in the US if you plead guilty
up front you get a smaller fine and jail time than if you not guilty and go all
the way to trial and lose.
Most of these (at least in the US) settle out of court before ever going to trial
so either things are different abroad or he legitimately thought he could fight
this. Can anyone in The Netherlands find info on DJ Mensink? I'm not having
any luck and I'm morbidly curious what area of law they specialize in.
a quick inernet search gave me this:
Douglas Mensink heeft als oprichter van MICTA ruim 16 jaar ervaring in de
advocatuur en 30 jaar ervaring in het vakgebied ICT en Recht. Hij heeft als specialisatie
Intellectueel Eigendomsrecht, ICT-recht en Internetrecht en heeft in deze
disciplines zijn sporen inmiddels meer dan verdiend. Vanzelfsprekend kent hij
ook zijn weg in de andere rechtsgebieden.
So he is specializing in Intellectual Property law, ICT law and Internet law
In My Own Creation, yorbrick writes:
TLG did send a second letter first which HA Bricks ignored as well so its kinda
his own fault he got sued (in my opinion).
I missed the part about ignoring the second letter, but generally the more obstinate
you are and the harder/longer you fight directly correlate to the stiffness of
the penalty. It's like how in criminal court in the US if you plead guilty
up front you get a smaller fine and jail time than if you not guilty and go all
the way to trial and lose.
Most of these (at least in the US) settle out of court before ever going to trial
so either things are different abroad or he legitimately thought he could fight
this. Can anyone in The Netherlands find info on DJ Mensink? I'm not having
any luck and I'm morbidly curious what area of law they specialize in.
a quick inernet search gave me this:
Douglas Mensink heeft als oprichter van MICTA ruim 16 jaar ervaring in de
advocatuur en 30 jaar ervaring in het vakgebied ICT en Recht. Hij heeft als specialisatie
Intellectueel Eigendomsrecht, ICT-recht en Internetrecht en heeft in deze
disciplines zijn sporen inmiddels meer dan verdiend. Vanzelfsprekend kent hij
ook zijn weg in de andere rechtsgebieden.
So he is specializing in Intellectual Property law, ICT law and Internet law
Thanks! All my results were for US attorneys with similar names.
TLG did send a second letter first which HA Bricks ignored as well so its kinda
his own fault he got sued (in my opinion).
2.25.
Nadat [naam] in reactie op een tweede aanschrijving door de advocaat van Lego
Juris er geen blijk van had gegeven alsnog aan de sommatie te zullen voldoen,
heeft Lego Juris deze kortgedingprocedure ingeleid.
Yes. There are discussions elsewhere making out that LEGO were incredibly unfair
going in hard from the outset on a poor hobbyist that got caught up in something
they had no knowledge of, when the reality seems to be that they took softer
approaches first but the small business wanted to continue doing what they were
doing so refused to comply.
E. [name] orders, within two weeks after service of this judgment, without
any (oral or written) accompanying text, to send a signed letter on its own stationery
by registered post to all its professional customers of the Relevant Products
in the European Union, with only the following text in the language in which
he normally communicates with the relevant customers:
“The preliminary relief judge of the District Court of The Hague recently ordered
us to inform you of the following in this way.
We recently offered toys (with product names [insert product name]) that the
preliminary relief judge ruled that they infringe the trademark rights of the
LEGO Group.
By order of the preliminary relief judge, we immediately removed the products
mentioned from our range and will no longer supply them in the future.
We kindly but very urgently request that you immediately return all toys delivered
to you by us with the above product names. We will of course reimburse the full
purchase amount and any transport costs.
A copy of the judgment is enclosed.
Yours faithfully,
[name] ( [trade name] )”
What’s the bet that a ton of these parts are already in the aftermarket mixed
in with used bulk?
Bedrukking van LEGO-bouwstenen en minifiguren zonder toestemming van de LEGO-groep.
This means PRINTING of torsos and SELLING them is NOT PERMITTED.
Toevoegen van een metalen kogellager aan een LEGO-bouwsteen. Aantasting merkfuncties
Modifing bricks with bearings and SELLING THESE (as parts or in sets) is NOT
PERMITTED
One could say you’re cherry-picking the summary and making generalizing conclusions.
What TLG argued is that HAbricks used the LEGO brand to sell modified parts,
that the custom parts were not (suffienctly) separated/distinguished from the
LEGO parts.
So, my take would rather be:
— Printing torsos and selling them IS permitted PROVIDED you don’t advertise
them in a way that would make think it’s LEGO torsos printed by LEGO.
— Modifying bricks with bearings and selling them (as parsts or in sets) IS permitted
PROVIDED you don’t say it’s LEGO parts or LEGO sets.
As always, the devil is in the details.
Anyone who modifies and sells LEGO parts, will have to ensure that the resulting
parts meet all product safety regulations.
For example, if you make a print, the inks used must be safe so any child playing
with it will not be exposed to toxins.
In this case, the producer could not prove the safety of the final product.
Bedrukking van LEGO-bouwstenen en minifiguren zonder toestemming van de LEGO-groep.
This means PRINTING of torsos and SELLING them is NOT PERMITTED.
Toevoegen van een metalen kogellager aan een LEGO-bouwsteen. Aantasting merkfuncties
Modifing bricks with bearings and SELLING THESE (as parts or in sets) is NOT
PERMITTED
Thats what i'm looking for, thanks for that.
I'm still reading and processing this but they have a very valid argument
when it comes to the bricks with bearings. (You'll have to read the entire
thing and follow the storyline.)
When it comes to printing on (parts) see the bolded section below. I know a
lot of people that print on bricks and this could complicate that in the future.
I'll need to keep reading.
"4.8.
The preliminary relief judge rules as follows. First and foremost, [name] acknowledges
that each of the Relevant Products contains (an unspecified number of) LEGO building
blocks and/or minifigures which, after those building blocks and minifigures
have been placed on the market in the EEA by or with the permission of the LEGO
Group , have been modified in the sense that they are equipped with a (metal)
ball bearing (LEGO building blocks referred to as ' Bricks with bearings
', available in three different designs (with different colors); see 2.12)
or are printed (both LEGO -building blocks as minifigures). Both the (metal)
ball bearing and the printing are, due to the way in which they are applied,
permanently connected to the relevant LEGO building blocks and/or minifigures,
which permanently changes (the appearance of) those LEGO elements. In the provisional
opinion of the preliminary relief judge, this constitutes a change in the condition
of the goods as referred to in Article 15(2) UMVo. Lego Juris – as the trademark
holder – has not given permission to market the LEGO building blocks and minifigures
under the LEGO brands in that (outward) appearance.
4.9.
[name] has argued that he prints the LEGO building blocks and minifigures marketed
by the LEGO Group lawfully (i.e. with the implicit permission of the LEGO Group),
because such printing would be 'encouraged' by the LEGO -group. In that
context, he pointed out that the LEGO group facilitates both the purchase and
sale of LEGO building blocks and its own designs, for example via BrickLink (on
which website [name] does not sell its products), as well as 'customization'.
of LEGO minifigures in LEGO stores . [name] has not sufficiently substantiated
and therefore not made plausible those statements, which Lego Juris has disputed,
including by referring to the applicable terms of use of BrickLink (cf. 2.6).
[name] has not submitted any document showing that the LEGO group allows (re)sellers
to offer/trade printed LEGO building blocks and minifigures at their own discretion
and in their own way, on the contrary. The preliminary relief judge does not
follow the ' a contrario ' reasoning with which [name] deduces permission
from the statement of the LEGO group shown above under 2.9. That statement does
not in any way show the preliminary relief judge that (re)sellers are free to
print and then trade LEGO building blocks or minifigures at their own discretion
and in their own way. The fact that LEGO building blocks and minifigures can
be printed in LEGO stores ( 'customised' cannot benefit [name], as
this is done (i) by the LEGO group itself and therefore with its permission and
under its own control and rules, and (ii) before the goods have been put on the
market in the EEA, as Lego Juris has stated undisputedly."
Bedrukking van LEGO-bouwstenen en minifiguren zonder toestemming van de LEGO-groep.
This means PRINTING of torsos and SELLING them is NOT PERMITTED.
Toevoegen van een metalen kogellager aan een LEGO-bouwsteen. Aantasting merkfuncties
Modifing bricks with bearings and SELLING THESE (as parts or in sets) is NOT
PERMITTED
Thats what i'm looking for, thanks for that.
I'm still reading and processing this but they have a very valid argument
when it comes to the bricks with bearings. (You'll have to read the entire
thing and follow the storyline.)
When it comes to printing on (parts) see the bolded section below. I know a
lot of people that print on bricks and this could complicate that in the future.
I'll need to keep reading.
"4.8.
The preliminary relief judge rules as follows. First and foremost, [name] acknowledges
that each of the Relevant Products contains (an unspecified number of) LEGO building
blocks and/or minifigures which, after those building blocks and minifigures
have been placed on the market in the EEA by or with the permission of the LEGO
Group , have been modified in the sense that they are equipped with a (metal)
ball bearing (LEGO building blocks referred to as ' Bricks with bearings
', available in three different designs (with different colors); see 2.12)
or are printed (both LEGO -building blocks as minifigures). Both the (metal)
ball bearing and the printing are, due to the way in which they are applied,
permanently connected to the relevant LEGO building blocks and/or minifigures,
which permanently changes (the appearance of) those LEGO elements. In the provisional
opinion of the preliminary relief judge, this constitutes a change in the condition
of the goods as referred to in Article 15(2) UMVo. Lego Juris – as the trademark
holder – has not given permission to market the LEGO building blocks and minifigures
under the LEGO brands in that (outward) appearance.
4.9.
[name] has argued that he prints the LEGO building blocks and minifigures marketed
by the LEGO Group lawfully (i.e. with the implicit permission of the LEGO Group),
because such printing would be 'encouraged' by the LEGO -group. In that
context, he pointed out that the LEGO group facilitates both the purchase and
sale of LEGO building blocks and its own designs, for example via BrickLink (on
which website [name] does not sell its products), as well as 'customization'.
of LEGO minifigures in LEGO stores . [name] has not sufficiently substantiated
and therefore not made plausible those statements, which Lego Juris has disputed,
including by referring to the applicable terms of use of BrickLink (cf. 2.6).
[name] has not submitted any document showing that the LEGO group allows (re)sellers
to offer/trade printed LEGO building blocks and minifigures at their own discretion
and in their own way, on the contrary. The preliminary relief judge does not
follow the ' a contrario ' reasoning with which [name] deduces permission
from the statement of the LEGO group shown above under 2.9. That statement does
not in any way show the preliminary relief judge that (re)sellers are free to
print and then trade LEGO building blocks or minifigures at their own discretion
and in their own way. The fact that LEGO building blocks and minifigures can
be printed in LEGO stores ( 'customised' cannot benefit [name], as
this is done (i) by the LEGO group itself and therefore with its permission and
under its own control and rules, and (ii) before the goods have been put on the
market in the EEA, as Lego Juris has stated undisputedly."
4.12
Ten aanzien van de bedrukking van de LEGO-bouwstenen en minifiguren heeft Lego
Juris erop gewezen dat zij geen wetenschap heeft van de techniek waarmee [naam]
die bedrukking uitvoert en evenmin van de materialen die hij daarbij gebruikt.
[naam] heeft tijdens de mondelinge behandeling toegelicht dat hij gebruikmaakt
van een printer die ook in de LEGO-stores wordt gebruikt voor de bedrukking van
minifiguren. Die stelling – die Lego Juris tijdens de mondelinge behandeling
bij gebrek aan wetenschap heeft betwist – heeft [naam] echter niet van een onderbouwing
voorzien. Bovendien kan, uitgaande van de juistheid van de stelling van [naam]
, daaraan – zonder nadere onderbouwing, die ontbreekt eveneens – niet zonder
meer de conclusie worden verbonden dat de door [naam] op de LEGO-bouwstenen en
minifiguren aangebrachte bedrukking vanuit kwalitatief oogpunt gelijkwaardig
is aan de bedrukking die de LEGO-groep op door haar in de handel gebrachte LEGO-bouwstenen
en minifiguren aanbrengt en dus, bijvoorbeeld, voldoet aan de (hoge) productveiligheidseisen
die worden gesteld aan (kinder)speelgoed.
---
4.12
With regard to the printing of the LEGO building blocks and minifigures, Lego
Juris has pointed out that it has no knowledge of the technique with which [name]
carries out the printing nor of the materials he uses. [name] explained during
the oral hearing that he uses a printer that is also used in the LEGO stores
for printing minifigures. However, [name] did not provide any substantiation
for that statement - which Lego Juris disputed during the oral hearing due to
a lack of science. Moreover, based on the correctness of [name]'s statement,
it cannot simply be concluded - without further substantiation, which is also
lacking - that the printing applied by [name] to the LEGO building blocks and
minifigures from a qualitative point of view is equivalent to the printing that
the LEGO group applies to the LEGO building blocks and minifigures it markets
and therefore, for example, meets the (high) product safety requirements imposed
on (children's) toys.
I don't know how the appeals system works there, but if I were him, it would
be worth trying to modify the judgement for sending replacement parts for the
axle assembly and replacement minifigs rather than a full recall. The bulk of
their case hinged/s on the modified parts and parts with custom printing after
all.
I don't know how the appeals system works there, but if I were him, it would
be worth trying to modify the judgement for sending replacement parts for the
axle assembly and replacement minifigs rather than a full recall. The bulk of
their case hinged/s on the modified parts and parts with custom printing after
all.
Don’t know in NL, but an appeal may not be suspensive (especially for an interim
relief judgement where the goal is to act quickly).
I'm no stranger to copyright and trademark infringements; it's why I
was able to retire at 37.
You've mentioned retiring early several times already. Must be quite proud
of your achievement. This post says you retired at 37, but your earlier post
says that you were "lucky enough to retire at 42":
I'm no stranger to copyright and trademark infringements; it's why I
was able to retire at 37.
You've mentioned retiring early several times already. Must be quite proud
of your achievement. This post says you retired at 37, but your earlier post
says that you were "lucky enough to retire at 42":
First time at 37 in order to lend merit to a case I was in. It's not what
it's cracked up to be though. You get bored very quickly. At 39 I turned
a pet project from grad school in to a living breathing entity and was bought
out at 42. So in this instance, I retired at 37, but according to bank documents
it was "official" when I was 42.
I'm no stranger to copyright and trademark infringements; it's why I
was able to retire at 37.
You've mentioned retiring early several times already. Must be quite proud
of your achievement. This post says you retired at 37, but your earlier post
says that you were "lucky enough to retire at 42":
First time at 37 in order to lend merit to a case I was in. It's not what
it's cracked up to be though. You get bored very quickly. At 39 I turned
a pet project from grad school in to a living breathing entity and was bought
out at 42. So in this instance, I retired at 37, but according to bank documents
it was "official" when I was 42.
As someone in a similar position, I'll give some unsolicited advice. Telling
people only makes them hostile towards you. I've never had someone take it
in a good way, ever... even if I was using it to make a point. I too was proud
and used it to back up various statements and advice, or even to just explain
my life when they asked and people don't hear it in a positive way.
As someone in a similar position, I'll give some unsolicited advice. Telling
people only makes them hostile towards you. I've never had someone take it
in a good way, ever... even if I was using it to make a point. I too was proud
and used it to back up various statements and advice, or even to just explain
my life when they asked and people don't hear it in a positive way.
Speaking for myself, being told once or twice, fine whatever I couldn't care
less either way. Hearing it constantly does gets on my nerves.
As someone in a similar position, I'll give some unsolicited advice. Telling
people only makes them hostile towards you. I've never had someone take it
in a good way, ever... even if I was using it to make a point. I too was proud
and used it to back up various statements and advice, or even to just explain
my life when they asked and people don't hear it in a positive way.
Speaking for myself, being told once or twice, fine whatever I couldn't care
less either way. Hearing it constantly does gets on my nerves.
Honestly, me too. I now understand why people didn't like me saying it. Though
I was only telling people to explain things that they usually were asking about,
not just name dropping on a regular basis it like appears to be happening here.
Anyway, I tried guys.
Speaking for myself, being told once or twice, fine whatever I couldn't care
less either way. Hearing it constantly does gets on my nerves.
Honestly, me too. I now understand why people didn't like me saying it. Though
I was only telling people to explain things that they usually were asking about,
not just name dropping on a regular basis it like appears to be happening here.
If the topic of discussion were FIRE or how to find a good non-employer health
care plan then great, who better to weigh in than someone who did it. Otherwise
it's better to be discreet.
Every time I meet someone who went to an Ivy league school, I know they did because
they manage to work it into literally every conversation. Yippee.
[…]
Every time I meet someone who went to an Ivy league school, I know they did because
they manage to work it into literally every conversation. Yippee.
How do you know someone is {something}?
Don’t worry, they’ll tell you within the first 2 min of meeting them.
I'm no stranger to copyright and trademark infringements; it's why I
was able to retire at 37.
You've mentioned retiring early several times already. Must be quite proud
of your achievement. This post says you retired at 37, but your earlier post
says that you were "lucky enough to retire at 42":
First time at 37 in order to lend merit to a case I was in. It's not what
it's cracked up to be though. You get bored very quickly. At 39 I turned
a pet project from grad school in to a living breathing entity and was bought
out at 42. So in this instance, I retired at 37, but according to bank documents
it was "official" when I was 42.
As someone in a similar position, I'll give some unsolicited advice. Telling
people only makes them hostile towards you. I've never had someone take it
in a good way, ever... even if I was using it to make a point. I too was proud
and used it to back up various statements and advice, or even to just explain
my life when they asked and people don't hear it in a positive way.
Crystal
Yeeea, but what can you do? You can't make everyone happy all the time,
just some of the people some of the time.
I'm no stranger to copyright and trademark infringements; it's why I
was able to retire at 37.
You've mentioned retiring early several times already. Must be quite proud
of your achievement. This post says you retired at 37, but your earlier post
says that you were "lucky enough to retire at 42":
First time at 37 in order to lend merit to a case I was in. It's not what
it's cracked up to be though. You get bored very quickly. At 39 I turned
a pet project from grad school in to a living breathing entity and was bought
out at 42. So in this instance, I retired at 37, but according to bank documents
it was "official" when I was 42.
As someone in a similar position, I'll give some unsolicited advice. Telling
people only makes them hostile towards you. I've never had someone take it
in a good way, ever... even if I was using it to make a point. I too was proud
and used it to back up various statements and advice, or even to just explain
my life when they asked and people don't hear it in a positive way.
Crystal
Yeeea, but what can you do? You can't make everyone happy all the time,
just some of the people some of the time.
HA Bricks fined BIG time for altering Lego parts, not for selling MOC's.
What will this mean for other MOC-ers? BrickMania for example sells self-designed
parts that fit on their vehicles? And the printing on torso's as well? Will
this be banned too?
Is this an attempt by Lego to secure it's MOC-line here on BL? Or is it JUST
the fact the altering of parts is NOT allowed?
I'm no lawyer, maybe someone with a background in law can elaborate on this?
Or maybe, The Lego Company?
What I understand here is that LEGO is protecting it's brand from modifications
as each of the parts they produce have to pass an standard and if they permit
the distribution they can lose their trademark and confidence.
The difference with Brickmania designed parts is that they are not branded LEGO.
As for printing they recently banned printing "logos" on "minifigs"
only.
What I understand here is that LEGO is protecting it's brand from modifications
as each of the parts they produce have to pass an standard and if they permit
the distribution they can lose their trademark and confidence.
I can understand that, image etc.
So when these parts were no longer sold as Lego, but named otherwise, might that
have prevented this outcome? I doubt it, because common picture will still be
that it's Lego parts.... mmmm.
What I understand here is that LEGO is protecting it's brand from modifications
as each of the parts they produce have to pass an standard and if they permit
the distribution they can lose their trademark and confidence.
I can understand that, image etc.
So when these parts were no longer sold as Lego, but named otherwise, might that
have prevented this outcome? I doubt it, because common picture will still be
that it's Lego parts.... mmmm.
If their name were not on it, the claim probably wouldn't stand in court.
There are many manufacturers of interlocking bricks. The public might think
of them all as LEGO, but LEGO is not responsible for what the other guys do.
And it sounds like the torso is still a protected mold. Which tracks with how
the 2x2 brick looks essentially the same in any brand, but the other legit brands
make their people other ways.
If their name were not on it, the claim probably wouldn't stand in court.
There are many manufacturers of interlocking bricks. The public might think
of them all as LEGO, but LEGO is not responsible for what the other guys do.
I read the ruling of the court, and I think your point is exactly why the court
ruled like it did.
Understandable from TLG's point of view.
HA Bricks fined BIG time for altering Lego parts, not for selling MOC's.
What will this mean for other MOC-ers? BrickMania for example sells self-designed
parts that fit on their vehicles? And the printing on torso's as well? Will
this be banned too?
Is this an attempt by Lego to secure it's MOC-line here on BL? Or is it JUST
the fact the altering of parts is NOT allowed?
I'm no lawyer, maybe someone with a background in law can elaborate on this?
Or maybe, The Lego Company?
I doubt it will have any effect on bricklink. Here, you are not allowed to infringe
on intellectual property, you are not allowed to sell modified parts, you are
not allowed to sell custom prints on LEGO parts, and so on.
I have tangential knowledge of what they were doing as there has been discussion
of their parts/sets and more recently the court case on eurobricks. They were
piggy-backing on LEGO's quality and being a little dishonest in their claims.
For example they claimed 100% genuine LEGO but later that wheels and rods were
custom parts. They also modified a LEGO part, but still claimed it was LEGO.
That suggests it has gone through LEGO's toy testing standards, when it has
not.
If he wants to continue, then why not manufacture the specialist bricks and sell
them as compatible / clone parts. Presumably the profits are not as high as selling
complete sets and piggy-backing off the LEGO name.
HA Bricks fined BIG time for altering Lego parts, not for selling MOC's.
What will this mean for other MOC-ers? BrickMania for example sells self-designed
parts that fit on their vehicles? And the printing on torso's as well? Will
this be banned too?
Is this an attempt by Lego to secure it's MOC-line here on BL? Or is it JUST
the fact the altering of parts is NOT allowed?
I'm no lawyer, maybe someone with a background in law can elaborate on this?
Or maybe, The Lego Company?
In my opinion LEGO is right, their defacing the product.
HA Bricks fined BIG time for altering Lego parts, not for selling MOC's.
What will this mean for other MOC-ers? BrickMania for example sells self-designed
parts that fit on their vehicles? And the printing on torso's as well? Will
this be banned too?
Is this an attempt by Lego to secure it's MOC-line here on BL? Or is it JUST
the fact the altering of parts is NOT allowed?
I'm no lawyer, maybe someone with a background in law can elaborate on this?
Or maybe, The Lego Company?
In my opinion LEGO is right, their defacing the product.
isn't this the same thing that some of the companies that sell light kits
do as well, yet they are allowed to continue to operate???
HA Bricks fined BIG time for altering Lego parts, not for selling MOC's.
What will this mean for other MOC-ers? BrickMania for example sells self-designed
parts that fit on their vehicles? And the printing on torso's as well? Will
this be banned too?
Is this an attempt by Lego to secure it's MOC-line here on BL? Or is it JUST
the fact the altering of parts is NOT allowed?
I'm no lawyer, maybe someone with a background in law can elaborate on this?
Or maybe, The Lego Company?
In my opinion LEGO is right, their defacing the product.
isn't this the same thing that some of the companies that sell light kits
do as well, yet they are allowed to continue to operate???
Personally I think that drilling parts to add wires or lights is also wrong.
But it’s the customer who is doing is sooo…
isn't this the same thing that some of the companies that sell light kits
do as well, yet they are allowed to continue to operate???
Personally I think that drilling parts to add wires or lights is also wrong.
But it’s the customer who is doing is sooo…
I thought some of these companies were selling parts too… but maybe they are
not LEGO parts?
Or they have a stronger disclaimer and certify their parts in some way (CE, FCC…)?
isn't this the same thing that some of the companies that sell light kits
do as well, yet they are allowed to continue to operate???
Personally I think that drilling parts to add wires or lights is also wrong.
But it’s the customer who is doing is sooo…
I thought some of these companies were selling parts too… but maybe they are
not LEGO parts?
Or they have a stronger disclaimer and certify their parts in some way (CE, FCC…)?
I'm not sure if they all use genuine Lego but I know "Light my bricks"
does.
I thought some of these companies were selling parts too… but maybe they are
not LEGO parts?
Or they have a stronger disclaimer and certify their parts in some way (CE, FCC…)?
I'm not sure if they all use genuine Lego but I know "Light my bricks"
does.
I thought some of these companies were selling parts too… but maybe they are
not LEGO parts?
Or they have a stronger disclaimer and certify their parts in some way (CE, FCC…)?
I'm not sure if they all use genuine Lego but I know "Light my bricks"
does.
I thought some of these companies were selling parts too… but maybe they are
not LEGO parts?
Or they have a stronger disclaimer and certify their parts in some way (CE, FCC…)?
I'm not sure if they all use genuine Lego but I know "Light my bricks"
does.
I thought some of these companies were selling parts too… but maybe they are
not LEGO parts?
Or they have a stronger disclaimer and certify their parts in some way (CE, FCC…)?
I'm not sure if they all use genuine Lego but I know "Light my bricks"
does.
Thank you for that link, It clarified a lot.
So if I understood it correctly:
its not the fact that they where modifying genuine Lego parts, its they way they
are advertising it.
I'll happily admit my assumptions were wrong.
To be fair the way the Dutch article was worded, it sounded out like HABricks
was being sued because they modified/printed bricks.
isn't this the same thing that some of the companies that sell light kits
do as well, yet they are allowed to continue to operate???
Personally I think that drilling parts to add wires or lights is also wrong.
But it’s the customer who is doing is sooo…
I thought some of these companies were selling parts too… but maybe they are
not LEGO parts?
Or they have a stronger disclaimer and certify their parts in some way (CE, FCC…)?
The Dutch seller was modifying bricks but still calling them genuine LEGO bricks.
They are obviously not safety certified.
isn't this the same thing that some of the companies that sell light kits
do as well, yet they are allowed to continue to operate???
Personally I think that drilling parts to add wires or lights is also wrong.
But it’s the customer who is doing is sooo…
I thought some of these companies were selling parts too… but maybe they are
not LEGO parts?
Or they have a stronger disclaimer and certify their parts in some way (CE, FCC…)?
The Dutch seller was modifying bricks but still calling them genuine LEGO bricks.
They are obviously not safety certified.
4.11.
In that context, the preliminary relief judge also considers it important
that Lego Juris has substantiated that the quality of the plastic of the LEGO
building blocks offered by [name] to which a (metal) ball bearing has been added
( Bricks with bearings ) has been affected and is therefore not (more) meets
the (high) quality requirements that the LEGO group sets, also based on the product
safety requirements applicable to (children's) toys. [name] has criticized
a report from the research department of the LEGO group 7 submitted by Lego Juris
in that context and pointed out that the relevant (adapted) LEGO building blocks
function (more than) properly; the bricks still fit well on other building blocks
and by using a metal bearing the axle can rotate almost without friction, which
improves the driving behavior and performance of the train car. Be that as
it may, the preliminary relief judge himself was able to observe during the oral
hearing that the LEGO building blocks to which a metal ball bearing has been
added show so-called stress whitening (places where the (colored) plastic of
the building blocks is colored white). [name] has not disputed that this is the
result of (the forces released when) installing the metal ball bearing. Even
if it is assumed that those LEGO building blocks (with stress whitening ) are
not inferior to unaltered LEGO building blocks in terms of functionality and
lifespan under normal use, as [name] essentially argues, the consumer will (may)
notice that the LEGO building blocks with metal ball bearing are apparently damaged
and are therefore of lower quality than similar LEGO building blocks without
metal ball bearing (and therefore without stress whitening ). [name] has also
not disputed the fact that, as also appears in the report, lead has been detected
in the metal ball bearing he installed, which Lego Juris considers problematic,
now that the products marketed under the LEGO brands are not only intended to
last for decades but - as a (children's) toy - also (should) have an impeccable
safety profile.
HA Bricks fined BIG time for altering Lego parts, not for selling MOC's.
What will this mean for other MOC-ers? BrickMania for example sells self-designed
parts that fit on their vehicles? And the printing on torso's as well? Will
this be banned too?
Is this an attempt by Lego to secure it's MOC-line here on BL? Or is it JUST
the fact the altering of parts is NOT allowed?
I'm no lawyer, maybe someone with a background in law can elaborate on this?
Or maybe, The Lego Company?
In my opinion LEGO is right, their defacing the product.
isn't this the same thing that some of the companies that sell light kits
do as well, yet they are allowed to continue to operate???
Personally I think that drilling parts to add wires or lights is also wrong.
But it’s the customer who is doing is sooo…
if its for personal use TLG does not care, but once you start selling said modified
products for profit its patent/trademark territory.
HA Bricks fined BIG time for altering Lego parts, not for selling MOC's.
What will this mean for other MOC-ers? BrickMania for example sells self-designed
parts that fit on their vehicles? And the printing on torso's as well? Will
this be banned too?
Is this an attempt by Lego to secure it's MOC-line here on BL? Or is it JUST
the fact the altering of parts is NOT allowed?
I'm no lawyer, maybe someone with a background in law can elaborate on this?
Or maybe, The Lego Company?
In my opinion LEGO is right, their defacing the product.
They're defacing a product that they legally purchased? It's theirs to
do with as they please. Surely?
I think the issue here is about the selling of said product afterwards and including
the Lego name in the description. I don't know, or care.
HA Bricks fined BIG time for altering Lego parts, not for selling MOC's.
What will this mean for other MOC-ers? BrickMania for example sells self-designed
parts that fit on their vehicles? And the printing on torso's as well? Will
this be banned too?
Is this an attempt by Lego to secure it's MOC-line here on BL? Or is it JUST
the fact the altering of parts is NOT allowed?
I'm no lawyer, maybe someone with a background in law can elaborate on this?
Or maybe, The Lego Company?
In my opinion LEGO is right, their defacing the product.
They're defacing a product that they legally purchased? It's theirs to
do with as they please. Surely?
I think the issue here is about the selling of said product afterwards and including
the Lego name in the description. I don't know, or care.
not entirely, if they are modifying said Lego products for personal use, nobody
cares.
If they are selling said modified products for profit, TLG can sue you because
of patents & trademark.
but like I said in my previous post the companies that are producing light sets
also modify the parts to fit in the wires/leds etc.
I don't know if all of them use genuine Lego but I know "Light my bricks"
does, but as far as I know they haven't been sued
HA Bricks fined BIG time for altering Lego parts, not for selling MOC's.
What will this mean for other MOC-ers? BrickMania for example sells self-designed
parts that fit on their vehicles? And the printing on torso's as well? Will
this be banned too?
Is this an attempt by Lego to secure it's MOC-line here on BL? Or is it JUST
the fact the altering of parts is NOT allowed?
I'm no lawyer, maybe someone with a background in law can elaborate on this?
Or maybe, The Lego Company?
In my opinion LEGO is right, their defacing the product.
They're defacing a product that they legally purchased? It's theirs to
do with as they please. Surely?
I think the issue here is about the selling of said product afterwards and including
the Lego name in the description. I don't know, or care.
not entirely, if they are modifying said Lego products for personal use, nobody
cares.
If they are selling said modified products for profit, TLG can sue you because
of patents & trademark.
but like I said in my previous post the companies that are producing light sets
also modify the parts to fit in the wires/leds etc.
I don't know if all of them use genuine Lego but I know "Light my bricks"
does, but as far as I know they haven't been sued
But do they claim they are LEGO ..?
Like this ...
It is obvious why LEGO don't want to allow this seller to see his sets made
with 100% genuine LEGO when they contain custom parts and modified parts.
The printed parts and modified bricks with bearing still have the LEGO logo.
As I read through the messages and the court documents, one thing kept sticking
out in my mind: He modified a LEGO brick and added a bearing while still keeping
the LEGO logo.
If the bearing ever came loose and someone was injured (or ingested the bearing
and choked) who would be responsible?
Some will say, we'll it is obviously not a LEGO part or the fault of the
LEGO Group. Others would argue that the LEGO Group condoned the modified part
by allowing the modification to occur unchecked.
We have become a very litigious society. As such, a company was well known as
the LEGO Group has to error on the side of caution and send a very clear message.
Otherwise, they risk paying for someone else's mistake.
HA Bricks fined BIG time for altering Lego parts, not for selling MOC's.
What will this mean for other MOC-ers? BrickMania for example sells self-designed
parts that fit on their vehicles? And the printing on torso's as well? Will
this be banned too?
Is this an attempt by Lego to secure it's MOC-line here on BL? Or is it JUST
the fact the altering of parts is NOT allowed?
I'm no lawyer, maybe someone with a background in law can elaborate on this?
Or maybe, The Lego Company?
Reading the entire thread...
It’s actually kinda heartening to see others showing such interest in Law. Even
if it’s Civil Law with 'armchair attorney' enthusiasm from the same group
of forum regulars that seem to know about everything via Google Just the interest
expressed, makes it one of the better reads in awhile here. Thanks.
HA Bricks fined BIG time for altering Lego parts, not for selling MOC's.
What will this mean for other MOC-ers? BrickMania for example sells self-designed
parts that fit on their vehicles? And the printing on torso's as well? Will
this be banned too?
Is this an attempt by Lego to secure it's MOC-line here on BL? Or is it JUST
the fact the altering of parts is NOT allowed?
I'm no lawyer, maybe someone with a background in law can elaborate on this?
Or maybe, The Lego Company?
Reading the entire thread...
It’s actually kinda heartening to see others showing such interest in Law. Even
if it’s Civil Law with 'armchair attorney' enthusiasm from the same group
of forum regulars that seem to know about everything via Google Just the interest
expressed, makes it one of the better reads in awhile here. Thanks.
~popsicle
I'm absolutely an armchair amateur here, but the legal text is very readable.
That said, several media are getting it wrong, talking about the modified "appearance"
of the bricks instead of the decreased product safety.
HA Bricks fined BIG time for altering Lego parts, not for selling MOC's.
What will this mean for other MOC-ers? BrickMania for example sells self-designed
parts that fit on their vehicles? And the printing on torso's as well? Will
this be banned too?
Is this an attempt by Lego to secure it's MOC-line here on BL? Or is it JUST
the fact the altering of parts is NOT allowed?
I'm no lawyer, maybe someone with a background in law can elaborate on this?
Or maybe, The Lego Company?
Reading the entire thread...
It’s actually kinda heartening to see others showing such interest in Law. Even
if it’s Civil Law with 'armchair attorney' enthusiasm from the same group
of forum regulars that seem to know about everything via Google Just the interest
expressed, makes it one of the better reads in awhile here. Thanks.
~popsicle
I'm absolutely an armchair amateur here, but the legal text is very readable.
That said, several media are getting it wrong, talking about the modified "appearance"
of the bricks instead of the decreased product safety.
Let me expand my meaning: The enthusiasm of and interest in law here, is what's
"heartening" to me. Not the ignorance of it's respective application,
as expressed.
HA Bricks fined BIG time for altering Lego parts, not for selling MOC's.
What will this mean for other MOC-ers? BrickMania for example sells self-designed
parts that fit on their vehicles? And the printing on torso's as well? Will
this be banned too?
Is this an attempt by Lego to secure it's MOC-line here on BL? Or is it JUST
the fact the altering of parts is NOT allowed?
I'm no lawyer, maybe someone with a background in law can elaborate on this?
Or maybe, The Lego Company?
Reading the entire thread...
It’s actually kinda heartening to see others showing such interest in Law. Even
if it’s Civil Law with 'armchair attorney' enthusiasm from the same group
of forum regulars that seem to know about everything via Google Just the interest
expressed, makes it one of the better reads in awhile here. Thanks.
~popsicle
I'm absolutely an armchair amateur here, but the legal text is very readable.
That said, several media are getting it wrong, talking about the modified "appearance"
of the bricks instead of the decreased product safety.
Let me expand my meaning: The enthusiasm of and interest in law here, is what's
"heartening" to me. Not the ignorance of it's respective application,
as expressed.
Kinda funny to watch LEGO fans on a LEGO site talk about laws on LEGO
Jeepers... I've never actually read a lot of this. I googled "LEGO
trademark case" to see if there was anything on Courthouse News or any law
blogs about this specific case and it returned a dump truck load of other cases
over the past 20 years.
Lead is also said to have been used in Bricks' construction sets.
If this is true, it is a far bigger concern than the bearing modification. Lead
in toys is an absolute no-no in the U.S. Surely it's the same in the EU?
Maybe this is the basis for the complete recall?
Netherlands, Gelderland
USA, Ohio
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Canada, Alberta
United Kingdom, England
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana
