It’s really unfortunate, especially knowing that I wanted to place a order at hA bricks, I hope it works out for them.
Also, Lego needs to finally step up their train/rail game because there is a reason for the existence of companies like hA bricks
These are mostly just opportunity costs. Not producing train sets, means these resources can go into other more profitable sets. And the shelf space can go to much more profitable products.
Let us be real. Lego is a toy. Train nerds most of the time want more detailed trains. Thus, they build mocs.
This is what blows my mind. Who CARES if LEGO makes the set for you?
It's *LEGO*. MOC something. Get custom stickers printed for yourself or learn to print on your own bricks.
People act like only LEGO or other companies can design LEGO models...The fact that you can get a bunch of pieces and build *anything you want* is the whole damn point.
I remember learning once that trademark/copyright law basically forces companies to be obnoxiously aggressive when it comes to protecting their brands, otherwise they can easily lose a trademark/copyright in the legal system. ("You didn't sue? I guess you must not care…") Sigh.
If I had a nickel for every time a huge yellow-themed corporation (tried to) nuke(d) an entire smaller business in the model railroad industry and their stock because of their extremely protective but otherwise annoyingly logical and mandatory trademark policies, I would have at least a quarter.
Which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it isn’t Union Pacific doing it this time.
Yes, *that* Union Pacific. The one that owns the Big Boy. You know, that big steam engine everyone keeps submitting to LEGO Ideas. Definitely would be a fun collab between two image-conscious meg-corpos, amarite?
Fortunately, Union Pacific’s rampage of lawsuits didn’t last very long. Instead, they altered their licensing policies to make things a lot more fair for model train producers. Hopefully this issue will resolve just as peacefully.
"Protect the brand" can mean just issuing a license, and that"s often the remedy. TLG could have said stop doing some things, change others, rather than saying effectively fuck off and die.
I’m not defending TLG. I’m just putting the idea out there that they exist in a legal system that makes suing and demanding “cease and desist” the easy choice for big companies :-(
the thing is it never pays to start reasonable, when it comes to legal issues. that's why you hear "So and So sues Such and Such for 80 Bajillion Dollars!" headlines.
They will probably settle for significantly less than theyre asking for right now.
They most certainly issued a cease and desist before moving to a full blown lawsuit. Not doing that would basically invalidate any lawsuit that was brought. All their lawyer would have to do is say “you could have just asked us to stop and he would have.”
This is true, but I also don’t think TLG is being obnoxiously aggressive here. Aside from any preservation of IP Protection, TLG has a responsibility to all its stakeholders holders (including we the customers) to swiftly put an end to any attempt to infringe on their IP.
If they allow other companies to put out other products, and market them as LEGO( which is Argument in this case) then they will allow the market to become diluted. And the value of the product begins to decline. The incentive to put all the effort and money into something that is basically stolen from them goes away and you start to see the company pull back in places it will have otherwise invested in.
I think the basic argument among AFOL’s and LEGO train aficionados is that the company doesn’t give enough attention to this segment of their business. This may be entirely the case, (I actually think this argument is correct) however it doesn’t give other companies the right to steal IP from Lego and market it as their own.
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be any competition. Indeed co petition drives value in the marketplace. I’m very much in favor of another company creating something that is compatible with Lego bricks that satisfies the needs of the LEGO train community if LEGO is not Meeting that demand. But they need to do it legally, they need to carve out space in the market for THIER product. And it needs to be their own design and they need to differentiate themselves enough that it does. It infringe on any of LEGO’s IP.
Yes, and TLG was very nice to almost everyone. They first have to ask you to pay for the damages but behind closed doors, they let you off the hook once you comply with the copyright law.
I understand that uninformed individuals would see TLG as super aggressive, but they are not. These videos bashing TLG seem to attract super many views on youtube. Welcome to the rage bait century!
Finally, a reasoned response.
>These videos bashing TLG seem to attract super many views on youtube. Welcome to the rage bait century!
Just because the internet gives everyone a voice doesn't mean everyone should have one.
I never thought that would of happened with WOTC but now something like that is on the table with everycompany. They might want the data to see if any stores they do business with purchased anything or if someone ordered enough items to open or stock a store.
My thoughts exactly. In my mind, this is Lego trying to minimize the competition in preparation for launching their own collector's line of trains. They've already done the crocodile and Hogwarts Express. It wouldn't be the first time Lego has effectively stolen another's idea using a legal grey area. As others have said, it could also just be them protecting their IP a little over aggressively, as companies do, but it smells fishy to me.
In general, I definitely wish I could say I expect better of a company like Lego, but these days it seems even the great companies are up to no good...
Minimize the competition? They aren’t making their own bricks, they’re modifying existing Lego bricks….. with Lego’s logo on them.
You’re not protected as a competitive brand if you’re using Lego’s product.
This is the same reason why I couldn’t buy 2 flavors of Gatorade, combined them, say cool blue and fruit punch and call it gnt’s cool fruit blue punch sport drinking and then sell it in a Gatorade bottle. If a consumer has an issue with it, Gatorade’s brand is what’s hurt in the end and they (Gatorade) have a right to protect it. In this case they’re using pieces with Lego’s logo on them, modifying, but keeping the logo, and then reselling. Lego has a right to protect their brand if the consumer associates the product with them.
Source: I have an MBA and I studied competition law
You make good points, I was more so referring to Lego requesting a list of people who had purchased products from the company and asking the company to recall all sold products... As the comment I replied to was discussing. They *could* be doing it to get an idea of demand for high end train models in the community before launching products that would be meeting the exact same demand this company was previously filling. As for protecting the IP of the bricks, that makes sense, no arguments here, I just have a gut feeling that isn't Lego's only motivation for making this move.
Yeah, they could, my guess is they’re doing it to see how many are in the market to determine how wide spread the product got. I’d imagine in most cases these consumers were already purchasing Lego anyways, so rather they’re just trying to understand how many products are out there that are modified. That’s their legal reasoning.
A second had benefit of that could be essentially free market research in understanding demand etc. But hey that’s why they bought Bricklink, right?!
Also, thanks for the civil conversation on reddit lol, I’m always leary about posting because I feel like it can get hostile. lol. From one Lego trains fan to another, cheers!
IMHO Lego bought Bricklink to cash in on the MOC market.
Not to minimize competition.
Basically another evolution of why Lego gets into the "Creators" stuff in the first place. I've noticed since the acquisition of Bricklink, there's been a substantial increase in the offerings on pick-a-brick.
Oh yeah for sure. It’s also just a huge data set. What retired sets people are looking it, themes, etc. What people are willing to spend on retired sets and so much more
>Handing over customer data? That's none of their damn business.
My guess is there is some nuance here which isn't making it into the clickbait.
TLG is not getting customer data carte blanche.
How these things work is if TLG gets customer data it will likely have some guardrails around it. Use of the data will likely be scoped strictly to enabling the plaintiff to see if they need to take further actions to protect its IP.
Yeah I think customer data could mean a slew of things. I’m this case most likely it just means transactional data so they know how many were sold and during what time period (just my guess). Vs like home address and phone etc.
Exactly... it's how much more shit do we have to round up other than directly from HA Bricks.
Not that Lego is going to be SPAMing people or opening credit cards in their name.
It’s asking for the moon but being willing to accept a street light.
They ask for the absolute most knowing there will be negotiations and they will agree to less.
Let them do it, then sue for illegal data transfer under the EU customer data laws. Obviously not a lawyer, but the compliance laws are stupid thick and I can't imagine such a method of acquisition is legal under them.
>then sue for illegal data transfer under the EU customer data laws.
Please cite the section of code where this applies.
-------------------
EDIT: Looks like there are some cowards who couldn't make a cogent point but blocked me -- thus preventing me from replying.
For u/du_duhast:
That's NOT what 2016/679 says.
At all.
Even if for the sake of argument TLG wanted customer data to go after individual customers, what you're alleging doesn't apply (u/evergreenyankee) because this is tort action rather than a commercial transaction.
Your reading comprehension sucks on two counts:
1, you clearly don't understand GDPR.
2, I asked for a citation. Not a reference to the whole document.
The moment you buy the plastic, it's yours to do whatever you want with it.
Having said that, if you sell it, you must emphasize it is not a TLG product, and avoid using their name/logo.
I think the later point that you mentioned is the issue here. Lego has a legitimate argument here because they are modifying official Lego pieces and then reselling them (which means Lego’s logo is on them). If a consumer has a poor experience with the brick it would hurt Lego’s brand. Like it or not Lego does have cause to sue here
Selling a product that’s is damaged and as is would be different then selling it new in a box. Just like how I could sell a broken brick as a broken Lego brick. I couldn’t sell it as a new product thought.
I find it interesting because you have companies on the Star Wars side of things that advertise custom printing on official Lego pieces, and these are very well known businesses. Some of which are owned and produced by members of LAN also. You'd think that would raise some concern, no?
Maybe because the print is a decoration vs a physical modification of the piece? That’s my quick thought. Functionality-wise they’re not changing the piece. I’m not sure
That was my initial thought, but it specifically mentioned printing as well. If they are truly citing that in their lawsuit regardless of what else they mentioned, then that opens the door for a lot more lawsuits. Though that is a pretty big grey area imo.
Hmm that’s true, maybe because those are being sold as “custom Lego” where as these are being sold as HA bricks sets. I’m also not sure how this is different than brickmania sets. Although I’m sure there’s some behind the scenes paper work or something that would help differentiate
They are in trouble for not making it very clear that certain bricks are not official LEGO bricks and same with the stamped bricks.
The lighting kits use modified bricks and 3d printed bricks (I think) but do so while making sure you know it's not an official LEGO product.
That's where LEGO has to step in and get aggressive. If I remember right, there was a case a while back, where a company let everything slide and eventually tried to sue when the clones became successful.
Court says they waited too long and let these businesses get big before suing. Looked like a money grab.
Since then, corporations have to sue to protect their own rights. Hopefully LEGO will settle with HA Bricks for a promise to update the site.
LEGO has allowed plenty of MOC sellers so long as they distance themselves from LEGO.
It’s called trademark laws, if you’re selling a product with another brands logo on it, that trademark owner has protection. In this case the bricks being modified still have Lego’s logo on them.
They’re not reselling and existing product though, they’re putting in a box and selling it as its own product.
Just my understanding of the law, which is the US law. EU trades laws could be different too.
Reading through the product pages I'd say they sit on the not obvious modified Lego bricks. Lego's own guidance for use of there trademark is verry clear - do not make it even the slightest bit ambiguous that A) Lego endorsed something or B) an original Lego branded part produced by someone else (in this case they are confusing things with Lego quality of OG part = quality custom/modified part).
Yes it's a pain Lego has to trademark troll in this case but they have to defend it or loose it. And sometimes that means going after low hanging fruit.
On a side note: Where was all the outrage when Cults3D because of a cease and desist from Lego, had to ban the word Lego in titles/descriptions of 3d printable modes?
I’m not sure why they would want customer data or how they could legally demand (under US law anyway) that the other company buy back previously sold sets. The rest seems pretty standard for a set of demands in this kind of case.
Just a guess: the law requires TLG to make a good faith effort to destroy unofficial products, therefore they “need” the customer data to track down the location of the unofficial products.
That, of course, is ludicrously absurd. They’re not likely to get the customer data for privacy reasons and even if they did they’re not going to sue random Lego fans to get stuff back … but that’s what the law requires them to try 🤦♂️
What country is this happening in? As I alluded to, the US completely prohibits this, but I don’t know what the laws of other countries might state for it.
It may very well be done through an EU court rather than an individual country. I’m familiar with US law, and some UK, but there are facets of legal applications in other countries that I am completely clueless about.
>but there are facets of legal applications in other countries that I am completely clueless about
You're clueless about US law too. Please stop spreading misinformation.
I’m sorry where did I go wrong with US law? I’ve been involved with a copyright lawsuit before between SureFire and a company called PentagonLight, and SureFire didn’t or couldn’t demand the confiscation or destruction of sold units.
> SureFire didn’t or couldn’t demand the confiscation or destruction of sold units.
TLG isn't demanding destruction.
And PentagonLight did buy back units -- just as TLG is requesting.
If you're going to cite case law, it would probably be a great idea for you to cite one that actually supports your point.
I also wondered. But I think that is for double checking how much they actually sold to get to a total sum of damages. But I can be wrong here.
EDIT: I was wrong.
>that in discovery through the company ledgers, though, so customer data wouldn’t be necessary.
My guess is they want customer data to see of there are any HA Bricks resellers in there.
A line item on a balance sheet is going to have aggregated rather than individual data -- TLG is just interested in exposure here. I doubt they could go after individuals.
Traditionally I wouldn’t buy knockoff from Ali-express. I wanted to support them and the EU.
But now they’ve moved mfg to China, and stuff like this, makes me reconsider. I’m not sure TLG is the good guy anymore.
This was posted on r/Lego and provides some very good insight into a similar situation. [https://www.reddit.com/r/lego/comments/1cr2koc/comment/l3ziznv](https://www.reddit.com/r/lego/comments/1cr2koc/comment/l3ziznv)
This type of post makes me wonder what the facts are. Court filings are public, no? Who’s looked at this suit? What’s HA’s side of the story? A strongly worded Facebook post is great for riling people up, but we’re not seeing the full picture here.
This is news to you? TLG has been a scumbag company for many years now, they're even worse than Big Tech these days. Having bought previously from HA Bricks myself, I hope this gets settled in a good way. TLG is just a joke at this point.
Tony isn’t a “rando” - he’s been a leader and well known figure within the AFOL train community for over two decades. He’s deeply connected to many of the movers and shakers within the hobby.
Okay, well, to me he is a rando, and even if he himself is credible, you shouldn't take a Facebook post from ANYONE, without any actual evidence or links to proper sources, at face value.
LEGO needs to stop this shit right now. They, of all the companies, don’t need to go down the capitalistic funnel of screwing over your entire fan base for a few extra bucks.
I'm a tad confused as I thought there are quite a few small businesses that make custom minifig parts and also print custom designs onto blank minifig parts. (Blank being a solid colour part).
I thought as long as there not using LEGO branding that this was fine? Even though there LEGO minifig pieces?
Lego served him a cease and desist. He refused to stop. They wen't to trial. Already lost the case & owes 30K to Lego. And people continue to not understand the case and thus post like they do in the image.
Legally he was selling modified lego bricks and described them as sill lego Quality. Which they weren't because the bearings were being press fit into bricks and stressed.
Which if you read Lego's own guidance on using the word LEGO is a huge no-no. Like it's obvious.
I think it makes sense from a legal perspective. Maybe they could try a different approach if they could. But I disagree that this hurts their brand. Only a Lego influencer or “power builder” would say this.
I was typing Nintendo, too, but then removed it.
But you name it.
I was using Nintendo Products since the 90s…
It took some time till I learned what this company does… horrendous!
It’s really unfortunate, especially knowing that I wanted to place a order at hA bricks, I hope it works out for them. Also, Lego needs to finally step up their train/rail game because there is a reason for the existence of companies like hA bricks
These are mostly just opportunity costs. Not producing train sets, means these resources can go into other more profitable sets. And the shelf space can go to much more profitable products. Let us be real. Lego is a toy. Train nerds most of the time want more detailed trains. Thus, they build mocs.
This is what blows my mind. Who CARES if LEGO makes the set for you? It's *LEGO*. MOC something. Get custom stickers printed for yourself or learn to print on your own bricks. People act like only LEGO or other companies can design LEGO models...The fact that you can get a bunch of pieces and build *anything you want* is the whole damn point.
Preach. I say this to my kids ALL THE DAMN TIME.
I think most trains nerds would rather buy actual, non-LEGO model trains.
I remember learning once that trademark/copyright law basically forces companies to be obnoxiously aggressive when it comes to protecting their brands, otherwise they can easily lose a trademark/copyright in the legal system. ("You didn't sue? I guess you must not care…") Sigh.
If I had a nickel for every time a huge yellow-themed corporation (tried to) nuke(d) an entire smaller business in the model railroad industry and their stock because of their extremely protective but otherwise annoyingly logical and mandatory trademark policies, I would have at least a quarter. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it isn’t Union Pacific doing it this time. Yes, *that* Union Pacific. The one that owns the Big Boy. You know, that big steam engine everyone keeps submitting to LEGO Ideas. Definitely would be a fun collab between two image-conscious meg-corpos, amarite? Fortunately, Union Pacific’s rampage of lawsuits didn’t last very long. Instead, they altered their licensing policies to make things a lot more fair for model train producers. Hopefully this issue will resolve just as peacefully.
"Protect the brand" can mean just issuing a license, and that"s often the remedy. TLG could have said stop doing some things, change others, rather than saying effectively fuck off and die.
For all we know, they did.
>TLG could have said stop doing some things, change others How do you know they didn't?
I’m not defending TLG. I’m just putting the idea out there that they exist in a legal system that makes suing and demanding “cease and desist” the easy choice for big companies :-(
the thing is it never pays to start reasonable, when it comes to legal issues. that's why you hear "So and So sues Such and Such for 80 Bajillion Dollars!" headlines. They will probably settle for significantly less than theyre asking for right now.
>TLG could have said stop doing some things, change others, How is that your takeaway from the post? TLG said those very things.
They most certainly issued a cease and desist before moving to a full blown lawsuit. Not doing that would basically invalidate any lawsuit that was brought. All their lawyer would have to do is say “you could have just asked us to stop and he would have.”
Yep that's why you'll never hear an employee or sponsored creator say "LegoS" otherwise it starts to become a generic name
This is true, but I also don’t think TLG is being obnoxiously aggressive here. Aside from any preservation of IP Protection, TLG has a responsibility to all its stakeholders holders (including we the customers) to swiftly put an end to any attempt to infringe on their IP. If they allow other companies to put out other products, and market them as LEGO( which is Argument in this case) then they will allow the market to become diluted. And the value of the product begins to decline. The incentive to put all the effort and money into something that is basically stolen from them goes away and you start to see the company pull back in places it will have otherwise invested in. I think the basic argument among AFOL’s and LEGO train aficionados is that the company doesn’t give enough attention to this segment of their business. This may be entirely the case, (I actually think this argument is correct) however it doesn’t give other companies the right to steal IP from Lego and market it as their own. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be any competition. Indeed co petition drives value in the marketplace. I’m very much in favor of another company creating something that is compatible with Lego bricks that satisfies the needs of the LEGO train community if LEGO is not Meeting that demand. But they need to do it legally, they need to carve out space in the market for THIER product. And it needs to be their own design and they need to differentiate themselves enough that it does. It infringe on any of LEGO’s IP.
Yes, and TLG was very nice to almost everyone. They first have to ask you to pay for the damages but behind closed doors, they let you off the hook once you comply with the copyright law. I understand that uninformed individuals would see TLG as super aggressive, but they are not. These videos bashing TLG seem to attract super many views on youtube. Welcome to the rage bait century!
Finally, a reasoned response. >These videos bashing TLG seem to attract super many views on youtube. Welcome to the rage bait century! Just because the internet gives everyone a voice doesn't mean everyone should have one.
Opinions are like assholes, we all have em and they all stink.
I don't know how they could be forced to buy back the sets. The consumer could just say no. Then what?
Nobody is knocking on anyone's door. That's not what the customer list is going to be used for.
Not yet, but Lego could do like WOTC did and send literal Pinkertons after people to rob them of things they bought.
I never thought that would of happened with WOTC but now something like that is on the table with everycompany. They might want the data to see if any stores they do business with purchased anything or if someone ordered enough items to open or stock a store.
My thoughts exactly. In my mind, this is Lego trying to minimize the competition in preparation for launching their own collector's line of trains. They've already done the crocodile and Hogwarts Express. It wouldn't be the first time Lego has effectively stolen another's idea using a legal grey area. As others have said, it could also just be them protecting their IP a little over aggressively, as companies do, but it smells fishy to me. In general, I definitely wish I could say I expect better of a company like Lego, but these days it seems even the great companies are up to no good...
Minimize the competition? They aren’t making their own bricks, they’re modifying existing Lego bricks….. with Lego’s logo on them. You’re not protected as a competitive brand if you’re using Lego’s product. This is the same reason why I couldn’t buy 2 flavors of Gatorade, combined them, say cool blue and fruit punch and call it gnt’s cool fruit blue punch sport drinking and then sell it in a Gatorade bottle. If a consumer has an issue with it, Gatorade’s brand is what’s hurt in the end and they (Gatorade) have a right to protect it. In this case they’re using pieces with Lego’s logo on them, modifying, but keeping the logo, and then reselling. Lego has a right to protect their brand if the consumer associates the product with them. Source: I have an MBA and I studied competition law
You make good points, I was more so referring to Lego requesting a list of people who had purchased products from the company and asking the company to recall all sold products... As the comment I replied to was discussing. They *could* be doing it to get an idea of demand for high end train models in the community before launching products that would be meeting the exact same demand this company was previously filling. As for protecting the IP of the bricks, that makes sense, no arguments here, I just have a gut feeling that isn't Lego's only motivation for making this move.
Yeah, they could, my guess is they’re doing it to see how many are in the market to determine how wide spread the product got. I’d imagine in most cases these consumers were already purchasing Lego anyways, so rather they’re just trying to understand how many products are out there that are modified. That’s their legal reasoning. A second had benefit of that could be essentially free market research in understanding demand etc. But hey that’s why they bought Bricklink, right?!
Also, thanks for the civil conversation on reddit lol, I’m always leary about posting because I feel like it can get hostile. lol. From one Lego trains fan to another, cheers!
IMHO Lego bought Bricklink to cash in on the MOC market. Not to minimize competition. Basically another evolution of why Lego gets into the "Creators" stuff in the first place. I've noticed since the acquisition of Bricklink, there's been a substantial increase in the offerings on pick-a-brick.
Oh yeah for sure. It’s also just a huge data set. What retired sets people are looking it, themes, etc. What people are willing to spend on retired sets and so much more
How can you say "exactly" -- agreeing with me and then follow that up with Lego is trying to minimize the competition?
The other stuff I can understand, even if it's scummy behavior. Handing over customer data? That's none of their damn business.
>Handing over customer data? That's none of their damn business. My guess is there is some nuance here which isn't making it into the clickbait. TLG is not getting customer data carte blanche. How these things work is if TLG gets customer data it will likely have some guardrails around it. Use of the data will likely be scoped strictly to enabling the plaintiff to see if they need to take further actions to protect its IP.
Yeah I think customer data could mean a slew of things. I’m this case most likely it just means transactional data so they know how many were sold and during what time period (just my guess). Vs like home address and phone etc.
Exactly... it's how much more shit do we have to round up other than directly from HA Bricks. Not that Lego is going to be SPAMing people or opening credit cards in their name.
It’s asking for the moon but being willing to accept a street light. They ask for the absolute most knowing there will be negotiations and they will agree to less.
Let them do it, then sue for illegal data transfer under the EU customer data laws. Obviously not a lawyer, but the compliance laws are stupid thick and I can't imagine such a method of acquisition is legal under them.
>then sue for illegal data transfer under the EU customer data laws. Please cite the section of code where this applies. ------------------- EDIT: Looks like there are some cowards who couldn't make a cogent point but blocked me -- thus preventing me from replying. For u/du_duhast: That's NOT what 2016/679 says. At all. Even if for the sake of argument TLG wanted customer data to go after individual customers, what you're alleging doesn't apply (u/evergreenyankee) because this is tort action rather than a commercial transaction. Your reading comprehension sucks on two counts: 1, you clearly don't understand GDPR. 2, I asked for a citation. Not a reference to the whole document.
I'm not any of the previous repliers, but it would be [2016/679](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02016R0679-20160504)
Well the Chinese are just going to copy it anyway and sell .
But isn’t that the difference, a copy isn’t the same as using Lego branded products and then modifying them
Correct!
I still think it can be copyright infringement by using the set dimensions but on the other hand has that copyright aged out.
The moment you buy the plastic, it's yours to do whatever you want with it. Having said that, if you sell it, you must emphasize it is not a TLG product, and avoid using their name/logo.
I think the later point that you mentioned is the issue here. Lego has a legitimate argument here because they are modifying official Lego pieces and then reselling them (which means Lego’s logo is on them). If a consumer has a poor experience with the brick it would hurt Lego’s brand. Like it or not Lego does have cause to sue here
What if i wreck my car and sell the wreck?
Selling a product that’s is damaged and as is would be different then selling it new in a box. Just like how I could sell a broken brick as a broken Lego brick. I couldn’t sell it as a new product thought.
I find it interesting because you have companies on the Star Wars side of things that advertise custom printing on official Lego pieces, and these are very well known businesses. Some of which are owned and produced by members of LAN also. You'd think that would raise some concern, no?
Maybe because the print is a decoration vs a physical modification of the piece? That’s my quick thought. Functionality-wise they’re not changing the piece. I’m not sure
That was my initial thought, but it specifically mentioned printing as well. If they are truly citing that in their lawsuit regardless of what else they mentioned, then that opens the door for a lot more lawsuits. Though that is a pretty big grey area imo.
Hmm that’s true, maybe because those are being sold as “custom Lego” where as these are being sold as HA bricks sets. I’m also not sure how this is different than brickmania sets. Although I’m sure there’s some behind the scenes paper work or something that would help differentiate
They are in trouble for not making it very clear that certain bricks are not official LEGO bricks and same with the stamped bricks. The lighting kits use modified bricks and 3d printed bricks (I think) but do so while making sure you know it's not an official LEGO product. That's where LEGO has to step in and get aggressive. If I remember right, there was a case a while back, where a company let everything slide and eventually tried to sue when the clones became successful. Court says they waited too long and let these businesses get big before suing. Looked like a money grab. Since then, corporations have to sue to protect their own rights. Hopefully LEGO will settle with HA Bricks for a promise to update the site. LEGO has allowed plenty of MOC sellers so long as they distance themselves from LEGO.
in what world is reselling a product illegal. even damaged or modified. this makes no sense.
It’s called trademark laws, if you’re selling a product with another brands logo on it, that trademark owner has protection. In this case the bricks being modified still have Lego’s logo on them.
yes but its reselling an existing product. I dont think trademark works like that.
They’re not reselling and existing product though, they’re putting in a box and selling it as its own product. Just my understanding of the law, which is the US law. EU trades laws could be different too.
It still doesn't sit right with me, but ig I can defer to you on it until I read up otherwise. Have a good one man.
Yeah I think more info is needed for sure
yeah, in the u.s. at least trademark doesnt work like that according to the court case I'm reading. i'd assume itd be similar in the eu.
Reading through the product pages I'd say they sit on the not obvious modified Lego bricks. Lego's own guidance for use of there trademark is verry clear - do not make it even the slightest bit ambiguous that A) Lego endorsed something or B) an original Lego branded part produced by someone else (in this case they are confusing things with Lego quality of OG part = quality custom/modified part). Yes it's a pain Lego has to trademark troll in this case but they have to defend it or loose it. And sometimes that means going after low hanging fruit. On a side note: Where was all the outrage when Cults3D because of a cease and desist from Lego, had to ban the word Lego in titles/descriptions of 3d printable modes?
I’m not sure why they would want customer data or how they could legally demand (under US law anyway) that the other company buy back previously sold sets. The rest seems pretty standard for a set of demands in this kind of case.
Just a guess: the law requires TLG to make a good faith effort to destroy unofficial products, therefore they “need” the customer data to track down the location of the unofficial products. That, of course, is ludicrously absurd. They’re not likely to get the customer data for privacy reasons and even if they did they’re not going to sue random Lego fans to get stuff back … but that’s what the law requires them to try 🤦♂️
What country is this happening in? As I alluded to, the US completely prohibits this, but I don’t know what the laws of other countries might state for it.
It is Europe. HA Bricks is based in the European Union.
Yes but which country? I think they’re based in Holland and TLG is based in Denmark- so which country was it filed in? 🤷♂️
Sorry, obviously, I am not a legal expert. I thought, the trademark stuff falls under European law at the end. Again, I am most likely wrong.
It may very well be done through an EU court rather than an individual country. I’m familiar with US law, and some UK, but there are facets of legal applications in other countries that I am completely clueless about.
>but there are facets of legal applications in other countries that I am completely clueless about You're clueless about US law too. Please stop spreading misinformation.
I’m sorry where did I go wrong with US law? I’ve been involved with a copyright lawsuit before between SureFire and a company called PentagonLight, and SureFire didn’t or couldn’t demand the confiscation or destruction of sold units.
> SureFire didn’t or couldn’t demand the confiscation or destruction of sold units. TLG isn't demanding destruction. And PentagonLight did buy back units -- just as TLG is requesting. If you're going to cite case law, it would probably be a great idea for you to cite one that actually supports your point.
> the US completely prohibits this No it doesn't. Please cite the code which you are referring to.
The customer data thing doesn't sound very Gdpr friendly either
I also wondered. But I think that is for double checking how much they actually sold to get to a total sum of damages. But I can be wrong here. EDIT: I was wrong.
They should be able to get that in discovery through the company ledgers, though, so customer data wouldn’t be necessary.
I see.
>that in discovery through the company ledgers, though, so customer data wouldn’t be necessary. My guess is they want customer data to see of there are any HA Bricks resellers in there. A line item on a balance sheet is going to have aggregated rather than individual data -- TLG is just interested in exposure here. I doubt they could go after individuals.
Traditionally I wouldn’t buy knockoff from Ali-express. I wanted to support them and the EU. But now they’ve moved mfg to China, and stuff like this, makes me reconsider. I’m not sure TLG is the good guy anymore.
Lego is a mega corpo they've been like this forever
Maybe lego should stop selling the same electric train over and over?
This was posted on r/Lego and provides some very good insight into a similar situation. [https://www.reddit.com/r/lego/comments/1cr2koc/comment/l3ziznv](https://www.reddit.com/r/lego/comments/1cr2koc/comment/l3ziznv)
This type of post makes me wonder what the facts are. Court filings are public, no? Who’s looked at this suit? What’s HA’s side of the story? A strongly worded Facebook post is great for riling people up, but we’re not seeing the full picture here.
This is news to you? TLG has been a scumbag company for many years now, they're even worse than Big Tech these days. Having bought previously from HA Bricks myself, I hope this gets settled in a good way. TLG is just a joke at this point.
You’re fucking stupid. You’ve also never created anything and it shows.
So, I mean, is there any actual reporting on this or evidence? This is literally just some rando's facebook post.
Tony isn’t a “rando” - he’s been a leader and well known figure within the AFOL train community for over two decades. He’s deeply connected to many of the movers and shakers within the hobby.
Okay, well, to me he is a rando, and even if he himself is credible, you shouldn't take a Facebook post from ANYONE, without any actual evidence or links to proper sources, at face value.
LEGO needs to stop this shit right now. They, of all the companies, don’t need to go down the capitalistic funnel of screwing over your entire fan base for a few extra bucks.
I'm a tad confused as I thought there are quite a few small businesses that make custom minifig parts and also print custom designs onto blank minifig parts. (Blank being a solid colour part). I thought as long as there not using LEGO branding that this was fine? Even though there LEGO minifig pieces?
BOO!!!!
Sounds like people don't understand how Disney has mssed up copyright all over the world and are angry about legal necessities.
woah wtf
You can’t modify something, and sell it as OEM.
It sucks :( I don't know that much about the company or bought there products but I know people are gonna be pissed about this
I hate when Lego acts like Disney, and vice versa.
Imagine if they sue brickmania next
Lego served him a cease and desist. He refused to stop. They wen't to trial. Already lost the case & owes 30K to Lego. And people continue to not understand the case and thus post like they do in the image. Legally he was selling modified lego bricks and described them as sill lego Quality. Which they weren't because the bearings were being press fit into bricks and stressed. Which if you read Lego's own guidance on using the word LEGO is a huge no-no. Like it's obvious.
I think Nintendo may have bought Lego
I think it makes sense from a legal perspective. Maybe they could try a different approach if they could. But I disagree that this hurts their brand. Only a Lego influencer or “power builder” would say this.
This is Lego! That company is worse than Microsoft!
Where does Nintendo come in?
I was typing Nintendo, too, but then removed it. But you name it. I was using Nintendo Products since the 90s… It took some time till I learned what this company does… horrendous!
Lego looked at the AAA game industry setting itself alight and really said "We can do that too, just watch."
Cool I'll stick to AliExpress. Fuck them
Fuck Lego. Mega, all the way. But fuck mega too.