Lego's appeal falls to pieces!

 Lego has lost its fight to have its famous building bricks protected by a trademark which is seen as a victory for its rivals in the toy market.

The Lego case highlights that it is important to identify the value of your intellectual property and protect it as far as possible from your rivals to maximise your commercial opportunities.

Lego was granted a trademark in the late 1990’s relating to the shape of their building bricks which interlock together to create a wide variety of objects.

To be granted a trademark generally, you must have a sign (including but not limited to words, shapes, numbers, numerals etc) which can be represented graphically and that differentiates itself from other goods or services.

Lego’s trademark was challenged in the UK court and it lost its battle in 2004. Lego appealed to the European courts to protect its right to trademark the shape of the building bricks.

Lego’s appeal has now been rejected on the basis that it should not have been awarded a trademark relating to the shape of the building blocks because the shape is of a “technical nature” and not significantly different from other building block toys on the market.

When protecting your intellectual property, and, in this case, a trademark, it is important to consider any limitations to your application and whether there are alternative ways to protect your intellectual property.

In this case Lego applied for a trademark on the basis that the shape of its toys was unique but its rivals made it clear that the shape was used in their toys as well. The court shared the view of Lego’s rivals and dismissed Lego’s claim to a trademark on the basis that it would be unfair on rivals to deprive them of the right to use a similar shape to Lego’s building blocks.

A related issue to the rejection of Lego’s trademark was that its patent for the building blocks had run out some years ago, which had opened up the market to competing products.

To be granted a patent, your product must be a brand new concept which is a progression from what has come before, which can be produced or used on an industrial level. However, if granted, the patent has a maximum life of 20 years, after which it will no longer protect the invention.

The view of the court was that, because Lego’s protection by patent for its building blocks had expired it had applied for a trademark as a way to try to protect its interest in the building blocks by using a different intellectual property right.

The ruling allows rivals to continue selling building bricks which are similar to Lego's in Europe as Lego has neither a trademark or patent over the building blocks.

Lego’s lawyer appears resigned to the decision by saying Lego had "no option but to note the court's ruling".

For more information on protecting your intellectual property, please contact Jim Carter, Karen Harrison, Sean O'Riordan or Matthew Read.