14

Nanoblock is an interlocking brick toy similar to LEGO.

They have an article on their website that describes their toy and compares it to LEGO. It makes the following claim:

You may wonder if there is a patent infringement case against Nanoblocks for making a copycat product similar to LEGO. The answer is no.

To avoid a patent claim, Nanoblocks are not compatible with LEGO. Nanoblocks are about one-quarter of the size of LEGO blocks.

Is it true that Nanoblock is not in violation of LEGO's patents because their copycat product is incompatible with and is not the same size as LEGO's product?

pacoverflow
  • 759
  • 1
  • 6
  • 20

2 Answers2

29

There are two very different laws in play here. Patent rights and trademarks.

One cannot violate a patent on Lego bricks, because they have all run out a long time ago.

The Wikipedia article has a relevant section on this. Therefore it is very legal from a patent point of view to produce compatible bricks (and there are several companies that do).

More complicated is the trademark aspect. Lego tries to sue everyone that attempts to sell its bricks with the statement "lego compatible" or something similar, and the use of the name "Lego" as a name for the bricks in general is contested (sometimes successfully, sometimes less so), even though that is quite common in colloquial speech.

The Canadian supreme court ruled

"Trademark law should not be used to perpetuate monopoly rights enjoyed under now-expired patents"

Bottom line: You may produce lego-compatible bricks, but you must not name them like that. It's probably best you just don't use the name "Lego" at all.

PMF
  • 5,583
  • 2
  • 19
  • 41
  • 20
    "Compatible with a popular danish brand of plastic bricks" – ScottishTapWater Dec 01 '22 at 01:39
  • Our big local retailer stocks "1000 Piece Construction Blocks Set". As you said, the product appears to be lego-compatible and it does its best to avoid problems by not using the name "Lego" anywhere. – Stephen Quan Dec 01 '22 at 02:25
  • 10
    “Building bricks derived from a system provided by a Prominent North European Modular Brick Vendor.” – KRyan Dec 01 '22 at 02:29
  • 11
    The trademark protection is really serious that even our sister site had to change its name. – Andrew T. Dec 01 '22 at 03:23
  • 2
    In a way, trademark law forces very popular companies to defend their name or they will risk losing them (Kleenex, Xerox, Thermos). – Nelson Dec 01 '22 at 05:21
  • 2
    That statement is overly broad because Lego can and does make new products and styles of bricks, which would then could be protected by utility and/or design patents. It's more like, one cannot violate the patents on Lego bricks that are older than circa 20 years (in the US), which includes the original basic bricks. – user71659 Dec 01 '22 at 06:34
  • 2
    @user71659 Yes, there are attempts to do that, but is is contested. It's probably not possible to gain a patent for each type of new brick (because it's meanwhile a common knowledge that Legos consist of a large number of shapes and colors). The construction of a new shape is just a technical job, not really art (to gain trademark and/or copyright status) or an invention any more. – PMF Dec 01 '22 at 08:12
  • 2
    @ScottishTapWater I'm fairly sure "compatible with Lego" is nominative use, but I'm not a lawyer. – user253751 Dec 01 '22 at 14:46
  • @PMF: You typically can't just grab a design patent for every new brick you design. It's simply not distinct enough for that. And a utility patent? You need to show innovation – MSalters Dec 02 '22 at 08:34
  • @MSalters That's what I'm saying. Lego won't be able to request new patents just for new bricks. They must show innovation. There was recently a story in the news that said they are looking for alternative materials to use for their bricks (for environmental reasons). Something like this may qualify, but not just a new form. – PMF Dec 02 '22 at 08:55
  • Reminds me - I think I saw, years ago, boxes of these plastic building blocks with the brand '0937' in a slightly squarish font, which just happened to look exactly like LEGO when turned upside down. – j4nd3r53n Dec 02 '22 at 10:06
  • Does the inverse also apply? Could you get in trouble for stating that your bricks are not compatible with LEGO on the basis that you are mentioning LEGO? – terdon Dec 02 '22 at 11:38
  • @terdon Good question. I guess it will be similar. Which such statements (either way) touch trademark rights will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, with an unknown outcome. – PMF Dec 02 '22 at 15:44
7

First of all, the link you've provided is not the official Nanoblock website, it is a fansite. Nanoblock is owned by the Japanese toy company Kawada, and the official website can be found here.

That means that this is not an official claim from Nanoblock. However, it is true that Nanoblock bricks do not infringe on any copyright, and not only because Nanoblock bricks are smaller than Lego.

The relevant patent for interlinking blocks that we all think of as Lego expired back in 1978. Since then, Lego has repeatedly taken companies to court for trademark violations, but in recent years this has largely failed. Judges have repeatedly ruled that the interlinking studs are a functional design, and not eligible for trademark protections.

The same is not true for Minifigures, which are still protected by an active trademark, as well as product lines like Ninjago.

Lego was successful in shutting down some copycat companies like the Lepin in China after years of legal battles, but that was for blatantly copying Lego IP, from builds to box art.

Nowadays there are plenty of reputable alternative brick brands creating original sets that do not infringe on any copyright or trademark protections, even if they are the same size as Lego bricks.

Nick Rowan
  • 71
  • 1
  • 2
  • Nanoblocks suffers the same fate. Lots of people think "nanoblocks is the name for bricks very similar to Lego but half the size", and not a brand name. And call everything that is half the size of Lego bricks "nano blocks". – gnasher729 Oct 12 '23 at 11:19
  • Out of curiosity, couldn't Lego just keep renewing the patent? – Greendrake Oct 12 '23 at 11:42
  • @Greendrake under which section of which country's patent law? – phoog Oct 12 '23 at 11:45
  • The expiration of a patent has no bearing on copyright infringement. – phoog Oct 12 '23 at 11:48
  • @phoog Dunno, I'm a patent noob. Do they just expire everywhere without any chance to renew? – Greendrake Oct 12 '23 at 11:49
  • 3
    @Greendrake Patents are not infinitly renewable - once they are run out, they are done, finito. There's only very narrow grounds to renew a patent - and that is usually reserved for pharmaceutica that spent a lot of time in clinical trials. – Trish Oct 12 '23 at 12:17
  • 2
    @phoog I don't think copyright is relevant here at all. Certainly a structure built of toy blocks may be copyrightable, but the the design of the blocks themselves is functional and therefore not copyrightable. The logo of the company in question is probably not copyrightable either, since it's just text on a red square and lacks protectable elements. The company's name is certainly not copyrightable because it's not sufficiently creative to qualify as a literary work. – A. R. Oct 12 '23 at 14:30
  • @A.R. You'd have to find a reason why a new block wouldn't be obvious. If a designer at Lego is told by his boss "we want a new block that achieves A, B and C", wouln't designing the block be obvious to someone designing these blocks, once you consider all the background knowledge, which is now common knowledge? – gnasher729 Oct 12 '23 at 15:57
  • 2
    @gnasher729 The obviousness test is for patent law. Copyright law has the functionality test. If you want "a block that achieves A, B, and C," any element of the design that works towards those goals would be deemed functional and therefore non-copyrightable. – A. R. Oct 12 '23 at 17:33
  • @A.R. I too think that copyright is irrelevant. The purpose of my comment was to point out the logical non sequitur. The intention was that thinking about this would lead to the realization that copyright is irrelevant. – phoog Oct 12 '23 at 18:45
  • @A.R. Acutally: No. The Logo of the Lego Company is just creative enough to be copyrightable under the "kleine Münze" doctrine of German copyright law. – Trish Oct 12 '23 at 22:48