Back in September 2016, The LEGO Company started their legal battle against companies that produced knockoff sets. In what appears to be a landmark victory and a first step to take on counterfeiters, The LEGO Group has announced that the LEGO logo and name is now a “well-known” trademark in China meaning that it can now take action against companies that infringe on the trademark.
The Beijing Higher Court passed a ruling earlier this year [July 22, 2017] that recognises the LEGO® logo and the LEGO name in Chinese as ’well-known’ trademarks in China. The well-known trademark recognition is an important milestone in getting broader protection for LEGO trademarks in China. This means that the LEGO Group is now in a better position to act against infringement of LEGO trademarks, also outside the toy category.
Peter Thorslund Kjær, Vice President, Legal Affairs in the LEGO Group, said: “The ruling by the Beijing Higher Court is very important for the LEGO Group. It reflects the significant effort and investment put into marketing the LEGO brand and products towards the Chinese consumers, and it further reduces the risk that consumers in China are misled when they see the LEGO logo or the LEGO name in future. We are now in a better legal position acting against infringement of LEGO trademarks and defending our trademark portfolio.
“We see this as a recognition of our status in China as a known and loved brand by parents and children, and we appreciate the support from the Chinese government and authorities to ensure the continued protection of millions of Chinese consumers as well as our unique trademark and logo.”
The LEGO Group actively protects its trademarks globally and each year brings relevant cases to courts to ensure that consumers can always trust that a product carrying the LEGO logo or featuring the characteristic LEGO design is genuine.
“Since 1932 the LEGO name and the LEGO logo have been a guarantee of the highest safety and quality standards. We are committed to doing what it takes to protect children and assure parents that when a product features a LEGO logo it will offer the best quality, as well as be great fun to play with. We will continue to take action globally when we see attempts to mislead consumers and infringement of our trademarks and copyrights,” said Thorslund Kjær.
What consumers can do to ensure they get a genuine LEGO experience:
Look for the LEGO logo and LEGO name on the product
Look for the LEGO name on the bricks inside the box. Every genuine LEGO element has the LEGO name on it.
What makes LEGO products unique:All LEGO elements made since 1958 fit together.
Each element has to pass thorough tests to ensure the durability and clutch power as well as physical safety requirements.
All raw materials used to manufacture LEGO bricks are thoroughly tested to ensure they meet the strictest global requirements for safety.
When you make a purchase or, sometimes, carry out some other action as direct result of clicking on a link at The Brick Fan, we will receive a small commission.
The Brick Fan is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
We partner with Rakuten Advertising, who may collect personal information when you interact with our site. The collection and use of this information is subject to the privacy policy located here: https://rakutenadvertising.com/legal-notices/services-privacy-policy/
Great news.
Now if only The Lego Group will stop copying from itself (e.g. 10189 Taj Mahel Take II)
THANK THE LORD!
Yes, finally! I’m so sick of Lepin.
Weird response. What have Lepin done to you personally?
I could say quite a bit about this subject, but most of the facts are summed up in Purple Dave’s comments above. Taking the design of LEGO pieces is one thing, but when a company starts directly stealing set designs it is shamelessly lazy and greedy. And then, when they started to see LEGO as a greater threat, they began stealing from those who have little chance of defending themselves in court (AFOLs). That, for me, was what went too far: Crime against those who can’t fight back.
Lepin will need to change their Logo, but I’m not sure what other effects this will have.
Given how backwards the Chinese legal system appears to be, it wouldn’t shock me if this was a necessary step to being able to further stem the tide of blatant copyright violation that happens quite openly over there. In the past, they had to have a posse of lawyers running around the Chinese toy fair on the lookout for copied LEGO set designs so they could have them kicked out of the event. Moving some of their operations to China gave them a change in status under Chinese corporate law that made that process more streamlined, but it obviously didn’t shut everything down cold, as Lepin proves.
Thanks for sharing that story. Hadn’t heard that one. I have heard that the Chinese legal system is a little wonky though.
I remember reading that one of the companies was paying AFOLs to design their sets which was a really interesting predicament. (If I was running the knock-off companies, that’s the avenue I would pursue).
I also always hold out hope that Lego will realize Lego exclusives fuel the knockoff business, but that would probably require different departments at Lego to talk to each other.
That company is a division of Lepin (can’t remember the name), and at least one of said AFOLs has refuted the “partnering” bit. There’s a theory that they did that because AFOLs have less ability to sue than companies, and that by announcing that they were licensing the designs from AFOLs it’d make buying their copyright infringement more appealing.
What I’ve heard about the Chinese legal system is that everyone from clones to copiers are welcomed into their toy fair with open arms. As they get found, they get reported, and they get kicked out. In the meantime, they can take tons of orders which aren’t even remotely affected by their inability to stick around for the conclusion. In fact, they probably keep getting more orders after they leave. They don’t get into any legal trouble, either. They just have to exit the toy fair event.
To get any legal traction, they started making LEGO parts there. To do that, they had to source their proprietary blend of ABS from Chinese companies. Not being remotely dumb enough to hand over their recipe, they had to figure out a different formula just for Chinese manufacturing (this is probably why early CMF’s felt so fake). To get even greater legal leverage (and to have more control over how their molds are used when they’re not supposed to be in use) they had to open up their own plant instead of outsourcing the production as they had been doing.
In the US, when you file a patent, it may give companies a blueprint for how to copy your success at some point down the road, but it also gives you protection from having someone copy it right out of the gate. The Chinese legal system seems to be geared more towards state-sponsored corporate espionage. In order to do business there, you keep having to reveal a little more of your process over time, and once you let your secrets out its tough as nails to stop anyone from taking advantage of you.
In other words, never start or expand a business in China.
There is too much money in China to ignore.
Of course, if you can sell in Asia, then you don’t have to worry about transporting.
I also wonder when counterfeiting (as opposed to knock-offs) is going to be a concern.
Yeah, nobody cared for the plastic the early CFMs were made of. I hadn’t heard the explanation about the outsourcing and purposely using a different formula, but it makes sense. Thanks for sharing that.
I’m always interested in the business side of Lego as well.
Share your molds, and they can counterfeit for a day. Share your proprietary plastic formula and you can never take it back.
As for doing business in China, the savings aren’t as great as people think. I read that as long as Chinese wages are 1/4 what US wages are, it’s profitable to outsource manufacturing. Once they get up to about 1/3 US wages, you lose your savings in transport costs because Chinese factories just aren’t as efficient as domestic ones, and the output tends to be shoddier. At that point, you’re just better off producing in Mexico. That’s all stuff that factored into the decision to pull production of more basic elements out of China and set up shop in Hungary and the Czech Republic. Wages are still lower in both countries, but the output is better and the parts are a lot closer to their primary market.
The wage threshold has gotten a lot more complicated in the last two decades. It used to be that Chinese factories were primarily staffed by people who would work for a few years, save up some money, and use that to buy a plot of land where they could do subsistence farming for the rest of their lives. Then their workers realized if they just stayed in the factory job, they could make a lot more money than any of the traditional prospects in China, and they could afford to start buying some of the stuff they were making instead of just getting by for the rest of their lives. And the longer they work there, the more they expect to earn. Couple that with the fact that China finally stopped pegging their currency to the US dollar, and factory owners and managers who want to stay competitive for manufacturing contracts, and that’s where you end up with people making phones for the company that’s reported to have the largest cash reserves in the world jumping off of factory roofs to protest low wages.
Currently, all I know that they actually make in China is CMFs (100%), keychain minifigs, and those one-time-use sculpted minifig body parts that always ship in an individual bags when they’re included in sets.