The Expiration of LEGO's Patent and the Truth Behind the Lawsuits

Did you know about the legal battles hidden behind the perfect interlocking system of LEGO blocks that we all played with as kids?

Hello! While assembling LEGO with my nephew recently, I got curious. Why are there so many identical knockoff blocks despite LEGO's unique interlocking system? Upon investigating, I found that LEGO's patent had already expired, leading to countless legal disputes. One of the most famous cases was the lawsuit with Canada's Mega Bloks. Today, let's explore the aftermath of LEGO's patent expiration and how the company fought to protect its kingdom.

Table of Contents

History and Expiration of LEGO's Patent Rise of Copycat Block Brands The Legal Battle with Mega Bloks The Border Between Design Protection and Functionality International Verdicts and LEGO’s Strategy New Solutions for Protecting Brand Value

History and Expiration of LEGO's Patent

LEGO's unique interlocking system received legal protection when its patent was filed in 1958. This design offered technical precision beyond a mere toy, gaining immense popularity not only with children but also with adult fans. However, like all patents, the 20-year protection period eventually expired. LEGO's key connection patent expired in 1978, and shortly after, similar products began to emerge in the market. From that point onward, LEGO had to adopt other legal strategies to maintain its exclusive market position.

Rise of Copycat Block Brands

Brand Name	Country of Launch	Features
Mega Bloks	Canada	Compatible structure with LEGO, emphasizes price competitiveness
Octo Bricks	China	Products based on animated IPs
Sluban	Netherlands	Focused marketing in European markets

The Legal Battle with Mega Bloks

After the patent expiration, the strongest competitor to LEGO was Mega Bloks from Canada. The company quickly dominated the North American market by releasing blocks that interlocked in almost the same way as LEGO. In response, LEGO filed a lawsuit for trademark and design infringement. However, the results were not favorable for LEGO. The Canadian Federal Court dismissed LEGO's claims for the following reasons:

• The block’s interlocking structure is considered a 'functional element' and is not protected.
• Trademark rights should focus on 'source identification' rather than functionality.
• Merely similar appearance does not constitute trademark infringement.

The Border Between Design Protection and Functionality

The biggest legal barrier LEGO faced was the 'distinction between functionality and design.' In intellectual property law, functional elements are protected only by patents, and once a patent expires, anyone can use the technology. Therefore, parts essential to the product's performance, such as the interlocking structure of the blocks, cannot be protected by trademarks or design registration. LEGO attempted to argue that the appearance of the blocks was central to the brand's identity, but courts in several countries rejected this claim.

International Verdicts and LEGO’s Strategy

Country	Verdict	LEGO’s Strategy Change
Canada	Refusal of trademark rights	Strengthened brand story
European Union	Invalidated 3D trademark registration	Shifted focus to marketing outside of intellectual property
USA	Denied exclusive protection	Expanded licensing strategy

New Solutions for Protecting Brand Value

Facing the limits of patent protection, LEGO employed various strategies to protect its brand value. Particularly, brand marketing based on creativity and emotion, media expansion, and IP collaborations played a crucial role in transforming LEGO from a simple block brand to a global content brand. Below are some of the key strategies LEGO adopted.

• Content IP expansion such as ‘The LEGO Movie’ series
• Development of various theme kits and expansion of adult lines
• Strengthening CSR campaigns emphasizing brand philosophy

Frequently Asked Questions

Q When exactly did LEGO's patent expire?

LEGO's connection technology patent was filed in 1958 and expired in 1978.

Q Does patent expiration mean all products can be copied?

Functional elements can be copied, but trademark and design elements can still be protected.

Q Is Mega Bloks still competing with LEGO?

Yes, Mega Bloks still sells similar blocks to LEGO and shares the market.

Q How did LEGO try to protect itself legally afterward?

LEGO tried to register 3D trademarks and protect its design, but most of these efforts were rejected.

Q What is LEGO's key strategy to differentiate from knockoffs?

LEGO differentiates itself through brand emotions, content IP expansion, and premium product lines.

Q What should consumers be aware of?

Although knockoff products are cheaper, their quality and safety can vary greatly, so it's essential to compare carefully before purchasing.

In Conclusion

It’s fascinating to think about the deep legal drama hidden behind a LEGO block! The expiration of the patent didn't mark the end of the story, and the battle to protect the brand continued. Ultimately, LEGO shifted its focus to winning over consumers' hearts rather than in the courtroom. Now, when assembling a LEGO set, we can also think about the creativity and fierce survival strategies that went into its design. What do you think? Was LEGO’s response successful? Share your thoughts in the comments below!