Frank Brickowski Posted February 25, 2021 Author Posted February 25, 2021 1 hour ago, roxio said: Apart from Bluebrixx 101474 Ghostbusters Ecto rip off they labelled as classic NY Ambulance. Taken down as not 100% legal Nothing but 100% claim since you know nothing about it except that it is not there.
Captain_chaos Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 Quoted from the Lego website: "Produced under license of Ferrari S.p.A. The name FERRARI, the PRANCING HORSE device, all associated logos and distinctive designs are property of Ferrari S.p.A. The body designs of the Ferrari cars are protected as Ferrari S.p.A. property under design, trademark and trade dress regulations." 10 hours ago, BrickLover80 said: I'm not a lawyer or an IP expert. And I'm guessing that's true for most if not everyone posting here. So we should all take it a bit easier with our definitive statements on the legality of these sets. I know that when you build with bricks, many of the design features that make the model protected are not exactly replicated. I also know that the model has been for sale in Germany for a while and if it were as clear cut as you make it out to be, the item would no longer be for sale. In fact, differently from the Lego minifigures knock-offs, there doesn't even be an attempt to get the car off the shelves. So most likely, it is a bit of grey area, which is why Ferrari is not going after Cada. But as others have said, I don't think there is much to be gained from continuing to argue over this issue. I'm more worried about more people watching YouTube videos and buying Lego as investment than a Lego competitor taking a significant market share in the US. I understand taking a more cautious view, but I suspect that the reason the Cada Ferrari hasn't already been pulled is quite simply obscurity. It clearly isn't available from major retailers in Germany, and is seemingly a 'grey' import from China, so could simply be flying under the radar due to tiny volumes of sales. It doesn't really seem to be 'on the shelves' in the first place. 1
Frank Brickowski Posted February 25, 2021 Author Posted February 25, 2021 11 hours ago, Mark Twain said: Yes, the design itself is protected as a whole. And no, it is not "legally dicey" if the design is somehow magically not protected when it comes to Lego or any other brick built project. The registration is for the "car and toy-car" design and the actual filing goes into great detail about what make the design itself unique: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/ADO/2020/3.html Then Ferrari should sue Cada in Germany. Why don't they?
Frank Brickowski Posted February 25, 2021 Author Posted February 25, 2021 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Captain_chaos said: Quoted from the Lego website: "Produced under license of Ferrari S.p.A. The name FERRARI, the PRANCING HORSE device, all associated logos and distinctive designs are property of Ferrari S.p.A. The body designs of the Ferrari cars are protected as Ferrari S.p.A. property under design, trademark and trade dress regulations." I understand taking a more cautious view, but I suspect that the reason the Cada Ferrari hasn't already been pulled is quite simply obscurity. It clearly isn't available from major retailers in Germany, and is seemingly a 'grey' import from China, so could simply be flying under the radar due to tiny volumes of sales. It doesn't really seem to be 'on the shelves' in the first place. Once again you have no clue what you're talking about, sorry. The Cada car actually isn't available at the moment because it's so popular is has simply been SOLD OUT over the past weeks (or even months) - which you of course do not know because you're oh so well-informed. In Germany we even have a GENERAL IMPORTER for Cada! Meaning all retailers can buy sets from him directly in Germany, no need to import anything from China. The video "Held der Steine" made about the Cada car has close to 900,000 views on his channel alone + millions of additional views via reaction videos across YouTube. You call that "obscure" and "tiny volumes of sales"? Honestly, what you claim is just laughable. Edited February 25, 2021 by Frank Brickowski
Frank Brickowski Posted February 25, 2021 Author Posted February 25, 2021 (edited) 21 hours ago, Captain_chaos said: The pictures you've posted show that you are wrong. The real vehicles clearly do not match the Lego models. Shapes, headlights, paint schemes, crane winch position, etc. All different. The F1 car looks like a generic representation of an F1 car from about 2010-2013. F1 cars (and LMP1) are designed within narrow regulatory constraints, so of course they look similar. All F1 cars from different manufacturers, using wholly unique chassis and engines, still look similar because of that. However, the Lego model clearly is not of any Ferrari F1 car (or any specific car at all). The colour scheme is obviously different, aero parts are not replicated, and the model looks no more like a Ferrari than any of the other manufacturers on the grid at that time. Another question: Since you say LEGO's "Grand Prix Racer" looks "like a generic F1 car" and the "Formula 1" as an organization also holds certain IPs, copyrights etc. - whould LEGO not need an overall F1 license to be allowed to sell a "generic F1 car" because outside of the F1 such cars don't even exist? Using the well-recognizable F1 car desing and the "look and feel" of the F1 without any license seems a bit shady to me. Edited February 25, 2021 by Frank Brickowski
Frank Brickowski Posted February 25, 2021 Author Posted February 25, 2021 19 hours ago, JoshB said: However, there is one set that I feel LEGO pushed the limits on and has not been mentioned in here and that is the Blue Power Jet which clearly resembles an F-35. The only difference being the color and the LEGO version being a two-seater. I would think that of all the sets LEGO has produced this one may be one that you could use to back up your argument regarding what does and does not require licensing to produce. I would be interested to know how LEGO justified producing this set. Maybe they communicated with Lockheed Martin and got the OK to produce it without a licensing agreement? IDK. Just to make sure everybody knows what we're talking about:
roxio Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 44 minutes ago, Frank Brickowski said: Nothing but 100% claim since you know nothing about it except that it is not there. Well why don't you inform us why it isn't there? The reasonable assertion was they had to take it down. Do you know otherwise?
Frank Brickowski Posted February 25, 2021 Author Posted February 25, 2021 (edited) 42 minutes ago, roxio said: Well why don't you inform us why it isn't there? The reasonable assertion was they had to take it down. Do you know otherwise? I already answered this question: I don't know. Since there is no information available for anyone, every "argument" you provide is pure speculation. If you're so interested, why don't you write them a mail and ask? And by the way: Should you be looking for the answer "It was taken down because selling it would have infringed copyrights.", you should be careful what you wish for argumentation-wise. Because if they did really take the Ecto down because it could have infrinfed rights (BEFORE EVEN GOING ON SALE, by the way), this would only proof that all the models they DO offer on their site and in their shops are legally sold because if they knew there would be an infringement they would take them down, too. So, why don't you just go with the movie vehicles of the A Team, Airwolf, Dukes of Hazzard, Blues Brothers, Magnum, Knight Rider, Taxi Taxi, The Fall Guy, Daktari, or anything else that IS being sold instead of contemplating about Ecto-1 you can also get from LEGO? Edited February 25, 2021 by Frank Brickowski
CosmicSpeed Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 1 hour ago, Frank Brickowski said: Another question: Since you say LEGO's "Grand Prix Racer" looks "like a generic F1 car" and the "Formula 1" as an organization also holds certain IPs, copyrights etc. - whould LEGO not need an overall F1 license to be allowed to sell a "generic F1 car" because outside of the F1 such cars don't even exist? Using the well-recognizable F1 car desing and the "look and feel" of the F1 without any license seems a bit shady to me. Nothing about the design of a Ferrari is "generic". When you look at the sets you mentioned, the Lego sets are an amalgamation of what a general vehicle looks like, whether it be the Grand Prix Racer, 24 Hour Race Car or Crane. I would even argue the Blue Power Jet isn't the F35, but could also be the F22, so therefore an another mixture of design. The Ferrari from Cada will eventually catch the radar of Ferrari licensing. And by that time, the set will probably never return and remain "sold out". 2
FuzzyB Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 Since Cada neither use the logo nor any protected design, why exactly should they pay anything to Ferrari for using what? The design of the car is not protected, NOT PROTECTED. How many times do I have to repeat this? If something is not protected, anyone can use it. Why don't you just link me to the page that shows the design IS protected if you're so sure about it?Here’s a link: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD904926S1/en?oq=Usd904926Companies take their designs and IP seriously. They are required to do so, otherwise they can lose their rights to defend their IP.
Frank Brickowski Posted February 25, 2021 Author Posted February 25, 2021 10 minutes ago, FuzzyB said: Here’s a link: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD904926S1/en?oq=Usd904926 Companies take their designs and IP seriously. They are required to do so, otherwise they can lose their rights to defend their IP. Thanks, but "Decorative ornament with surface ornamentation"? I don't get what is protected there in the first place and what categories of products the protection covers.
Frank Brickowski Posted February 25, 2021 Author Posted February 25, 2021 17 minutes ago, CosmicSpeed said: Nothing about the design of a Ferrari is "generic". When you look at the sets you mentioned, the Lego sets are an amalgamation of what a general vehicle looks like, whether it be the Grand Prix Racer, 24 Hour Race Car or Crane. I would even argue the Blue Power Jet isn't the F35, but could also be the F22, so therefore an another mixture of design. The Ferrari from Cada will eventually catch the radar of Ferrari licensing. And by that time, the set will probably never return and remain "sold out". You did not answer any part of my question. Moreover: What do you mean "eventually"? You mean after 2 years being sold in a quantity of thousands (in broad daylight) by several retailers, being reviewed in multiple videos viewed by millions etc.? How do you come to the assumption LEGO very much know what they can do and all the others don't?
Captain_chaos Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 2 hours ago, Frank Brickowski said: Once again you have no clue what you're talking about, sorry. The Cada car actually isn't available at the moment because it's so popular is has simply been SOLD OUT over the past weeks (or even months) - which you of course do not know because you're oh so well-informed. In Germany we even have a GENERAL IMPORTER for Cada! Meaning all retailers can buy sets from him directly in Germany, no need to import anything from China. The video "Held der Steine" made about the Cada car has close to 900,000 views on his channel alone + millions of additional views via reaction videos across YouTube. You call that "obscure" and "tiny volumes of sales"? Honestly, what you claim is just laughable. I didn't know that everybody who watches a Youtube video buys the product featured. I guess Bugatti have sold millions of Chirons, rather than the 250 or so they claim. Show us some sales figures. All those 900,000 views mean is that the sanctimonious idiot running the channel is increasing his chances of facing legal repercussions. Besides, who cares if there is a general importer in Germany? If I wanted to buy crack cocaine I wouldn't have to deal with the Colombian Cartel, I could get it from a local dealer in the UK. Doesn't mean it is in any way legal. Show us the major German retailers stocking this. Go on... 1 hour ago, Frank Brickowski said: Another question: Since you say LEGO's "Grand Prix Racer" looks "like a generic F1 car" and the "Formula 1" as an organization also holds certain IPs, copyrights etc. - whould LEGO not need an overall F1 license to be allowed to sell a "generic F1 car" because outside of the F1 such cars don't even exist? Using the well-recognizable F1 car desing and the "look and feel" of the F1 without any license seems a bit shady to me. So it seems shady for Lego to use a generic representation, but not for some other company you inexplicably like to defend to use an exact model of a Ferrari? I can't believe you still don't accept the difference. Do yourself a favour and never represent yourself in any court, no matter how small. Whatever the lawyer charges will be worth it to save you from yourself. 1
Frank Brickowski Posted February 25, 2021 Author Posted February 25, 2021 1 minute ago, Captain_chaos said: I didn't know that everybody who watches a Youtube video buys the product featured. I guess Bugatti have sold millions of Chirons, rather than the 250 or so they claim. Show us some sales figures. I never said anybody who watches the video buys the product. I said the set was sold out - first it went sold out after the HdS video review was published, by the way. Total coincidence, I know. 1 minute ago, Captain_chaos said: All those 900,000 views mean is that the sanctimonious idiot running the channel is increasing his chances of facing legal repercussions. Yeah, he really must be an idiot because he actually said very recently the LEGO NES, Medieval Blacksmith and Harry Potter Moments are good sets. How many videos have you actually watched and how much of what was said did you actually understand? What legal repercussions should be waiting for a product review? Laughable, once again. 1 minute ago, Captain_chaos said: Besides, who cares if there is a general importer in Germany? If I wanted to buy crack cocaine I wouldn't have to deal with the Colombian Cartel, I could get it from a local dealer in the UK. Doesn't mean it is in any way legal. Show us the major German retailers stocking this. Go on... Buying crack? I'm not going to answer this Kindergarten-level debris. 1 minute ago, Captain_chaos said: So it seems shady for Lego to use a generic representation, but not for some other company you inexplicably like to defend to use an exact model of a Ferrari? I can't believe you still don't accept the difference. Do yourself a favour and never represent yourself in any court, no matter how small. Whatever the lawyer charges will be worth it to save you from yourself. Looking at your crack comparison above once again, I shall profit the most from not listening to any advice you give.
Alpinemaps Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 51 minutes ago, Frank Brickowski said: You did not answer any part of my question. Moreover: What do you mean "eventually"? You mean after 2 years being sold in a quantity of thousands (in broad daylight) by several retailers, being reviewed in multiple videos viewed by millions etc.? How do you come to the assumption LEGO very much know what they can do and all the others don't? Lepin was around far longer than 2 years before LEGO took action against them. That really doesn't matter. 58 minutes ago, Frank Brickowski said: Thanks, but "Decorative ornament with surface ornamentation"? I don't get what is protected there in the first place and what categories of products the protection covers. If you can't understand that, then we can't help you understand. Which means you are just trolling at this point. The argument is going in circles because you are being obtuse. I'm two seconds away from shutting this thread down. 7 2
Brystheguy Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 3 minutes ago, Alpinemaps said: I'm two seconds away from shutting this thread down. One, two, please do! 1
brickvoyeur Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 9 minutes ago, Brystheguy said: One, two, please do! Three, four 2
zaphoid Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 shut it down this move this whole thing to the Bogus Bricks Club where it belongs
JoshB Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, CosmicSpeed said: Nothing about the design of a Ferrari is "generic". When you look at the sets you mentioned, the Lego sets are an amalgamation of what a general vehicle looks like, whether it be the Grand Prix Racer, 24 Hour Race Car or Crane. I would even argue the Blue Power Jet isn't the F35, but could also be the F22, so therefore an another mixture of design. The Ferrari from Cada will eventually catch the radar of Ferrari licensing. And by that time, the set will probably never return and remain "sold out". To be fair, the Blue Power Jet does look like the F-35. The F-22 has two engines, compared to the one engine of the F-35. Jang does a good job in pointing out the similarities and differences between the LEGO version and the jet version of the F-35. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTUg3DXvOv0&feature=emb_logo I guess it has just enough differences from the source material to avoid needing a licensing agreement to produce. However, the same can't be said about the Pista 488 set. Too many similarities that scream "I am a 488 Pista" without the labeling. They should have at least changed the color of it instead of the classic Ferrari red with white racing stripes down the center. There is no ambiguity as to whether or not this set is a 488 Pista. Edited February 25, 2021 by JoshB 1
CosmicSpeed Posted February 25, 2021 Posted February 25, 2021 (edited) 46 minutes ago, JoshB said: To be fair, the Blue Power Jet does look like the F-35. The F-22 has two engines, compared to the one engine of the F-35. Jang does a good job in pointing out the similarities and differences between the LEGO version and the jet version of the F-35. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTUg3DXvOv0&feature=emb_logo I guess it has just enough differences from the source material to avoid needing a licensing agreement to produce. However, the same can't be said about the Pista 488 set. Too many similarities that scream "I am a 488 Pista" without the labeling. They should have at least changed the color of it instead of the classic Ferrari red with white racing stripes down the center. There is no ambiguity as to whether or not this set is a 488 Pista. Understood. Im not too into planes and did a quick search to back up my argument, that said, if it were car related I could be more granular with my approach. Also, this thread is now MEGA: BECAUSE I SAID SO. Still on topic, AND from what I see on Reddit, there seems to be a fair amount of people who search out these Halo sets. Anyone invest? Edited February 25, 2021 by CosmicSpeed
exracer327 Posted February 26, 2021 Posted February 26, 2021 (edited) 12 hours ago, Frank Brickowski said: I already answered this question: I don't know. Since there is no information available for anyone, every "argument" you provide is pure speculation. If you're so interested, why don't you write them a mail and ask? And by the way: Should you be looking for the answer "It was taken down because selling it would have infringed copyrights.", you should be careful what you wish for argumentation-wise. Because if they did really take the Ecto down because it could have infrinfed rights (BEFORE EVEN GOING ON SALE, by the way), this would only proof that all the models they DO offer on their site and in their shops are legally sold because if they knew there would be an infringement they would take them down, too. So, why don't you just go with the movie vehicles of the A Team, Airwolf, Dukes of Hazzard, Blues Brothers, Magnum, Knight Rider, Taxi Taxi, The Fall Guy, Daktari, or anything else that IS being sold instead of contemplating about Ecto-1 you can also get from LEGO? Why did the Ecto get taken down so fast? Because it is a LEGO set. If there was another set that copied a LEGO set, I'll bet it would be taken down right away as well because LEGO would come after them. Why are the others up? Because no one has called them into question. BTW, some copywrite issues by big, bad LEGO were already fought here in the USA. Between LEGO and Best-Lock, which merged with COBI in 2006, re: minifigures. Lawsuit was in 2019. https://casetext.com/case/lego-v-best-lock-constr-toys-inc-2 Although this case was over minifigures (not specific likenesses, just the design itself and how it was similar to LEGO). I found this paragraph re: "copying" (see below) which I believe has been at the heart of this thread and which you (@Frank Brickowski) repeatedly ignore or dismiss. If the producer of the toy can prove without a doubt that they created an item without any source material, then there is no copywrite infringement. Most of the products people have been pointing out in this thread are clearly examples of actual products from real life or from other toy companies. The likenesses that everyone keeps bringing up are such that at first glance, you immediately can identify the object. The producer must argue that they just happened to have designed that exact likeness without seeing the source material that it looks like. The products that have been pointed out by multiple German non-LEGO companies have so many "similarities" (as mentioned below as an infringement) that it is impossible to have not seen the source material. That IS a copywrite infringement. At least it is in the USA. Perhaps German law is different. I don't know and quite frankly I no longer care. *drops mic* 1. Actual Copying To succeed on its infringement claim, Lego must show that Best-Lock actually copied Lego's minifigures. Boisson , 273 F.3d at 267. Occasionally, a case "presents the rare scenario where there is direct evidence of copying." Rogers v. Koons , 960 F.2d 301, 307 (2d Cir. 1992). More commonly, it is the conjunction of (1) access to the copyrighted work and (2) probative similarity that lead to the inference of actual copying. See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. , 199 F.3d 74, 77 (2d Cir. 1999) ; Muller v. Anderson , 501 F. App'x 81, 83 (2d Cir. 2012) ("A plaintiff may establish actual copying circumstantially by demonstrating (a) that the defendant had access to the copyrighted material and (b) that the two works exhibit ‘similarities probative of copying.’ ") (quoting Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records , 351 F.3d 46, 51 (2d Cir. 2003) ). That form of indirect proof requires "a showing of defendant's opportunity to come into contact with plaintiff's work and such similarities between the works which, under all the circumstances, make independent creation unlikely." Laureyssens , 964 F.2d at 140. i. Access to the Work Edited February 26, 2021 by exracer327 2
Recommended Posts