Lego toys loses to Lego the artist

[DNQuest.com]

Though this is not directly domain related, it is always argued "rights or greater rights" to use a name needs to be proven. Though Lego is a TM, her name is Lego and has rights to a name. This is where they have a legitimate reason to use the name. I like the ruling becuase it is a common sense ruling. She isn't doing anything to hurt the toy maker or trying to deceive anyone, she is just using her own name.



http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news...329259246.html


COPENHAGEN - Lego, the iconic Danish maker of plastic toy bricks, lost a brand infringement case today when Denmark's Supreme Court ruled an art gallery owner could use the Lego name since it was her surname.

The high court decided that Louise Lego could continue using the name for her Copenhagen gallery, Gallery Lego, where she displays her own paintings, and her website, http://www.galleri-lego.dk.

The toymaker, founded in 1932, had argued it had the exclusive rights to the Lego name.

Its use of Lego stems from the contraction of the Danish phrase "Leg godt" which means "play well," and has nothing to do with the Lego family.

The company also wanted Louise Lego to stop promoting her gallery online under the Lego name.

But the court found that there was little risk that people would confuse Louise Lego's paintings and artworks with Lego toys.

The toymaker was ordered to pay Louise Lego 150,000 kroner ($A31,500) to cover her court costs.

[dcristo]

I am kind of stumped why they filed for TM infringement in the first place. How could one confuse artwork for lego toys. What's the world coming to if you can't user your own surname for branding. Great news!

[acesfull]

Originally Posted by dcristo

I am kind of stumped why they filed for TM infringement in the first place.

To rip off the domain owner. It's called attempted reverse domain hijacking.

Also, see: www.nissan.com

[DomainsInc]

Pretty stupid. She didn't even own lego.com...

[dcristo]

Isn't the whole basis for TM infringement using the name in bad faith?

[acesfull]

Originally Posted by dcristo

Isn't the whole basis for TM infringement using the name in bad faith?

That's suppose to be how it is. But that's, sadly, not how it always goes. Some people/companies don't give a shi* about you or your rights, and feel quite comfortable making lies and false alligations to try to get what they want.

[dcristo]

Originally Posted by acesfull

That's suppose to be how it is. But that's, sadly, not how it always goes. Some people/companies don't give a shi* about you or your rights, and feel quite comfortable making lies and false alligations to try to get what they want.

I feel like pissing on lego toys right now

[acesfull]

Originally Posted by dcristo

I feel like pissing on lego toys right now

Deal! You piss on lego toys, and I'll go piss on Nissan cars!

[gingeman]

What a silly venture on ther part- if it was lego.com it might be understandable that they would try and claim- but the domain holds no value to them and there is no confusion between their product and her use. The most damaging thing to their brand here is bad PR for pursuing this case...

[acesfull]

Originally Posted by gingeman

What a silly venture on ther part- if it was lego.com it might be understandable that they would try and claim- but the domain holds no value to them and there is no confusion between their product and her use. The most damaging thing to their brand here is bad PR for pursuing this case...

Correct! The contested domain was: galleri-lego.dk!

This is this kind of sick abuse that runs up the cost of owning domains (or destroying well-intended individuals trying to make an honest living online with a single web address), and will make it harder and/or a LOT more expensive for new people and companies coming online to buy preowned domains. They have no idea the damage they do to others, nor do they care in the least.

[Dave Zan]

Originally Posted by dcristo

Isn't the whole basis for TM infringement using the name in bad faith?

Unless I'm mistaken, it's likelihood of confusion.

The thing here is Lego is probably a famous trademark in Germany, and they
did believe they have some kind of exclusivity to it. The woman believes she
has a right to use her surname for her gallery as long as it's unrelated, and
it so happens both just can't agree.

Is the toymaker's view unfair? Maybe, but they have earned a considerable
amount of goodwill towards their brand for toys over the past few decades,
and many people can and do associate the name with them.

Can't the woman be allowed to use her last name for her gallery? I don't see
why not as long as it's not related or even infringing on someone's mark......
and didn't do some form of business with the mark holder too maybe.

But is Lego indeed doing this as a possible RNDH? I don't believe so, and I've
no reason to believe such so far, although that naturally won't stop others
from believing otherwise.

While it's preferable if a copy of the decision is available (which might be in
German anyway), I'll just hazard a guess here that this is a case where two
parties just couldn't resolve their differences and decided to ask a neutral
party to help out. The judge eventually ruled in the woman's favor, but has
ordered the toymaker to pay her court costs.

If anything, it appears fortunate that this German court, depending on their
laws, doesn't grant some kind of absolute exclusivity for trademark holders.
Each jurisdiction has their own definitions, but none are forced or compelled
to believe how another one does.

One thing I find good about this, though, is the so-called "loser" pays. Now
that I don't find unfair...so far.

[dolansco]

Denmark , not Germany , for the record.

[Dave Zan]

Damn it, Dannish, not German...ach...

[dolansco]

But it was a good and fair result ..

it would be like Mcdonalds taking a stab at http://johnmcdonald.com/ ( random site - first one i made up in my head , and it resolved ) , but is a good example.

[Seraphim]

What was Lego thinking? The DNF needs a wall of shame where companies like this can be listed for all to see.

[jasdon11]

Originally Posted by gingeman

What a silly venture on ther part- if it was lego.com it might be understandable that they would try and claim- but the domain holds no value to them and there is no confusion between their product and her use. The most damaging thing to their brand here is bad PR for pursuing this case...

Well, another couple of lawyers made some dough. I wonder if Lego Toys will claim any of that $150,000 back from their lawyer - yeah right.....


Did someone mention Armani ?

[acronym007]

ebay claims to own everything with bay in it, perhaps they were reading about all of ebay's wins in court.

[Onward]

I was considering buying a Nissan....that is now out of my consideration.

[DNQuest.com]

For clarification, usage plays a very important part of deciding TMs. If my name was John Ford and owned johnford.com and sold cars, you can bet your bottom dollar that if I was challenged, I would lose the name.

[Dave Zan]

Originally Posted by Onward

I was considering buying a Nissan....that is now out of my consideration.

FYI, one small but major difference between the Nissan dispute and this one
is Mr. Nissan's domain name (well currently anyway) displayed a car ad, and
that's essentially a no-no.

Just letting you know.