Re:Lego has designed a set that can't be taken apart
by timfi on Friday December 03, 2021 @01:35PM
(#29433406)
Iirc the argument bind this would be along then lines oft precendes. I.e., you didn't defend your TM against person A so why are you sueing person B.
Re:Lego has designed a set that can't be taken apart
by eqvinox on Friday December 03, 2021 @04:21PM
(#29435675)
I wasn't implying a choice in who to enforce it against. I'm saying there's a wide spectrum what to try to enforce against. LEGO here even tried to enforce their trademark because the logo "looked like a LEGO brick". Apparently that didn't fly.
(The "using LEGO as generic label" one was a separate instance and did cause the guy to remake a bunch of videos.)
[citation needed]
Other trademark owners aren't asshats like this about their marks and haven't lost them, have they?
Yes you need to enforce your trademark. But not against reviews of your very products, even if those reviews make their authors money through YT ads.
[Add.: and not in this way. I've read up a bit more, and they had a "valid" problem in that he used "LEGO" to refer to plastic brick systems in general. They do need to enforce that so the term doesn't become generic. But they could've just sent a message or letter first.]