Trademark law leaves no space for that. The Lego Group has to actively defend their trademark. That means a name like LegoGPT is really on the obvious end of 'don't do that'.

Whilst they don't need to attack every form of speech, a name like 'LegoGPT' is not protected.

If LEGO's lawyers agreed with this article, they'd be out of business!

Completely agree. This should be well beyond accusations of corporate bullying. It's one thing to mention Legos, it's another to actively include a brand name in your product! NikeGPT, CocaColaGPT and IkeaGPT will face the same issue ;)

Mentioning Lego is absolutely OK, and you can sell used Lego as well and note that you are using genuine Lego bricks (resale laws simply allow that). Lego is really antsy about anything which might look like it is actually a Lego Group initiative though, and anything where Lego bricks are offered for sale in a modified state¹.

1: Never, ever, sell modified Lego bricks: https://www.brickfanatics.com/lego-wins-court-case-against-c...

The registered trademark is LEGO, in all caps.

Also, they don’t tend to go after fan-made things like this, based on some googling they typically throw the book at counterfeit producers who are eating into their profits.

(Initially) fan-made stuff which gets big enough to get noticed usually won't be able to call themselves something with 'Lego' in it. Usually some variation of 'brick' is used instead (e.g., Bricklink, Rebrickable, EuroBricks, etc.).

BrickLink is commercial, so is Rebrickable. EuroBricks seems to have a user base which includes LEGO insiders.

Backing by a multimillion dollar University for publication and promotional purposes is a far cry from hobbyist and enthusiast ecosystems, at least in my view. Then again I’m in a very slim minority of actual creative creators who generate IP from scratch and my perspective is much different than “move fast break things” attitudes.

European trademarks are registration-compulsory, hence the required extent of defence is significantly weaker than those required for keeping the common law trademarks.

> Embrace your community where they are.

In the casinos?

(Not saying it's related) But, which one of those are still running?

I'd go as far as to say that Sega's embracing of their fans is a big part of why they're still around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Mania#Development

Both are. Sega just lost a console war a few decades ago and decided not to pursue that any more.

Sega is generating more than $1.5 billion a year, they're fine.

Both?

Sega's [0] main business is pachinko (so gambling). To them Sonic brand being used by fans has very little consequences, if not building most needed goodwill toward their other brands.

That's where Nintendo is fundamentaly different.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Sammy_Holdings

Did that start with that merger in 2004 so back in the Sonic heyday it wasn't in to gambling?

Yes.

Sega was mostly into normal arcade games, and Sammy baught them for their expertise to improve Sammy's much more profitable gambling machines. It's Sammy's CEO that took the lead, and Sonic and console games became a mere side business.

Interesting that many of Sega’s games are now mobile focused.

Also don’t forget that Sega was “originally an importer of coin-operated arcade games to Japan and manufacturer of slot machines and jukeboxes”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sega

TIL the pachinko connection perfectly explains the visual/sound/game design of the Sonic games.

They probably have a culture of "patents".

They just won the market because historically they reused existing locking bricks concept from a company called Kiddicraft, found a way to make it more lockable... and patent it before the original company and other companies could implement it.

We can say that they became famous half fir engineering reason, and half from their legal department...