Introduction
Lego was a company which started as a small Danish workshop and over the years has become a worldwide phenomenon. Founded in 1932 by Ole Kirk Christiansen, LEGO transformed from a wooden toy workshop to a global IP-driven empire, particularly after its 1958 patent on the stud-and-tube coupling system (US Patent No. 3005282). On the surface, LEGO bricks seem like a simple, iconic and instantly recognizable building blocks that spark some imagination. But on the underneath, these bricks also spark a strategic deployment of intellectual property. LEGO is far more than just a toy company, it has now become a global transmedia brand and all by protecting and leveraging its IP at every stage of its corporate journey. Its story is not just about inventing toys, but about building a ecosystem where law, innovation and branding interlock as seamlessly as the bricks themselves. Over the years, LEGO has navigated a complex landscape of IP rights involving a wide arena of subjects like patents, trademarks, designs and copyrights.
Patents: The Foundation of the Brick
Patents Law stood as the original legal backbone for the LEGO brick. On January 28, 1958, Lego submitted its patent application which providing LEGO with the exclusive right to manufacture, use and sell its unique design for a fixed period of time. The US patent did not only secure the brick’s external form, but also the ‘stud-and-tube coupling system’ that delivered the USP of LEGO which was their bricks’ clutch power. This clutch power combination which was patented enabled the bricks to snap together in a firm way and at the same time be easily separable by children. This distinguished LEGO from other construction toys and creating a platform for limitless creativity. For almost two decades, LEGO’s patent rights allowed it to exclude competitors from making compatible blocks. This period where LEGO has an absolute exclusivity, was the reason for its explosive growth. This time also helped them to invest in refining both its product and production processes. It is also important to note that patent terms varied jurisdictionally, but with TRIPS standardizing the minimum term to 20 years, LEGO’s patent monopoly was inevitably time-limited.
Issue arose when LEGO’s core patents began to expire in the mid-1970s. Now, the company was facing a legal as well as commercial challenge. Expiration of their patent meant that their competitors were now free to produce the interlocking bricks of LEGO. This would affect heavily on LEGO’s market monopoly. This is when LEGO realised that it would now have to expand its horizons into other aspects of Intellectual Property like Design law, Trademark Law and Copyright Law.
Design Rights: Protecting the Look
Unlike patents law, design rights specifically guard the visual characteristics of a product such as its shape, configuration, pattern or ornamentation. As LEGO’s original patents on the brick’s functional features expired, the company strategically turned to design rights to somehow preserve a competitive advantage in the market. Few blocks, like the LEGO Minifigure which was first released in 1978 and the larger-scale DUPLO bricks were up to contest for their design protection. In Case T-515/19, the General Court affirmed that LEGO’s design rights could not be invalidated solely on functional grounds, recognizing aesthetic and non-functional elements as protectable. In the European Union, LEGO has successfully registered the design of its bricks, winning a significant legal battle in 2021 that grants up to 25 years of protection for certain brick shapes essential to the brand’s identity. This form of protection complements other intellectual property strategies by offering protection against specifically direct copying of the brick’s look. However, as patents worked for LEGO, design protection cannot cover product features that are purely functional. So, the interlocking mechanism which is essential to the construction and value of the bricks which is a functional element of the bricks were still at a risk. At the end of the day, design rights in such cases generally play a defensive role in preventing direct copying of the product.
Trademarks and Copyrights: Building the LEGO Brand and Its Creative Content
Trademarks and copyrights law have together played a vital role in establishing LEGO as a global brand. They have allowed LEGO to expand into digital media, entertainment and even licensed partnerships.
Trademarks protect LEGO’s name, its logos and distinctive trade dress, helping the company to build and maintain a recognizable reputation worldwide. For instance, LEGO has been recognized as a well-known mark in India (LEGO Juris A/S v. Jagatjit Industries, 2018), demonstrating its transnational goodwill protection under both national law and the Paris Convention. Over the decades, LEGO has registered its brand as a trademark in numerous jurisdictions, and has earned a widespread recognition as a well-known mark. This legal backbone through a worldwide legal protection allows the consumers to associate the quality bricks and creativity with the LEGO name across regions and product lines. On the other hand, Copyrights law safeguards LEGO’s creative content. This ranges from packaging illustrations and product manuals to movies, video games, books and even their animated series. As LEGO expanded beyond physical bricks into storytelling and digital entertainment, copyright became increasingly important. This was to control the reproduction and protect its original creative works, finally protecting the brand’s integrity and value in new media channels.
The company’s trademarks are the pillars of its reputation and provide with a trusted umbrella with diverse offerings, while copyright protects the creation of its unique narratives, instructions, films and games that deepen LEGO’s brand engagement. For example, LEGO’s partnerships with major franchises like Star Wars, Harry Potter and Marvel do not only rely on trademark co-branding but also produce new works that are protected by copyright. These licensing partnerships illustrate the hybrid nature of IP exploitation, where co-branding under trademark law intersects with copyright ownership in derivative works, thereby creating multi-layered protection. Through a combined protection of trademark and copyright, LEGO transitioned from a toy manufacturer into a comprehensive entertainment and media powerhouse.
Challenges & Legal Battles
Initially, the Lego Group relied heavily on patents to secure exclusive rights which allowed them years to build their brand. Later, as Lego’s patents began to expire, they faced increasing competition from manufacturers producing bricks compatible with LEGO. Competitors like Tyco in the U.S. and Ritvik (Mega Bloks) in Canada introduced alternative blocks that were compatible with Lego. This affected Lego’s long monopoly. The expiration of patents marked Lego’s first crisis of control, challenging its ability to maintain exclusive rights purely through patent law. As a response, Lego realised that at this stage patents alone or any protection alone would not be enough to protect them so they could be in a monopoly. This is when LEGO sought to extend its IP protection through other and more legal avenues.
Courts in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and the European Union, rejected Lego’s attempts to protect brick configurations under trademark law simply because the functional features of the bricks went against the “functionality doctrine.” In the case of Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc., 2005 SCC 65, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected LEGO’s attempt to monopolize functional brick shape and further in the case of LEGO Systems, Inc. v. Best-Lock Construction Toys, Inc., LEGO’s trademark claims were dismissed due to functionality. LEGO made similar efforts to use design and copyright laws to block competitors were largely unsuccessful, as courts prioritized a healthy competition over design exclusivity. The European Court of Justice ruling in the case of Lego Juris v OHIM, 2010 was a landmark defeat which held that Lego bricks were ineligible for trademark protection since their design served a utilitarian function rather than indicating brand origin. This decision further forced Lego to pivot towards registered design rights, which offered a more time-limited but nonetheless valuable layer of protection, allowing up to 25 years of exclusive rights on certain brick designs.
Understanding that they don’t have the same protection as they had years ago, Lego evolved its business model by embracing licensing partnerships with major intellectual property owners such as Lucasfilm (Star Wars), Disney (Marvel, Harry Potter) and Warner Bros. This not only diversified Lego’s product offerings through themed sets but also introduced parallel IP assets like character rights and media content which reinforced Lego’s competitive position beyond the physical brick. This brought the idea of the Lego brand to be more than just their bricks. The success of the Lego Star Wars franchise, in particular, has been vital in sustaining and expanding Lego’s market share, further illustrating a shift from sole reliance on product patents towards a multilayered IP ecosystem. These strategic shifts came with ongoing legal vigilance, as Lego aggressively enforces its trademarks and domain names in global arbitration forums. For example, a recent case resolved by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center resulted in the transfer of the domain name <lego.dad> to Lego Holding A/S due to bad faith registration, demonstrating Lego’s continuous efforts to protect its brand identity from cybersquatting and misuse in the digital domain.
This evolution reflects the company’s adaptive response to legal limits on protecting functional designs, the rise of compatible competitors and the expanding scope of its business into media and entertainment. The challenges and legal battles over Lego’s IP rights underscore the dynamic and multifaceted nature of intellectual property management in sustaining innovation-driven enterprises.
Conclusion
LEGO’s strategic pivot demonstrates that IP rights are not merely shields against competition, but dynamic tools for business reinvention. . Moving from that time to today, LEGO has expanded as such that they primary market has grown from kids to also adults. Several LEGO pieces are now so valuable that they are sold for hundreds of dollars. At the same time, their collaboration sets become a new sensation every time.
LEGO changed according to the market and their IP rights shifted with them. It has to be noted that through understanding this business model, while LEGO awaited their protection and monopoly again, they did not need it. They achieved much more moving forward. They expanded their consumer base, their community and most importantly their IP protection. LEGO’s evolution underscores that over-reliance on any single IP right (like patents) is unsustainable; a diversified IP portfolio combined with brand extension strategies ensures longevity in innovation-driven markets.
Authored by: Ms. Aditi Bansal, Research Assistant, The IP Press
Aditi Bansal is a law student with a strong focus on Intellectual Property Rights. She is particularly interested in how IP intersects with technology, media, and emerging industries, and enjoys writing about contemporary developments in trademark, copyright, and design law. Through her research and writing, she aims to engage in more untraditional and unthought ideas.
Leave a Reply