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/new...against-ms-lego/2007/11/07/1194329259246.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.

 

[smashfactory]

i enjoyed reading that! good for her!

 

[labrocca]

Good ruling...Lego Corp doesn't own art galleries. A TM is only as good as it's usage.

 

[fonzie_007]

One of the good things about the European model... loser pays... And in this instance, its appears the court got it right.

 

[Dave_Z]

One of the good things about the European model... loser pays... And in this instance, its appears the court got it right.

Is that generally the case with Courts in Europe? Or just this one?

I wish there's a copy of the decision. But then, I can't read German. :D

 

[fonzie_007]

The general Eureopean model is that the loser pays for the opposing party's legal fees; whereas in the U.S. the loser often does not have to pay opposing counsel's legal fees (which often can reach into the six figure range before trial even starts)

 

[Joe123]

I wish there's a copy of the decision. But then, I can't read German. :D

I hope you were joking when you wrote 'German' :cy: The Danes speak Danish :hehe:

 

[MadAboutDomains]

There are some really good paintings on her website... probably worth it for the free publicity

 

[Dave_Z]

I hope you were joking when you wrote 'German' :cy: The Danes speak Danish :hehe:

Vas it das!? I don't know what the heck I was thinking that time...

 

[kev]

Louise Lego :hehe: what a name!

Glad she won :tu:

 

[PowerUp]

The general Eureopean model is that the loser pays for the opposing party's legal fees; whereas in the U.S. the loser often does not have to pay opposing counsel's legal fees (which often can reach into the six figure range before trial even starts)

Does anyone know why the US losers don't pay the opposing counsels' legal fees? If this is the case, the deep pockets can always bully the small time domainers.

 

[dezinerite]

Thanks for the article. I'm also very glad she won.

 

[Dave_Z]

Does anyone know why the US losers don't pay the opposing counsels' legal fees? If this is the case, the deep pockets can always bully the small time domainers.

There's no law necessarily requiring that.

 

[DNQuest.com]

Does anyone know why the US losers don't pay the opposing counsels' legal fees? If this is the case, the deep pockets can always bully the small time domainers.

In UDRPs, there is no monetary relief. It is just "ownership". Now if the big company goes teh route of filing in courts using the ACPA, they can then ask for monetary damages and legal fees.