On 26/07/2013 13:55, bert wrote:
In message , Nightjar
writes
On 26/07/2013 10:42, Steve Firth wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
[snip]

I suspect that Lego is registered for games and playthings and probably
anything else they can actually justify by use but not for building
materials, unless they have a construction industry arm I haven't heard
of. If so, the building materials company could even have called their
product Lego without infringing the trade name.

Well yes but it doesn't always work that way. As witness Virgin
Windows and
Virgin computers. Branson doesn't sell either but his company
successfully
sued both businesses.

Computers would be an easy win. They are trade mark Class 9, which
covers communications equipment, which Virgin do supply, as well such
diverse items as teaching apparatus, hazmat suits and sunglasses.

I am not familiar with the case of Virgin Windows, but suspect that
may have sued on the grounds of passing off, rather than trade mark
infringement, as I can see no obvious class overlap.

However, the point about Legioblocks is that it is a registered trade
mark, so it has already been tested for potential conflicts.

And my computer graphics had no relationship to childrens' toys.

Indeed, but that would not stop the lawyers sending out a cease and
desist letter, even if they knew they could not win an action. It
shows their client that they are watching their interests, allows them
to send a large bill to the client and often results in the name being
dropped without any further action.

Colin Bignell
To what extent is it 2tested". Is it not up to lego or their lawyers to
watch applications and object?

If they can discover computer graphics using Lego as a name for a
histogram, they are hardly likely to miss a published application are
they? In any case, the mark has to be distinctive and the Patent Office
will refuse any that are too similar to an existing mark. That obviously
did not happen.

Colin Bignell