Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.comAmazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

LEGO fight Against Chinese counterfeit LEGO

1679111278

Comments

  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,409
    TLG's largest market is the US. How does Lego NOT see the US in their future? What do you mean by your statement? 
    SprinkleOtter
  • pharmjodpharmjod 1,170 miles to Wall Drug, USAMember Posts: 2,912
    I think the idea is the USA is fairly stagnant as far as wealth distribution meaning there just aren't vast numbers of people all of a sudden entering the middle class or having disposable income. Compare that to China and some other countries around the world where you actually have a quickly growing "middle" class that now all of a sudden has more disposable income. China has what, a population of 1 billion and growing? Even small movements in income and wealth can create vast numbers of new customers for LEGO. The USA is a huge, predictable market which is good, but I guess China and other countries like it have more "upside" as it were. 
    catwrangler
  • RecceRecce Tiny Little Red DotMember Posts: 919
    Pitfall69 said:
    I do not know how it is in other countries, but..

    "In the U.S., federal law protecting trademarks makes it illegal to knowingly traffic counterfeit goods, which includes the production, sale and transport of such goods. The U.S. Department of Justice, however, has stated that federal law doesn’t prohibit an individual from buying a counterfeit product for personal use, even if they do so knowingly."

    A few years ago, 2 women were sentenced to 36 months in Federal Prison for selling counterfeit purses. It is NOT just a civil matter here in the US; it is a Federal Crime. 

    It can be applied here ONLY IF the China brand claims their product is LEGO brand, which in this case is totally not. 

    If the woman were selling GACCIN purses instead of GUCCI purses, do you think there is even a case? 

  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,409
    ^You are correct in that a dress or handbag without ANY markings or logos, are not protected. These would be considered "knock offs" and are different than counterfeit goods. Although, I think in France, fashion/designs are protected, thus "knock offs" are illegal.
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,409
    You have to put yourself in a designer/inventors/innovator's shoes. Every single one of us would be angry if someone blatantly stole our IP and were profiting on it.
    catwranglerKevin_Hyatt
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,409
    edited July 2016
    I am just waiting for the day when "SumoLepin" and "Lepinboy" join the forum ;) 
    AllBrickSumoLegocatwranglerKevin_HyattOmastar
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    Pitfall69 said:
    TLG's largest market is the US. How does Lego NOT see the US in their future? What do you mean by your statement? 
    I said they do not see it AS their future. That's down to China, and to a lesser extent, South America. Jørgen has stated this on many occasions.

    South America's population is quite a bit more than the North's; China's is more than double both of them put together.
    pharmjod said:
    I think the idea is the USA is fairly stagnant as far as wealth distribution meaning there just aren't vast numbers of people all of a sudden entering the middle class or having disposable income.
    The US is supposed to be polarising, as many individual countries are - something which explains the rise of more "radical" politicians in various nations. The rich are becoming richer, the poor becoming poorer, and the middle often fading.
    Compare that to China and some other countries around the world where you actually have a quickly growing "middle" class that now all of a sudden has more disposable income.
    Curiously, countries across the world are equalising, with many of the traditionally richer or poorer countries heading towards the middle.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 18,883
    Pitfall69 said:
    You have to put yourself in a designer/inventors/innovator's shoes. Every single one of us would be angry if someone blatantly stole our IP and were profiting on it.
    That's true. But complicated slightly in that the modular fakes are old IP, ones that lego are no longer selling themselves. Does a fake FB really harm lego, considering that they are no longer selling them? It might take away a little money that might have been spent on lego either directly or indirectly through the secondary market, although that is not necessarily true or easy to prove. Would it divert enough money that it makes it worthwhile for lego to go after them? I doubt it. The fake company will just shut down and restart under a new name.
  • samiam391samiam391 A Log Cabin in KY, United StatesMember Posts: 4,336
    Pitfall69 said:
    I am just waiting for the day when "SumoLepin" and "Lepinboy" join the forum ;) 
    It wouldn't take much for those clones to be better than the originals ;)
    SumoLegopharmjodandhePitfall69Rainstorm26AllBrickYodaliciousKevin_HyattOmastar
  • EdmicEdmic ZürichMember Posts: 102
    Pitfall69 said:
    ^You are correct in that a dress or handbag without ANY markings or logos, are not protected. These would be considered "knock offs" and are different than counterfeit goods. Although, I think in France, fashion/designs are protected, thus "knock offs" are illegal.
    A Louis Vuitton handbag that has the exact same looks does not need a logo to be illegal in the EU (and Swiss, Norway etc..) also i strongly believe that reproducing an older set would easily be deemed illegal in court overhere, this since the bricks itself are no longer copyrighted, but the combination of bricks could easily be seen as a unique product and thus should be protected in my opinion. IT's like puzzles, everybody is allowed to produce puzzles, but the moment someone makes the same puzzle with the same image he's is clearly doing wrong and how it is branded is of no concern. I can image that if i would order a fake 10179 that border patrol in Swiss would seize it and i would be fined.
    Pitfall69catwrangler
  • brumeybrumey AustriaMember Posts: 1,002
    edited July 2016
    ali baseplate color comparison
    pretty satisfied. thought it would be more "off"
    dont have much baseplates to compare
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 18,883
    Edmic said:
    A Louis Vuitton handbag that has the exact same looks does not need a logo to be illegal in the EU (and Swiss, Norway etc..) also i strongly believe that reproducing an older set would easily be deemed illegal in court overhere, this since the bricks itself are no longer copyrighted, but the combination of bricks could easily be seen as a unique product and thus should be protected in my opinion.
    Someone (as in LEGO) has to care enough to take it to court though.
    SumoLegoPitfall69
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 13,062
    samiam391 said:
    Pitfall69 said:
    I am just waiting for the day when "SumoLepin" and "Lepinboy" join the forum ;) 
    It wouldn't take much for those clones to be better than the originals ;)
    They would probably keep their phones charged.
    plasmodiumPitfall69
  • brumeybrumey AustriaMember Posts: 1,002
    edited July 2016
    dark grey is pretty accurate

    light grey a bit too dark (or blue)

    green looks exactly like the green from an old pirates set baseplate (~1990), but it could be faded from age/wear/whatever
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 18,883
    Did you buy any of the plate versions? I note they sell a 32x32 plate. I might have to give one of those a go.

    Are the thicknesses of the bases the same as lego? Do you notice any difference when butted together side-by-side? They have a few nice colours that lego don't make.
    Pitfall69
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149
    Just to clarify the legal situation:

    Buying Counterfeit/IP infringing products
    If you knowingly buy a counterfeit product you can be taken to civil court but the company has to prove that you knew it was counterfeit and any compensation they obtain from you requires them to prove monetary loss - i.e. they have to prove that you would've given them the money instead if you hadn't bought the counterfeit. As such there is little action they can take against you in reality. However, counterfeit products CAN be seized by your country's customs and immigration body, police and so on and so forth depending on local laws (this is true in pretty much all of the Western world), so you might find yourself out of pocket and out of product.

    Many of the products here ARE counterfeit because they infringe on TLG's designs, Disney's copyrights and trademarkets and so on and so forth. A product does NOT have to be identical to be classed as a counterfeit, it only has to have sufficiet similarity to the product claiming infringement. In this case pretty much all of Lepin's products would seem to fit the bill.

    Selling Counterfeit/IP infringing products
    This IS a criminal act. As soon as you seek to gain profit from selling these products you jump from the realm of civil offence to criminal offence.

    Summary
    You're not a criminal if you buy these things, you're only committing a civil offence, though you are at (albeit very low) risk of having the product seized and not being able to get your money back - it's upto you to try and get it back.

    The people producing and selling these things however ARE criminals because they're engaging in criminal counterfeiting and IP infringement. This is pretty much true regardless of jurisdiction as most countries involved such as China are signatories to the relevant conventions declaring this to be the case. The fact they don't enforce their laws is another matter, but non-enforcement isn't the same as not-illegal, though sometimes this sort of situation is declared as defacto legalised. Regardless of the terminology used it's still a criminal act until such time laws regulating this are repealed by the countries involved, something which has not happened to date.

    Not all clone brands fall into this category, companies such as Oxford produce non-infringing Lego compatible products that are largely original designs and not easily confused with Lego.

    Also, it's worth taking a step back and thinking about what criminal activity actually means, I'd wager most people are guilty of carrying out criminal acts at some point in their lives, if you've driven even 1mph over the speed limit in the UK then you've committed a criminal act, but it's not enforced as such because just about every police authority gives a 10% + 2mph leeway on enforcement. Criminal activity can also mean the mass murder of many innocent civilians. So as you can see, it's easy to throw around words like criminal to try and make something sound terrible, but whether it really is terrible or not is really only ever going to be a subjective judgement - most people would shrug their shoulders at going 1mph over the speed limit, most people would agree mass murder is an appalling criminal act. What you feel about producing or selling counterfeit products though is going to be entirely upto you as an individual, and hence using words like criminal in a debate like this is bound to stir completely opposite reactions in different people because it's an act some people care deeply about, and others couldn't give a damn about, so I wouldn't get too caught up on the fact it is criminal - because to some people, certain criminal offences like this might as well just not be.
  • SprinkleOtterSprinkleOtter Member Posts: 2,742
    In my opinion the, the clone brands/counterfeits are in no danger of destroying LEGO. They are a parasite- they exist only because LEGO exists. And partially because some sets are extra valuable. Would anyone here buy a phony current modular from this company for $120-150 (a little less than original price), if that was what the real deal cost originally? Obviously not, as Mega Bloks has not dominated the market yet, even though they are slightly cheaper than LEGO sets.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 18,883
    I agree. I don't really understand why someone would pay say $150 for a fake (retired) modular, when you can buy a new (but different) genuine one for that. Unless of course you want the specific building, as opposed to any one from the series.

    Yet that situation is different for minifigs. They are about $1 a piece. I can totally understand people buying the fakes compared to having to buy expensive sets to get them.
  • pharmjodpharmjod 1,170 miles to Wall Drug, USAMember Posts: 2,912
    If you want a town hall or cafe corner it is pretty easy to see why someone might spend $115 to buy the knockoff vs $550-$1500 for the real one. They now still have money for that current one. It spooks me more as a reseller than anything.
  • nhyonenhyone Member Posts: 145
    edited July 2016
    CCC said:
    I agree. I don't really understand why someone would pay say $150 for a fake (retired) modular, when you can buy a new (but different) genuine one for that.
    Perhaps they are selling for a high price now in the West due to the language barrier, but I've mentioned earlier that in Singapore, if you import a copycat Modular set directly from TaoBao, even after the shipping, it is 1/5th the price of the real set here.
  • bandit778bandit778 Docking Bay 94. Member Posts: 2,129
    Xefan said:
    Just to clarify the legal situation:

    Buying Counterfeit/IP infringing products
    If you knowingly buy a counterfeit product you can be taken to civil court but the company has to prove that you knew it was counterfeit and any compensation they obtain from you requires them to prove monetary loss - i.e. they have to prove that you would've given them the money instead if you hadn't bought the counterfeit. 

    (oops, stuck in the box again)

    I understand that products that TLG are currently selling are justified in the counterfeit argument and like many others do not in any way condone the fact that peoples ideas and hard work are being sold so cheaply.

    I do have a question for the more legally minded though (and I am asking as i genuinely don't know), how does that work with the retired sets if they are no longer produced and are unobtainable from the company that originally had the idea and sold them?
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    bandit778 said:

    (oops, stuck in the box again)
    Switch to HTML view by hitting </> from the menu.

    Type something right at the very end of the box.

    Toggle back by hitting </> again.
    how does that work with the retired sets if they are no longer produced and are unobtainable from the company that originally had the idea and sold them
    The trouble is that can be no demonstrable loss.

    There also has to be a bigger question of whether selling a bag of pieces, which might or might not be used to build a particular model, past or present, falls foul of the law. And if it does, how many "spare pieces" have to be added before it doesn't.
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149
    Retirement of a product really makes no difference, the IP rights still stand (until they expire that is). The reason is of course that there's nothing to say the company wont want to do another run of the product, and if it's their design and they put all the work into doing that they shouldn't be prevented from doing a future run because a 3rd party that has copied their design has taken the market.

    For what it's worth though I agree this is a complete market failure when a product doesn't get reproduced. To me it's incredibly frustrating the idea that a product can be taken out of production, but no one is allowed to make it even though the original owners wont either. This is particularly frustrating with things like books and video games, as it ultimately means that human knowledge is effectively being destroyed by copyright laws and the like in those circumstances.

    The obvious solution though is simply to reduce copyright terms, personally I think if you can't make a decent profit on a product in, say, 20 years, then it's unlikely you're really ever going to. Better to let someone else have a go than risk the idea disappearing into nothingness, but that's entirely my opinion of course.
    pharmjodRakul
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    Xefan said:

    To me it's incredibly frustrating the idea that a product can be taken out of production, but no one is allowed to make it even though the original owners wont either.
    You've then got to deal with the problem of manufacturers who make something and sell it on the basis of it's exclusivity.
    catwrangler
  • datsunrobbiedatsunrobbie West Haven , CTMember Posts: 1,569
    Has LEGO or Disney filed suit against LEPIN yet? I'm not saying that a lack of lawsuits makes the LEPIN product legal, but I would expect Disney to be filing suit against LEPIN if they thought had a case against them. It makes me wonder if there are agreements in place that we don't know about.
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    Has LEGO or Disney filed suit against LEPIN yet? I'm not saying that a lack of lawsuits makes the LEPIN product legal, but I would expect Disney to be filing suit against LEPIN if they thought had a case against them.
    How much would it cost? For what result?
    Jern92
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149
    TigerMoth said:
    Xefan said:

    To me it's incredibly frustrating the idea that a product can be taken out of production, but no one is allowed to make it even though the original owners wont either.
    You've then got to deal with the problem of manufacturers who make something and sell it on the basis of it's exclusivity.
    Not sure what you mean, do you mean we have to do something to support those businesses? If so then I disagree, I think artificial scarcity is an inherently flawed concept precisely because it does just breed counterfeits and creates a market which can sometimes fund the most despicable crimes up to and including terrorism.

    I'm not a complete free market whack job, I think there need to be at least some controls in a healthy economy, but I don't think artificial scarcity is a necessary or even healthy control to impose or support as it always creates way more problems than it's ever solved.
  • TheOriginalSimonBTheOriginalSimonB Felixstowe Member Posts: 1,503
    Xefan said:
    This is particularly frustrating with things like books and video games, as it ultimately means that human knowledge is effectively being destroyed by copyright laws and the like in those circumstances.
    For me this is most frustrating for music.  I don't necessarily want a physical copy, but not being able to get a legal download of an old album just because nobody wants to make it available seems ludicrous.  Half an hour for someone to rip an old CD, add a few tags and upload to iTunes - surely the record companies could do this for all the old back catalogue stuff easily.

    Back on topic, I can't see myself ever buying a copied set here, but can definitely see the appeal if they get to the "can't tell the difference but it is half the price" level of quality.
    catwrangler
  • JudgeChuckJudgeChuck UKMember Posts: 1,225
    ^The trouble with music is that it's not just "half an hour to rip the CD" etc... There's all the legal side that they have to deal with first, so it may simply not be economically viable for them to do so.
    Not that I'm anyone to defend the music business in any way, but there may be any number of other reasons why they haven't made a particular album / piece of music available, including not having online distribution rights agreed with the artist / composer.
    As a consumer, I completely agree with you though, it's a right royal pain in the proverbial... ;-)
    catwrangler
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    Xefan said:
    TigerMoth said:
    Xefan said:

    To me it's incredibly frustrating the idea that a product can be taken out of production, but no one is allowed to make it even though the original owners wont either.
    You've then got to deal with the problem of manufacturers who make something and sell it on the basis of it's exclusivity.
    Not sure what you mean, do you mean we have to do something to support those businesses?
    Some products are created solely because they are exclusive; take that away and those items would often not be created at all.
  • datsunrobbiedatsunrobbie West Haven , CTMember Posts: 1,569
    TigerMoth said:
    Has LEGO or Disney filed suit against LEPIN yet? I'm not saying that a lack of lawsuits makes the LEPIN product legal, but I would expect Disney to be filing suit against LEPIN if they thought had a case against them.
    How much would it cost? For what result?
    I am not a lawyer, but isn't it possible to lose control of IP if you do not defend it? I would think the expense of sending a cease and desist letter to LEPIN would be covered in the retainers paid to Disney's lawyers.

    I agree that the LEPIN STAR WNRS sets do look like they would be illegal, which is why I would expect either a lawsuit or a license. 
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 13,062
    TigerMoth said:
    Has LEGO or Disney filed suit against LEPIN yet? I'm not saying that a lack of lawsuits makes the LEPIN product legal, but I would expect Disney to be filing suit against LEPIN if they thought had a case against them.
    How much would it cost? For what result?

    This is the ultimate question.  The other part of IP is that the creator must demonstrate tangible damages.

    If I steal your idea of an inflatable dartboard, you do nothing with it, but then I lose my shirt in the marketplace trying to sell them - it's completely moot.

    Principles are nice, but the point of equity courts is balance actual damages.
  • bandit778bandit778 Docking Bay 94. Member Posts: 2,129
    TigerMoth said:
    bandit778 said:

    (oops, stuck in the box again)
    Switch to HTML view by hitting </> from the menu.

    Type something right at the very end of the box.

    Toggle back by hitting </> again.  
    Thanks for that
    MaffyDcatwrangler
  • EdmicEdmic ZürichMember Posts: 102
    I agree that the LEPIN STAR WNRS sets do look like they would be illegal, which is why I would expect either a lawsuit or a license. 
    And since previous rulings in China have showed that even worse looking copies of sets are considered to be an copyright infrigement it should be a simple case (coco) Especially with Lepin highly likely bringing up speed of releases and it's just to wait for when they will actually have a good leak and sell a product even before lego has it on the shells a courtcase is to be expected. Problem might be, who actually to sue.

    I have no experience with other copy-cats, but Lepin seems to deliver good quality (tho the minifigs are open for debate and often not so good) and the price difference is huge, take for example the resistance carrier 75140, ordering it from Lego would cost me $88,90- ordering it from Lepin would cost me $26.59 (both including p&p)

    I don't want my lego to be mixed up with imitations, but Lego should think about their pricing, i can fully understand the average housewife buying Lepin for het kids.
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    Edmic said:

    Especially with Lepin highly likely bringing up speed of releases and it's just to wait for when they will actually have a good leak and sell a product even before lego has it on the shells a courtcase is to be expected.
    If a clone manufacturer managed to release a set before TLG did, who do you think is likely to win a court case?
  • fleuryfleury Member Posts: 10
    Edmic said:

    A Louis Vuitton handbag that has the exact same looks does not need a logo to be illegal in the EU (and Swiss, Norway etc..) also i strongly believe that reproducing an older set would easily be deemed illegal in court overhere, this since the bricks itself are no longer copyrighted, but the combination of bricks could easily be seen as a unique product and thus should be protected in my opinion. .... I can image that if i would order a fake 10179 that border patrol in Swiss would seize it and i would be fined.
    Arranging parts into a replica of an existing set constitutes copyright infringement? Maybe. But if so ... what is the difference between arranging Lego parts in this way (by "BrickLinking" a set) and arranging non-Lego parts in this way (like these clones of retired sets)?

    I don't have the answer. I think it would need a court decision or two to sort it out.
  • nhyonenhyone Member Posts: 145
    Does anyone know if this is an original design or a copied one? tia.
  • EdmicEdmic ZürichMember Posts: 102
    fleury said:
    Edmic said:

    A Louis Vuitton handbag that has the exact same looks does not need a logo to be illegal in the EU (and Swiss, Norway etc..) also i strongly believe that reproducing an older set would easily be deemed illegal in court overhere, this since the bricks itself are no longer copyrighted, but the combination of bricks could easily be seen as a unique product and thus should be protected in my opinion. .... I can image that if i would order a fake 10179 that border patrol in Swiss would seize it and i would be fined.
    Arranging parts into a replica of an existing set constitutes copyright infringement? Maybe. But if so ... what is the difference between arranging Lego parts in this way (by "BrickLinking" a set) and arranging non-Lego parts in this way (like these clones of retired sets)?

    I don't have the answer. I think it would need a court decision or two to sort it out.
    (Why is quoting on this site so ******-up? )

    The difference is that the pins itself on a brick are not protected anymore, there have been cases about that and the rulings are very clear. Everybody is allowed to produce bricks that resemble the lego bricks, just don't call them Lego. As for whole sets, there have been cases about that (Coco for example) for which the Chinese high court repeated the verdict of the lower Chinese court that the whole set is without doubt an infrigement. That is the difference. And what the American court decides is meaningless, unless Lego goes for a reseller within America, Lepin itself is not so stupid to sell directly in Europe of the USA themselves, therefor a case only can be started in China, and thus it's the former Chinese verdicts that count, and those are very clear about this.

    And you bricklinking a set has nothing to do with a company on large scale copying a design from another company. Everybody is allowed to produce fabric and make handbags, tho you are not allowed to manufacture the fabric in a way that it looks exactly like the newest clothing from another company if that set/design should be considered unique.
  • EdmicEdmic ZürichMember Posts: 102
    TigerMoth said:
    Edmic said:

    Especially with Lepin highly likely bringing up speed of releases and it's just to wait for when they will actually have a good leak and sell a product even before lego has it on the shells a courtcase is to be expected.
    If a clone manufacturer managed to release a set before TLG did, who do you think is likely to win a court case?
    I'd put my money on Lego winning a case as for the use of stole information from the company, and the ruling of that case would clearly open the way to get the imitation set removed from legal options for production.
  • Jern92Jern92 MalaysiaMember Posts: 831
    pharmjod said:
    If you want a town hall or cafe corner it is pretty easy to see why someone might spend $115 to buy the knockoff vs $550-$1500 for the real one. They now still have money for that current one. It spooks me more as a reseller than anything.
    You can get a fake Cafe Corner for about USD50 here in Malaysia.
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    Edmic said:

    Everybody is allowed to produce bricks that resemble the lego bricks, just don't call them Lego.
    As a generality, that is not true.
    As for whole sets, there have been cases about that (Coco for example) for which the Chinese high court repeated the verdict of the lower Chinese court that the whole set is without doubt an infrigement.
    Neither is that.

    The case by Interlego against Coko involved the copyright of 53 separate pieces ("bricks" if you like), not sets themselves. Indeed, Coko's defence was that they couldn't be sued for an infringement of the design of parts of a toy. That was dismissed and infringement was found for 33 of the 53 pieces, the moulds destroyed, an apology made, and a tiny sum paid as compensation. A second defendant, Fuxing Market, was ordered to stop selling sets containing the infringing parts, but they were found to not actually be infringing copyright.
    I'd put my money on Lego winning a case as for the use of stole information from the company, and the ruling of that case would clearly open the way to get the imitation set removed from legal options for production.
    Not in a Chinese court. If the case with Coko taught TLG anything, it was that they might win, but only on those aspects of the case that would be virtually impossible to dismiss - and that it was actually hardly worth winning anyway.

    They'd also have a very hard time proving information was stolen - if it was so easy to prove, they'd would've known how it was happening and taken action to prevent it. There is also still the matter of whether you can copyright a set - the example you gave doesn't do so.

    I doubt TLG would dare to sue a company that had beaten them in the release race - the result might have catastrophic consequences for TLG.
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 13,062
    TigerMoth said:
    Fuxing Market, was ordered to stop...
    @Pitfall69; @eggshen; @pharmjod; @SprinkleOtter; @Bricklover18; @Allbrick- I think this is where you can engage in trafficking of used underwear.

    Consequently, I found the answer to phase two of the Underpants Gnomes equation:

    Phase 1: Collect Underpants
    Phase 2: Sell Underpants at Fuxing Market
    Phase 3: Profit!

    Get it?
    Bricklover18eggshendatsunrobbiePitfall69Omastar
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    ^^ I believe you can't copyright the brick built model, its noticeably absent from the list lego provide, unlike the instructions and box art. Not sure why you can't, but seem to remember reading it before.
  • AllBrickAllBrick UKMember Posts: 1,419
    I posted this right at the start of the thread and I feel it needs bringing to attention again. China doesn't care very much at all......

    bandit778TechnicNickbobabricksOmastar
  • AllBrickAllBrick UKMember Posts: 1,419
    edited July 2016
    I still cannot believe that some forum members are considering or, have already purchased items from any of these companies.

    What a Fuxing mess.
    LuLegoSumoLegoBricklover18BrickDancerxwingpilotPitfall69stluxbobabricksOmastar
  • LuLegoLuLego UKMember Posts: 984
    AllBrick said:
    I still cannot believe that some forum members are considering or, have already purchased items from any of these companies.

    What a Fuxing mess.
    I haven't been on brickset that many years - but when I first started using this forum, this was very much a taboo subject. The discussion of any other brands, let alone copies, was very much discouraged. Always.

    As I said earlier, if you buy these sets, it won't fill the hole in your collection and you'll feel guilty!

    i'm waiting for the discussion that one day someone if going to ask: I own the fake version of this set, can I marked it as owned in my inventory? No!
    AllBrickstluxbobabrickscatwrangler
  • BlueAbarth500BlueAbarth500 LondonMember Posts: 18
    edited July 2016
    If Lego put in more effort to shut these people down, it wouldn't be an option. It's their fault if they can't be bothered really. I work with an F1 team, people get away with using their IP, and they can't/won't do anything about it, it's too time consuming or in the grand scheme of things doesn't affect them.
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    edited July 2016
    ^^^ Honestly I'm not. I wouldn't do it but when the price of old sets is so high I can see why some would.
    Pitfall69
  • AllBrickAllBrick UKMember Posts: 1,419
    ^^ If BMW can't do it, why would TLG try?
  • EdmicEdmic ZürichMember Posts: 102
    LuLego said:
    AllBrick said:
    I still cannot believe that some forum members are considering or, have already purchased items from any of these companies.

    What a Fuxing mess.
    I haven't been on brickset that many years - but when I first started using this forum, this was very much a taboo subject. The discussion of any other brands, let alone copies, was very much discouraged. Always.

    As I said earlier, if you buy these sets, it won't fill the hole in your collection and you'll feel guilty!

    i'm waiting for the discussion that one day someone if going to ask: I own the fake version of this set, can I marked it as owned in my inventory? No!
    I don't think people buy these to fill a hole in their collection at least i wouldn't, and these things ain't produced for the collector's if so they would bear the lego logo and try to avoid any difference from the original, but instead they are fully open about being a clone and put their own name big on the box. They buy them for several reasons among which could be:

    1. Much cheaper toy for the kids, and the kids don't care and have the same amount of fun.
    2. To be able to do a build without spending hundreds on it.
    3. To fill a gap in their showcase for which they otherwise would not have the money, especially a bunch of minifigs for starwars have insanely prices in my opinion, i have a lot of 40 starwars sets without the minifigs but after looking at the prices gave up immediately the idea of adding the figs to the sets.

    And there's a whole horde of people waiting to dive in the proper clones since they love the toy but lack the money that Lego is asking. From a collector's point of view it's just not Lego, so it's useless stuff. But a huge group just wants a toy for the kids or enjoy some building. I think it's not so long before Lego clones are as common in local facebook groups as Adidas fake sportswear is, i won't do it. But if i would bargain a nice price on a lot of new Lepin sets, i could easily double the price (or more) and sell them within very short time on Facebook, Heck if i'd to 2 or 3 runs i'd be able to buy the original 10179

    Big problem for Lego is that a lot of people just don't care and only see the much cheaper price for the same amount of fun. And let's face it, the pieces are of very good quality and the building process is fully equal as is the end result, it only bears a different name.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.