Answers.Body: <p>This is a complex topic. If you are considering designing a LEGO-compatible product, you may want to consult a lawyer who is an expert in this area. With that in mind, here's my attempt at an answer.</p>
  <h2>Terms</h2>
  <p>First we'll define some terms. From Wikipedia:</p>
  <h3>Copyright</h3>
  <blockquote>
  <p>A type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to copy and distribute a <strong>creative work</strong>, usually for a limited time.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <h3>Trademark</h3>
  <blockquote>
  <p>A type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression that <strong>identifies products or services from a particular source</strong> and distinguishes them from others.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <h3>Patent</h3>
  <blockquote>
  <p>A type of intellectual property that gives its owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, or selling <strong>an invention</strong> for a limited period of time in exchange for publishing an enabling disclosure of the invention.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <h3>Industrial Design Right or Design Patent</h3>
  <blockquote>
  <p>An intellectual property right that <strong>protects the visual design of objects that are not purely utilitarian</strong>.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>It is very easy to get these mixed up.</p>
  <p>Trademark never expires, and relates to a specific design or mark that identifies a product or brand. The shape of the LEGO minifigure is trademarked. The word &quot;LEGO&quot; is also trademarked.</p>
  <p>The &quot;Red LEGO Brick&quot; judgement from 2010 struck down the idea that the shape of the 2x4 LEGO brick could be trademarked. The reasoning behind this decision was that the shape is functional and it would not be possible for another company to design another shape that functioned in the same manner without being essentially the same item.</p>
  <p>Copyright rarely applies to functional designs like building blocks. It is used for purely creative works. It may apply in the case of box art, instructions, or complete set designs.</p>
  <p>Patents cover novel and non-obvious functional inventions. The stud and tube design was successfully patented in 1958 and the patent has since expired.</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/XIRQy.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/XIRQy.jpg" alt="Original patent" /></a></p>
  <p>Design patents are a bit different than regular patents. They still represent novel and non-obvious functional inventions, but can be granted for a different visual structure that performs a similar function to prior art. For example, the Coke bottle was covered by a now expired design patent, but is still covered under trademark:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/tg3ob.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/tg3ob.png" alt="Design Patent" /></a></p>
  <p>The <a href="https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/designs/001664368-0006" rel="noreferrer">2016 Application for Declaration of Invalidity</a> that you mentioned revolves around a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_design" rel="noreferrer">registered community design (RCD)</a>. I believe that this is an EU legal structure that is effectively a design patent or industrial design right.</p>
  <p>The application referenced the 2010 2x4 brick trademark case. The rationale for denying this request to have the RCD invalidated was partially based on the arguments related to trademark in that case not applying to an RCD. Trademark should rarely apply only to specific non-functional design elements, otherwise the patent system need not exist as entities could simply permanently trademark everything they design. Patents can be more broad in the designs they cover, as they allow only for a limited period of exclusive use.</p>
  <p>In practice, very few elements appear to be eligible trademark. The minifig is the most common one that I'm aware of. The 2010 case makes it clear that regular bricks are generally not eligible for trademark protections, even bricks like the 2x4 that are iconic and largely synonymous with the idea of a LEGO brick.</p>
  <p>That implies that most element designs will fall under patent law rather than trademark. In order to be eligible for a patent, the design must be novel and non-obvious. If a patent is awarded for a design, it will typically be protected for some number of years, typically on the order of about 25. Here's an example of a <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/USD846035S1" rel="noreferrer">recent LEGO element patent</a>:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/ObTN8.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/ObTN8.png" alt="element patent" /></a></p>
  <p>The patent on that design is expected to expire in 2034.</p>
  <p>One may think that in order to make elements that are free of patent infringement, it would be sufficient to be aware of all of <a href="https://patents.google.com/?assignee=lego%20as&amp;status=GRANT" rel="noreferrer">TLG's non-expired patents</a>. However, anyone can be granted a patent for a LEGO-compatible element. Here's another recent patent:</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/t0hVe.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/t0hVe.png" alt="Mega Patent https://patents.google.com/patent/US10583368B2" /></a></p>
  <p>That patent was awarded to Mega Brands, so even TLG can't make that element until the patent expires in 2036. Unfortunately, determining which designs are patent infringing currently and which are not is non-trivial, and there is a reason these companies have legal teams.</p>
  <p>Thankfully, there is a somewhat simpler answer to the question:</p>
  <p><strong>If an element already exists, and was created long enough ago that its patent would have expired in the jurisdiction of interest, it should be free to use.</strong></p>
  <p>This does assume that the element is not eligible for trademark protection, but it seems that most are not. Anyone can manufacture and sell a LEGO-compatible 2x4 brick in a product. All other common building elements that were around in the 80s, or obvious extensions of these elements such as the 1x5 plate, should also be fine. Beyond that, it gets complicated.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-05-10T13:44:13.907Z
Answers.Text: Out of curiosity, what is the purpose of that last block?  I can see what it does - placing the brick on the left causes the brick on the right to pop off, and vice versa.  But what would you *need* that for?  There's easier ways of separating bricks that don't require designing everything around that bulky mechanism, and it doesn't look like that'd pop them off with enough force to make a fun little catapult or anything like that.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Darrel Hoffman
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-05-10T15:01:24.630Z
Answers.Text: @DarrelHoffman Both bricks could be part of separate moving mechanisms. First thing that comes to mind would be two ferris wheels, that are side by side, but should only move when the other has one gondola on the ground. So pressing one gondola into the ground, would release the other one to rotate further. Or releasing something on a zip line? Basically manual activation/unlocking of a moving mechanism.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Minix
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-05-10T17:21:18.200Z
Answers.Text: @Minix Maybe?  But it looks like you'd just wind up with a loose brick, higher by the height of just the pegs.  Seems to me there are plenty of easier ways to accomplish that, but I'd have to see it in action.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Darrel Hoffman
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-05-10T21:00:42.260Z
Answers.Text: @DarrelHoffman Owning a patent does not necessitate manufacturing the protected design. Might be that Mega has realised the same thing you did, but after submitting the patent application.
Answers.UserDisplayName: zovits
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-05-11T00:49:21.397Z
Answers.Text: @jncraton : Thanks for your detailed answer. With respect to your initial remark, I am indeed contemplating starting a business that involves both LEGO-compatible items (similar to BrickArms) or derivative products (similar to Little Brick Art & 3DWise), targeting the AFOL-community. And I guess I'm trying to figure out how to avoid stepping into a legal minefield...
Answers.UserDisplayName: John Slegers
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-05-11T01:39:38.463Z
Answers.Text: @JohnSlegers Good stuff. I hope that the new venture goes well! From what I've seen, TLG is much more likely to go after trademark and whole set copyright infringement than any element patent issues. This is especially true for small startup ventures run by AFOLs filling a niche in the community. There is literally a display case of those sorts of products at the US HQ in Enfield. TLG tends to have a positive relationship with those sorts of businesses as long as there's no trademark infringement.
Answers.UserDisplayName: jncraton
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-05-11T02:19:21.707Z
Answers.Text: @jncraton : [TLG did go after the 3D printing community a while ago](https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/3d-printing-community-hit-by-lego-takedown-notices-162451/), getting 3D-printable files of LEGO parts folks were sharing for free removed with takedown notices. They also had 2 T-shirts removed that I was selling on [RedBubble](https://www.redbubble.com/) a few years ago, with respectively a minifig & a minifig head on 'em. This kind of actions is what makes me rather reluctant to even touch anything LEGO-related for my business...
Answers.UserDisplayName: John Slegers
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-05-11T13:15:40.223Z
Answers.Text: @JohnSlegers TLG does protect their trademarks (logo, minifig likeness, etc) as both of those take downs show. This is quite different then going after the design of individual building elements.
Answers.UserDisplayName: jncraton
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-05-11T16:43:36.837Z
Answers.Text: @jncraton I can see the parrot being covered by trademark, but the blaster doesn't seem to be a good example of this. It is made of two simple LEGO parts that have been around since the 80s and the LEGO mark is not present on them.
Answers.UserDisplayName: called2voyage
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-05-11T16:44:51.347Z
Answers.Text: @jncraton That said, there was no legal decision in that case. It was a takedown request, and the site decided to honor it. It may be that the claim of the blaster being trademarked wouldn't be defensible.
Answers.UserDisplayName: called2voyage
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-05-10T03:26:24.900Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-05-10T13:01:11.357Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2022-05-10T13:01:11.357Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: jncraton
Body: <p>In 2010, The European court of justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/lego-loses-trademark-fight-to-mega-brands-1.920323" rel="noreferrer">validated a lower-court ruling, in favor of Canada's Mega Brands</a>, that Lego's bricks can't be legally protected by trademark law because their two rows of interlocking studs are a functional, technical shape that cannot become the property of any one company.</p>
  <p>In 2015, the ECJ <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jun/16/lego-trademark-protection-mini-figures-european-court-justice-best-lock" rel="noreferrer">rejected an attempt by Best-Lock</a>, a UK-based toymaker, to appeal against the trademark protection of Lego’s figures, ruling that LEGO mini-figures should continue to be classed as protected shapes.</p>
  <p>In December 2016, German toy manufacturer Delta Sport filed an application for the declaration of invalidity of <a href="https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/designs/001664368-0006" rel="noreferrer">design 001664368-0006</a>, trademarked the with the EU since 2010, applying the same reasoning used by Mega Brands to win their lawsuit in 2010. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) initially sided with Delta Sport in 2019, but this ruling would later be <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/lego-wins-design-patent-case-against-german-company-at-eu-court/a-56978555" rel="noreferrer">overruled by the General Court of the European Union (EGC)</a>.</p>
  <p>What is the impact of these lawsuits on items sold by brands such as <a href="http://c-en.qmjm.com/" rel="noreferrer">Qman</a>, <a href="https://www.bluebrixx.com/en/" rel="noreferrer">BlueBrixx</a>, <a href="https://cobi.pl/en/" rel="noreferrer">Cobi</a> &amp; <a href="https://www.3dwise.eu/product/big-brick-pot/?lang=en" rel="noreferrer">3DWise</a>, or artists like <a href="http://www.stefanobolcato.com/stefano-bolcato-inside-a-little-world.html" rel="noreferrer">Stefano Bolcato</a> or <a href="https://www.littlebigart.co.uk/" rel="noreferrer">Andy Morris (aka &quot;Little Big Art&quot;)</a>?</p>
  <p>To which degree is one legally allowed to produce and/or sell LEGO-compatible bricks or artworks inspired by LEGO?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-05-11T21:20:04.840Z
Comments.Text: Don't you think there's a huge difference between "LEGO-compatible bricks" and "artworks inspired by LEGO"?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Robbie Goodwin
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-05-12T15:07:04.460Z
Comments.Text: @RobbieGoodwin : Is there? Both are essentially derivative creations inspired by LEGO products or components or LEGO products. The whole distinction between "art", "merch" and "toy" is rather arbitrary IMO...
Comments.UserDisplayName: John Slegers
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-05-12T15:25:55.230Z
Comments.Text: Sorry John. I still think there's a huge difference, and I now realise this is one place where that doesn't matter. a jot.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Robbie Goodwin
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-05-13T23:11:56.630Z
Comments.Text: @RobbieGoodwin : Can you please elaborate? In what way is there a huge difference, in your opinion? And why do you believe it doesn't matter? You completely lost me here, with your train of thought...
Comments.UserDisplayName: John Slegers
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-05-14T22:28:49.957Z
Comments.Text: Sorry I Posted that before realising it doesn't matter here. Broadly, bricks are bricks. I took "artworks inspired by LEGO" to mean "models built using LEGO or compatible bricks". I failed to see through that tenuous wording to the fact that "artworks inspired by LEGO" might be both a sophisticated attempt at describing simple bricks, and in other circumstances a more mundane term for models specifically designed by LEGO. I now see that while those are three, very different things, the difference doesn't matter here.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Robbie Goodwin
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-05-15T23:25:47.453Z
Comments.Text: @RobbieGoodwin : When I'm talking about "artworks inspired by LEGO", I'm refering first and foremost to paintings / prints like those made by [Stefano Bolcato](http://www.stefanobolcato.com/stefano-bolcato-inside-a-little-world.html) & [Andy Morris](https://www.littlebigart.co.uk/product-page/the-many-faces-of-marilyn), jumbo-sized mini-builds like [these flowers by 3DWise](https://www.3dwise.eu/product/big-brick-pot/?lang=en) & [this human-sized money tile by Andy Morris](https://www.littlebigart.co.uk/product-page/human-size-money-tile), etc.
Comments.UserDisplayName: John Slegers
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-05-16T10:08:19.837Z
Comments.Text: Thanks and sorry to point out, that makes things less clear. I doubt LEGO could claim copyright to any of those linked examples… but the artists would.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Robbie Goodwin
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-05-16T17:04:49.890Z
Comments.Text: Copyright applies when any work is created, even if it is based on other copyright works.  If the derivative work can't get a license from the underlying copyright holder, then fair use or the first-sale doctrine may cover it.
Comments.UserDisplayName: chicks
Tags: <clone-brands><history><lego-group><customization>
Title: Which bricks are still protected by copyright / trademark / patent law?
UserDisplayName: John Slegers
ThreadText: # Which bricks are still protected by copyright / trademark / patent law?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2022-05-09)
  
  In 2010, The European court of justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg [validated a lower-court ruling, in favor of Canada's Mega Brands](https://www.cbc.ca/news/lego-loses-trademark-fight-to-mega-brands-1.920323), that Lego's bricks can't be legally protected by trademark law because their two rows of interlocking studs are a functional, technical shape that cannot become the property of any one company.
  
  In 2015, the ECJ [rejected an attempt by Best-Lock](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/jun/16/lego-trademark-protection-mini-figures-european-court-justice-best-lock), a UK-based toymaker, to appeal against the trademark protection of Lego’s figures, ruling that LEGO mini-figures should continue to be classed as protected shapes.
  
  In December 2016, German toy manufacturer Delta Sport filed an application for the declaration of invalidity of [design 001664368-0006](https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/designs/001664368-0006), trademarked the with the EU since 2010, applying the same reasoning used by Mega Brands to win their lawsuit in 2010. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) initially sided with Delta Sport in 2019, but this ruling would later be [overruled by the General Court of the European Union (EGC)](https://www.dw.com/en/lego-wins-design-patent-case-against-german-company-at-eu-court/a-56978555).
  
  What is the impact of these lawsuits on items sold by brands such as [Qman](http://c-en.qmjm.com/), [BlueBrixx](https://www.bluebrixx.com/en/), [Cobi](https://cobi.pl/en/) & [3DWise](https://www.3dwise.eu/product/big-brick-pot/?lang=en), or artists like [Stefano Bolcato](http://www.stefanobolcato.com/stefano-bolcato-inside-a-little-world.html) or [Andy Morris (aka "Little Big Art")](https://www.littlebigart.co.uk/)?
  
  To which degree is one legally allowed to produce and/or sell LEGO-compatible bricks or artworks inspired by LEGO?
  
  **Tags:** clone-brands, history, lego-group, customization
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Don't you think there's a huge difference between "LEGO-compatible bricks" and "artworks inspired by LEGO"?  
  > **username_0**: @RobbieGoodwin : Is there? Both are essentially derivative creations inspired by LEGO products or components or LEGO products. The whole distinction between "art", "merch" and "toy" is rather arbitrary IMO...  
  > **username_1**: Sorry John. I still think there's a huge difference, and I now realise this is one place where that doesn't matter. a jot.  
  > **username_0**: @RobbieGoodwin : Can you please elaborate? In what way is there a huge difference, in your opinion? And why do you believe it doesn't matter? You completely lost me here, with your train of thought...  
  > **username_1**: Sorry I Posted that before realising it doesn't matter here. Broadly, bricks are bricks. I took "artworks inspired by LEGO" to mean "models built using LEGO or compatible bricks". I failed to see through that tenuous wording to the fact that "artworks inspired by LEGO" might be both a sophisticated attempt at describing simple bricks, and in other circumstances a more mundane term for models specifically designed by LEGO. I now see that while those are three, very different things, the difference doesn't matter here.  
  > **username_0**: @RobbieGoodwin : When I'm talking about "artworks inspired by LEGO", I'm refering first and foremost to paintings / prints like those made by [Stefano Bolcato](http://www.stefanobolcato.com/stefano-bolcato-inside-a-little-world.html) & [Andy Morris](https://www.littlebigart.co.uk/product-page/the-many-faces-of-marilyn), jumbo-sized mini-builds like [these flowers by 3DWise](https://www.3dwise.eu/product/big-brick-pot/?lang=en) & [this human-sized money tile by Andy Morris](https://www.littlebigart.co.uk/product-page/human-size-money-tile), etc.  
  > **username_1**: Thanks and sorry to point out, that makes things less clear. I doubt LEGO could claim copyright to any of those linked examples… but the artists would.  
  > **username_2**: Copyright applies when any work is created, even if it is based on other copyright works.  If the derivative work can't get a license from the underlying copyright holder, then fair use or the first-sale doctrine may cover it.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2022-05-10. Score: 19 | Accepted answer
  
  This is a complex topic. If you are considering designing a LEGO-compatible product, you may want to consult a lawyer who is an expert in this area. With that in mind, here's my attempt at an answer.
  
  ## Terms
  
  First we'll define some terms. From Wikipedia:
  
  ### Copyright
  
  > A type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to copy and distribute a **creative work**, usually for a limited time.
  
  ### Trademark
  
  > A type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression that **identifies products or services from a particular source** and distinguishes them from others.
  
  ### Patent
  
  > A type of intellectual property that gives its owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, or selling **an invention** for a limited period of time in exchange for publishing an enabling disclosure of the invention.
  
  ### Industrial Design Right or Design Patent
  
  > An intellectual property right that **protects the visual design of objects that are not purely utilitarian**.
  
  It is very easy to get these mixed up.
  
  Trademark never expires, and relates to a specific design or mark that identifies a product or brand. The shape of the LEGO minifigure is trademarked. The word "LEGO" is also trademarked.
  
  The "Red LEGO Brick" judgement from 2010 struck down the idea that the shape of the 2x4 LEGO brick could be trademarked. The reasoning behind this decision was that the shape is functional and it would not be possible for another company to design another shape that functioned in the same manner without being essentially the same item.
  
  Copyright rarely applies to functional designs like building blocks. It is used for purely creative works. It may apply in the case of box art, instructions, or complete set designs.
  
  Patents cover novel and non-obvious functional inventions. The stud and tube design was successfully patented in 1958 and the patent has since expired.
  
  [![Original patent](https://i.sstatic.net/XIRQy.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/XIRQy.jpg)
  
  Design patents are a bit different than regular patents. They still represent novel and non-obvious functional inventions, but can be granted for a different visual structure that performs a similar function to prior art. For example, the Coke bottle was covered by a now expired design patent, but is still covered under trademark:
  
  [![Design Patent](https://i.sstatic.net/tg3ob.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/tg3ob.png)
  
  The [2016 Application for Declaration of Invalidity](https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/designs/001664368-0006) that you mentioned revolves around a [registered community design (RCD)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_design). I believe that this is an EU legal structure that is effectively a design patent or industrial design right.
  
  The application referenced the 2010 2x4 brick trademark case. The rationale for denying this request to have the RCD invalidated was partially based on the arguments related to trademark in that case not applying to an RCD. Trademark should rarely apply only to specific non-functional design elements, otherwise the patent system need not exist as entities could simply permanently trademark everything they design. Patents can be more broad in the designs they cover, as they allow only for a limited period of exclusive use.
  
  In practice, very few elements appear to be eligible trademark. The minifig is the most common one that I'm aware of. The 2010 case makes it clear that regular bricks are generally not eligible for trademark protections, even bricks like the 2x4 that are iconic and largely synonymous with the idea of a LEGO brick.
  
  That implies that most element designs will fall under patent law rather than trademark. In order to be eligible for a patent, the design must be novel and non-obvious. If a patent is awarded for a design, it will typically be protected for some number of years, typically on the order of about 25. Here's an example of a [recent LEGO element patent](https://patents.google.com/patent/USD846035S1):
  
  [![element patent](https://i.sstatic.net/ObTN8.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/ObTN8.png)
  
  The patent on that design is expected to expire in 2034.
  
  One may think that in order to make elements that are free of patent infringement, it would be sufficient to be aware of all of [TLG's non-expired patents](https://patents.google.com/?assignee=lego%20as&status=GRANT). However, anyone can be granted a patent for a LEGO-compatible element. Here's another recent patent:
  
  [![Mega Patent https://patents.google.com/patent/US10583368B2](https://i.sstatic.net/t0hVe.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/t0hVe.png)
  
  That patent was awarded to Mega Brands, so even TLG can't make that element until the patent expires in 2036. Unfortunately, determining which designs are patent infringing currently and which are not is non-trivial, and there is a reason these companies have legal teams.
  
  Thankfully, there is a somewhat simpler answer to the question:
  
  **If an element already exists, and was created long enough ago that its patent would have expired in the jurisdiction of interest, it should be free to use.**
  
  This does assume that the element is not eligible for trademark protection, but it seems that most are not. Anyone can manufacture and sell a LEGO-compatible 2x4 brick in a product. All other common building elements that were around in the 80s, or obvious extensions of these elements such as the 1x5 plate, should also be fine. Beyond that, it gets complicated.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: Out of curiosity, what is the purpose of that last block?  I can see what it does - placing the brick on the left causes the brick on the right to pop off, and vice versa.  But what would you *need* that for?  There's easier ways of separating bricks that don't require designing everything around that bulky mechanism, and it doesn't look like that'd pop them off with enough force to make a fun little catapult or anything like that.  
  > **username_5**: @DarrelHoffman Both bricks could be part of separate moving mechanisms. First thing that comes to mind would be two ferris wheels, that are side by side, but should only move when the other has one gondola on the ground. So pressing one gondola into the ground, would release the other one to rotate further. Or releasing something on a zip line? Basically manual activation/unlocking of a moving mechanism.  
  > **username_4**: @Minix Maybe?  But it looks like you'd just wind up with a loose brick, higher by the height of just the pegs.  Seems to me there are plenty of easier ways to accomplish that, but I'd have to see it in action.  
  > **username_6**: @DarrelHoffman Owning a patent does not necessitate manufacturing the protected design. Might be that Mega has realised the same thing you did, but after submitting the patent application.  
  > **username_0**: @jncraton : Thanks for your detailed answer. With respect to your initial remark, I am indeed contemplating starting a business that involves both LEGO-compatible items (similar to BrickArms) or derivative products (similar to Little Brick Art & 3DWise), targeting the AFOL-community. And I guess I'm trying to figure out how to avoid stepping into a legal minefield...  
  > **username_3**: @JohnSlegers Good stuff. I hope that the new venture goes well! From what I've seen, TLG is much more likely to go after trademark and whole set copyright infringement than any element patent issues. This is especially true for small startup ventures run by AFOLs filling a niche in the community. There is literally a display case of those sorts of products at the US HQ in Enfield. TLG tends to have a positive relationship with those sorts of businesses as long as there's no trademark infringement.  
  > **username_0**: @jncraton : [TLG did go after the 3D printing community a while ago](https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/3d-printing-community-hit-by-lego-takedown-notices-162451/), getting 3D-printable files of LEGO parts folks were sharing for free removed with takedown notices. They also had 2 T-shirts removed that I was selling on [RedBubble](https://www.redbubble.com/) a few years ago, with respectively a minifig & a minifig head on 'em. This kind of actions is what makes me rather reluctant to even touch anything LEGO-related for my business...  
  > **username_3**: @JohnSlegers TLG does protect their trademarks (logo, minifig likeness, etc) as both of those take downs show. This is quite different then going after the design of individual building elements.  
  > **username_7**: @jncraton I can see the parrot being covered by trademark, but the blaster doesn't seem to be a good example of this. It is made of two simple LEGO parts that have been around since the 80s and the LEGO mark is not present on them.  
  > **username_7**: @jncraton That said, there was no legal decision in that case. It was a takedown request, and the site decided to honor it. It may be that the claim of the blaster being trademarked wouldn't be defensible.  
  
  ---
  
  