Trademark infringement. They could argue it is a different category than the toy company, but I think that line of argument is already lost given they are using LEGO style bricks on the website.
> They could argue it is a different category than the toy company, but I think that line of argument is already lost given they are using LEGO style bricks on the website
It helps that it is a different product.
They could put down Pikachu iconography and that doesn't make the product similar to Pikachu. All colored bricks are not (yet) under Mattel's control. I think there's wiggle room.
LEGO trademark registration https://trademarks.justia.com/745/93/lego-74593028.html registers the trademarks also in all the major categories where software can fall in, and so it's upon LegoOS to demonstrate that there's no way that an uninformed consumer might confuse and think that they're related (which is IMHO impossible, given a single look at their homepage).
It also explictly lists that the trademark is used (among other things) for educational computer programs, computer accessories, entertainment services in the nature of providing facilities for playing computer games, conducting workshops for instruction in the use of computer software, etc - and that's true, I personally know a bunch of software products with the LEGO™ brand.
As the trademark is both used and registered not only for plastic bricks but also in the field of software, naming a product LegoOS by itself would invite a trademark claim, and putting a red brick (that's not registered, but definitely does create an association for the average consumer, which matters very much in trademark claims) on the homepage just removes any maneuvering space; IMHO it'd be a slam-dunk guaranteed immediate injunction if LEGO sends a C&D that gets contested. And the practice of trademark law means that they pretty much must sent a C&D, not doing so would be quite bad for them.
Its funny when you think about whats fair in this kind of stuff.
For example if you use AppleSomething, apple is a fruit, was a famous record label before being a famous computing brand.
As theres a fruit before anything else, you can argue why you could have some rights over the brand. If is AppleOS of course you can have trouble because Apple the IT company have a OS and they might argue this is a common way people refer to iOS or MacOS.
But Lego is a whole different category. There is no well known concept of Lego before Lego was created, and theres a sort of mechanics and way of thinking that is totally associated with the idea of Lego because of the Lego toy.
So if you use Lego in that sense even if its for something else, they might reclaim the concepts name, because they actually invented not just a toy, but a toy with a concept of composability for which people might be inclined to reuse the name, not because of the toy, but the larger concept the toy represents.
> The LEGO trademark is considered
> a famous trademark in a number of
> jurisdictions. In some indicated in a
> registration certificate or included on a
> list of famous trademarks, but most often
> confirmed through decisions rendered
> in specific cases. It means that the
> LEGO trademark has the widest possible
> protection, i.e. for all goods and services,
> and that we should be able to prevent
> others from using the LEGO trademark,
> not just for toys, but for any goods.
