Why is it not illegal for other building blocks to imitate Lego?

There is a patent infringement litigation strategy called releasing water to raise fish, and the most typical one is the DVD player in Japan. Let the infringer profit from the infringement first, and then file a lawsuit after earning enough. At this time, compensation can be determined according to the infringer's infringement profit. In this way, the more the infringement benefits, the more the obligee benefits after winning the case. This strategy is called releasing water to raise fish.

If it is a small-scale infringement, then the compensation after winning the case is not even worth the lawyer's fee. This kind of rights protection is quite a failure. Moreover, at present, media such as intellectual property protection will quickly follow up large-scale reports and conduct rights protection lawsuits or other rights protection actions against smaller-scale infringements. Not only will they not get large infringement compensation, but sometimes they will advertise to infringers for free. the loss outweighs the gain

Secondly, Lego also sued domestic building blocks as follows

From 65438 to 0992, internationally renowned Lego toys began to enter the Chinese mainland market, and Swiss Interleg Company currently enjoys the copyright of Lego toys in China. A few years ago, Interleg found that the Keke toys produced by Tianjin Keke Toys Company were similar to Lego toys, so it took Keke Toys Company to court, accusing Keke Toys of infringing the copyright of Lego bricks as practical works of art, including 53 shapes such as carriages, clocks, birds and cannons. Koko believes that Lego bricks are not practical works of art and should not enjoy copyright, and Lego toys have applied for design patents and cannot be protected by copyright law at the same time. The Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court found that the defendant had infringed, ordered him to stop producing and selling infringing products, destroyed infringing molds, compensated the plaintiff for economic losses of 50,000 yuan, and publicly apologized. After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, both parties appealed.

After hearing the case, the Municipal High Court held that practical works of art refer to intellectual creations that are practical, artistic and meet the requirements of the works. Of the 53 building blocks advocated by Lego, 50 have a certain artistic creation height and should be regarded as practical works of art. Although Lego toy components have applied for design patents, it does not prevent them from being protected by copyright law at the same time. The 17 building blocks in Lego toys are not similar to those in tall toys, and do not constitute infringement. At the same time, the artistic creation level of Lego toy blocks involved in the case is really not very high, and there is still a certain gap with typical practical works of art, so it is reasonable for the court of first instance not to fully support Lego's claim to balance interests. Therefore, the judgment dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.