By Staff writer William kendzierski
September 10, 2026
The little plastic brick that became a big intellectual-property battle
Few toys are as recognizable as LEGO. For generations, the colorful plastic bricks have been used to build everything from simple houses to elaborate cities, vehicles, robots and works of art. But behind the familiar brick is a complicated world of copyrights, trademarks, patents and other intellectual-property rights.
The legal question is not simply whether someone can make a plastic brick that connects to another brick. It is which aspects of a LEGO product are legally protected—and which are free for competitors and consumers to use.
Copyright doesn’t necessarily protect the basic brick
Copyright generally protects original creative expression rather than basic ideas, concepts or functional designs. That distinction is particularly important for construction toys.
A basic building brick performs a function: it connects with other bricks. Functional features generally fall outside the scope of copyright protection. Other forms of intellectual-property law, particularly patents, trademarks and trade dress, can become more important when companies attempt to protect functional products or distinctive branding.
This distinction has allowed competitors to manufacture compatible construction bricks while avoiding LEGO’s protected branding and copyrighted creative works.
Patents changed the game
LEGO has historically used patents to protect aspects of its brick and connecting systems. But patents expire.
One of the most important developments occurred when LEGO’s original patents covering key aspects of its classic brick system reached the end of their terms. Once patent protection expired, competitors gained greater freedom to manufacture compatible construction bricks.
That did not, however, mean that everything associated with LEGO suddenly became public domain.
The LEGO name, logo, minifigures, characters, instructions, photographs, artwork and many specific creative designs can involve separate intellectual-property rights.
The LEGO name is a different matter
The word LEGO is a trademark. A competitor can manufacture a compatible brick, but it cannot simply put the LEGO trademark on its competing product and make consumers believe the product comes from LEGO.
This creates an important distinction:
Compatible with LEGO is not the same thing as made by LEGO.
Companies selling compatible products therefore have to be careful about how they describe their products, package them and advertise them.
What about copying a LEGO set?
The legal situation becomes more complicated when someone copies an entire LEGO set.
A person building a LEGO model for personal use generally presents a very different legal issue from a company commercially reproducing LEGO’s instructions, packaging, artwork or distinctive character designs.
For example, reproducing LEGO’s instruction booklet and selling copies could raise copyright concerns even if some of the underlying physical pieces themselves are not protected by copyright.
Likewise, copying LEGO artwork or character illustrations can create a separate copyright issue.
LEGO minifigures create another layer
The familiar LEGO minifigure has become one of the company’s most recognizable products.
Its physical configuration, individual features and artistic elements can raise different intellectual-property questions from those involving a simple rectangular brick.
A competitor may therefore face legal issues even when it can legally manufacture a compatible construction brick.
The key question is always what exactly is being copied.
Fan creations and the Internet
The rise of YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and online marketplaces has created a new challenge.
Millions of fans photograph and publish LEGO creations online. Some sell instructions for their own models. Others create custom minifigures, accessories and aftermarket products.
LEGO generally benefits enormously from this fan ecosystem because it keeps the brand visible and encourages creativity.
But commercial activity can cross a legal line when a third party uses LEGO’s protected branding or copyrighted material in a way that suggests an official relationship or reproduces protected works without permission.
LEGO’s licensing strategy
LEGO has also built a huge business around licensing intellectual property from other companies.
Sets based on movies, television programs, video games and other entertainment properties can involve multiple layers of rights.
A LEGO set based on a famous film may involve rights associated with the film studio, characters, logos, artwork and other intellectual property—while LEGO contributes the physical product and its own design and branding.
This illustrates an important point about modern toys:
A single product can contain many different intellectual-property rights.
The bigger question
The LEGO story demonstrates why copyright law cannot simply be reduced to the question, “Who owns the design?”
A product can contain:
- Copyright — protecting original artistic and literary expression.
- Trademarks — protecting names, logos and brand identifiers.
- Patents — protecting qualifying inventions and functional innovations for a limited period.
- Trade dress — potentially protecting distinctive aspects of product or packaging appearance when legal requirements are met.
- Licensing rights — allowing companies to legally use someone else’s intellectual property.
These rights can overlap, but they are not interchangeable.
Why the brick remains controversial
LEGO’s success has made its brick system one of the most recognizable product designs in the world. That success has also created a continuing debate over where intellectual-property protection should end and competition should begin.
Consumers want compatible products. Competitors want the ability to innovate. LEGO wants to protect the enormous investment it has made in its brand and creative properties.
The result is a legal balancing act.
The humble plastic brick may look simple, but the law surrounding it is anything but.
One brick can connect to another in seconds. Determining who has the legal right to make, sell, copy or advertise that brick can take years—and sometimes an entire courtroom.
This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, legal opinion, or a determination of any person’s or company’s legal rights. Intellectual-property laws—including copyright, trademark, patent, trade-dress, and licensing laws—vary by jurisdiction and can depend heavily on the specific product, design, use, and circumstances involved.
References to LEGO, its products, trademarks, designs, or intellectual property are made for informational purposes. LEGO® is a trademark of the LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, authorize, or endorse this article unless expressly stated otherwise.
Nothing in this article should be interpreted as stating that any particular LEGO product, design, character, brick, instruction, image, or other material is or is not protected by a particular intellectual-property right. Readers should consult a qualified intellectual-property attorney for advice concerning a specific legal question, product, business activity, or potential infringement claim.