Zuru wins Court of Appeal trademark spat with Lego

Wednesday, 10 December 2025

The Court of Appeal has handed victory to Zuru in its trademark legal fight with Danish toymaker Lego.

The court has overturned a 2023 ruling by the High Court which said Zuru’s inclusion of the word “Lego” on the packaging for its Max Build More toy building bricks infringed on the Danish company’s trademark.

The word Lego was included in a compatibility statement that the Max Build More bricks were “Lego bricks compatible”.

The case began after Lego took exception to the use of its brand name on Max Build More packaging, prompting The Warehouse to pull Max Build More bricks from its shelves.

Zuru, which is owned by the richlister Mowbray twins, sought a High Court ruling to declare that its packaging did not infringe on Lego’s trademark, but lost.

It appealed the ruling, and the Court of Appeal has now overturned the High Court’s decision.

Zuru has scored a victory over Lego at the Court of Appeal.

In a judgment published on Wednesday by justices Rebecca Ellis, Francis Cooke and Matthew Palmer, the court declared that the use of the word “Lego” in Zuru’s original compatibility statement did not infringe Lego’s registered trade mark.

Justices Ellis and Palmer said: “We disagree with the High Court’s conclusion that Zuru used LEGO as a trade mark because Zuru used the mark to distinguish its own products from others in the field and not in a purely descriptive manner.

“On the contrary, and as we have explained, we consider its use … is purely descriptive.“

They said: “While it may be that the fact Zuru’s bricks are compatible with Lego bricks does (as a matter of fact) distinguish them from others, telling consumers this does not constitute use of the Lego mark in a manner that renders it likely to be taken as indicating the origin of Zuru’s bricks.”

“In our view, when use of Lego is seen in its full context, the consumer would think that Zuru’s bricks were Max Build More bricks.“

They did not find that Zuru’s use of the word Lego confused shoppers into thinking they were either Lego bricks, or were sourced from the same factories as Lego bricks.

As a result Lego failed in its cross appeal which claimed Zuru was “passing off” its bricks in such a way that it infringed the Fair Trading Act by confusing or deceiving the public.

Lego bricks have strong design and are popular, but they are expensive, and there are cheaper copycat brands trying to catch the eye of shoppers.

Lego’s argument rested on an assertion that the use of the word “Lego” in the Zuru compatibility statements was likely to cause a significant number of persons who viewed them to be confused about, or deceived as to, whether Zuru’s products were made by Lego, or were endorsed in some way by Lego.

In mounting its case, Zuru had quoted a Court of Appeal England and Wales judgment to the Court of Appeal, which contained the phrase: “A touch of reality is called for here. Consumers are not stupid.”

Ellis and Palmer agreed that “only an implausible chain of reasoning would cause a consumer to be misled” by Zuru’s compatibility statement.

“Consumers in the 21st century are not easily fooled, are brand-aware, and would not reasonably think Zuru’s products were made by or associated with Lego,” Ellis and Palmer said.

Justice Cooke agreed there was no trademark infringement, but for a different reason, saying it was engaging in honest, comparative advertising.

“The fact that a competitor wishes to compete by ‘aggressive[ly]’ comparing its goods to the other goods, and obtain some of its customers as a consequence, does not mean that they have not engaged in honest practices,” Cooke said.

“This is simply competition.”

Currently, Max Build More bricks are marketed as being “compatible with major brands”.