IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—D. Conn.: Mini figures, major victory—LEGO prevails over ZURU at summary judgment, (Apr 6, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

The iconic Danish toymaker wins on copyright and trademark claims.

A dispute over tiny-sized figurines that led to a colossal-sized lawsuit has now been resolved, at least for now, in LEGO’s favor. The 177-page decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the iconic Danish toymaker, handed down by the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, comes at the expense of Hong Kong-based ZURU and resolves both copyright as well as trademark infringement claims—leaving only a state law claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act to be resolved by a jury (Lego A/S v. Zuru Inc., No. 3:18-cv-02045-AWT (D. Conn. Apr. 2, 2026)).

LEGO filed its complaint in 2018, accusing several ZURU lines of products of infringing various copyrights, trademarks and patents. The district court granted an injunction barring ZURU from selling the products 2019, but the Federal Circuit limited the scope of the injunction to the “MAX Build More” line of figurine products. While the litigation continued, ZURU began marketing and selling a second generation of its MAX figurines, leading the district court to hold ZURU in contempt for violation of the injunction. ZURU, undaunted, began marketing and selling a third generation of the figurines. The district court issued an order in 2024 enjoining the manufacture and sale of this generation, which the Second Circuit (after first vacating and seeking further analysis) eventually affirmed.

Meanwhile, discovery proceeded on the underlying merits of the case, leading to competing motions for summary judgment.

Copyright claim—ownership of valid copyright. The court first found that LEGO had a valid copyright over its figurine products. ZURU advanced a number of arguments against the validity of the copyrights, but none hit the mark.

The first claim that the court disposed of involved LEGO’s copyright notice. Because LEGO marketed its figurines in 1978, before the United States became a party to the Berne Convention, LEGO was required to distribute its product with a copyright notice “in such manner and location as to give reasonable notice of the claim of copyright.” Here, LEGO put a full copyright notice on the box in which its figurines were sold, but only an abbreviated notice on the figurines themselves. That was enough, the court held. It would have been hard to fit the entire notice on the small figures without disfiguring them, the court noted. Moreover, the box itself apparently “was meant to be a container in which consumers could keep LEGO sets, including the LEGO Minifigures.” Because the box and the figurines constituted a “single commercial unit,” the court found, that combination of notices was enough.

The court also found that the minifigures were not ineligible for copyright under the useful article doctrine. To be sure, the court noted, the toys were functional in the sense that they acted as toys for children. But “a toy is not a ‘useful article,’” the court emphasized, “if it is simply to be played with and enjoyed and has no function other than in a child’s imagination.” That was the case here, the court noted. The toys could be “moved, attached, disassembled, reassembled, played with” and the like in order to resemble something imagined by a child. But if a product’s “intrinsic utilitarian function is merely to portray the appearance of a particular article,” the court noted, “it is not a ‘useful article,’ even if it has some mechanical or functional element.”

Copyright claim—copying and substantial similarity. The court also found that ZURU infringed upon LEGO’s copyrights. This required finding that ZURU copied LEGO’s products and that the copies were substantially similar to one another. The first part was readily confirmed. Indeed, there was direct evidence in the record, the court noted, showing that ZURU actually used the LEGO figurines as the starting point for their own products. Moreover, the court found, ZURU plainly had access to LEGO’s products, and the works were certainly “similar enough to support an inference” of copying.

The court also found that ZURU’s products were “substantially similar” to LEGO’s. Here, the court noted, the analysis was more complicated because it was necessary to exclude from comparison any nonprotectible functional aspects of the figurines. And when comparing products that contain both protectible and unprotectible elements, the court noted, “our inspection must be ‘more discerning’; we must attempt to extract the unprotectible elements from our consideration and ask whether the protectible elements, standing alone, are substantially similar.” But even when instructed to do so, the court found, any reasonable jury would conclude “that the total concept and overall feel” of the figures were substantially similar. LEGO would prevail on its copyright infringement claim.

Trademark claim—validity of trademark. The court also found that LEGO had valid trademarks to be protected. ZURU’s first argument against the trademarks was that the features at issue in the litigation had not acquired “distinctiveness” and that they were commonly used by third parties. Because LEGO claimed trade dress protection, the court noted, LEGO would have to show that its trade dress had become distinctive because it had acquired a “secondary meaning” as analyzed by factors such as advertising expenditures, consumer studies linking the mark to a source, unsolicited media coverage of the product, sales success, attempts to plagiarize the mark, and the length and exclusivity of the mark’s use. LEGO easily met that threshold in the record, the court found.

The court also rejected ZURU’s argument that the product-design trade dress was ineligible for protection by virtue of being functional. For one thing, the court found, while there were certainly aspects of the trade dress that were functional, the entire mark could not be considered “an overall combination of functional features” because there were many aspects of the trade dress that were not “essential to the use or purpose” of the figurine. For another, the court noted, ZURU failed to show that the design features for which LEGO sought protection allowed the figures “to be manufactured at a lower cost.” Finally, the court noted, ZURU failed to show that the aesthetic value of the trade dress lay only in its ability “to confer a significant benefit that cannot practically be duplicated by the use of alternative designs.”

The court also rejected ZURU’s claim that the LEGO minifigures had “variable and inconsistent appearances.” The registration and the prosecution history for trademark, the court noted, showed that the mark consists of the three-dimensional configuration of a toy figure. Indeed, the court noted, although the figure came in many different sizes and shapes and colors, those differences were all illustrated in the materials submitted to the Trademark Office. ZURU could not prevail on this defense, the court reasoned, “because the USPTO, in issuing the registration, concluded the Minifigure figurine was protectable despite the use of different colors and decorations.”

Trademark—consumer confusion. Finally, the court found, LEGO was entitled to prevail on its claim of consumer confusion. On balance, the court noted, the factors traditionally considered by courts in the Second Circuit support this claim. As the court noted, LEGO’s mark was indisputably strong, the two figurines were highly similar, the products competed in the same markets, ZURU deliberately copied LEGO’s product, and the consumers of figurine toy products were not sophisticated. On the other hand, the court noted, there was only limited evidence of actual consumer confusion, and the evidence was mixed as to the quality of ZURU’s product. On balance, the court concluded, weighing the latter factors against the former “does not create a genuine issue as to the fact that there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of ZURU’s products.”

Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. Although the court granted LEGO a victory on its federal claims, it left the state law claim in the case. “Here, LEGO does not discuss the substantive law, i.e. what elements a plaintiff must prove in order to prevail on a CUTPA claim,” the court observed. “Nor does it identify the portions of the record it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to each of the elements of a CUTPA claim.” This claim could not be disposed of at summary judgment.

The Case is No. 3:18-cv-02045-AWT.

Judge: Thompson, A.

Attorneys: Andraya Pulaski Brunau (Day Pitney LLP) for Lego A/S and Lego Systems, Inc. Charles Barnwell Straut, II (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP) for Zuru Inc.

Companies: Lego A/S; Lego Systems, Inc.; Zuru Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Copyright Trademark Patent ConnecticutNews GCNNews