IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—2nd Cir.: Lego wins latest round in minifigure battle, court lacks jurisdiction over order dispute, (Dec 11, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

“New” figurines fell under an original injunction, and the order prohibiting the sale of certain figurines was not reviewable by interlocutory appeal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has dismissed an appeal of a minifigure creator, Zuru Inc., for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding that the district court’s order interpreting an existing preliminary injunction in favor of Lego did not constitute a modification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Because the injunction already applied to any figurine meeting the legal standards for copyright or trademark infringement, the court concluded that Zuru’s “Third-Generation” figurines fell within its scope without altering the injunction’s terms. Appellate jurisdiction did not exist to review an order finding that the sale of certain products would fall within the scope of an existing injunction, the court held in a summary order. The order did not modify the existing injunction, but only applied it (Lego A/S v. Zuru Inc., No. 24-634-cv (2nd Cir. Dec. 10, 2025)).

In 2018, Lego accused Zuru of infringing its iconic minifigure through Zuru’s “First-Generation” figurines. Specifically, Lego A/S, Lego Systems, Inc. and Lego Juris A/S (collectively, Lego) brought suit against Zuru, Inc. (Zuru) alleging that Zuru’s “first generation” toy figurines infringed the copyrights and trademarks associated with Lego’s Minifigure figurine. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction barring the sale of the first-generation figurines and “any figurine or image that is substantially similar to the Minifigure Copyrights or likely to be confused with the Minifigure Trademarks[.]” Zuru then began sale of its “second generation” figurines, which it claimed were modified to avoid confusion, but was held in contempt after the court found that those figurines were substantially similar and likely to be confused with Lego’s products. The trial court then modified the injunction, requiring Zuru to give 30 days’ notice before manufacturing or selling new figurines. Zuru gave such a notice with regard to its “third-generation” figurines, and the trial court issued an order finding that the manufacture or sale of those figurines would violate the existing preliminary injunction. Zuru appealed that order, and Lego argued that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction. The court noted that it had jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders “granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions,” but not over orders which merely interpret or clarify an existing injunction. The issue, then, was whether the trial court had merely applied its existing injunction or had effectively modified it. The court found that the trial court had appropriately determined that the third-generation figurines were substantially similar to the Lego Minifigure based on the expert testimony in the record. There was a likelihood of confusion under the Polaroid factors: the marks were similar, the Lego marks were strong, and the figurines were inexpensive and intended for children and therefore did not require a high degree of sophistication. Accordingly, the order of the trial court was simply applying the existing preliminary injunction, not modifying or extending it.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction.

The Case is No. 24-634-cv.

Judge: Per Curiam.

Attorneys: John W. Cerreta (Day Pitney LLP) for Lego A/S and Lego Systems, Inc. Daniel C. Posner (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP) for Zuru Inc.

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

Cases: Copyright Trademark MarylandNews NorthCarolinaNews SouthCarolinaNews VirginiaNews WestVirginiaNews