LEGO is looking to land an early(ish) win in a lawsuit waged against it for allegedly co-opting the design of a leather jacket for one of its toy sets. In the motion for summary judgment that it filed with a federal court in Connecticut last month, LEGO argues that artist James Concannon falls short in alleging copyright and trademark infringement in connection with its manufacture and sale of a Queer Eye-themed set, which contains a leather jacket that allegedly replicates one that he created for – and was worn by – Queer Eye cast member Antoni Porowski.
A Bit of Background: In a case that got its start in December 2021, Concannon claims that LEGO copied his “signature style and brand,” which consists of “short, provocative statements in hand-painted, graffiti-style lettering” that appear on t-shirts, jackets, and accessories. In doing so, Concannon maintains that the Danish toy titan ran afoul of his trademark rights in the design, which he says serves as an indicator of source. LEGO has also infringed his rights in “the unique placement, coordination, and arrangement of the individual artistic elements,” for which he maintains a U.S. copyright registration, Concannon contends.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut refused to grant LEGO’s motion to dismiss in March 2023, allowing Concannon’s direct and contributory copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, and unfair competition claims to proceed.
LEGO’s Bid for Summary Judgment
In its latest attempt to escape Concannon’s lawsuit, LEGO asserts that it is entitled to summary judgment on its affirmative defenses of non-infringement, and on Concannon’s copyright and trademark infringement claims …
> Direct Copyright Infringement: On Concannon’s claim for direct copyright infringement, LEGO argues that “there is no question of material fact that [it] had an express license to Antoni Porowski’s likeness and that Concannon granted Porowski an implied, non-exclusive license in and to the adornments on the Porowski Jacket, as part of Porowski’s likeness when he provided the jacket to Porowski for free for Porowski to wear on the Netflix show Queer Eye.”
LEGO states that it is further entitled to summary judgment on Concannon’s direct copyright infringement claim “for the separate and independent reason that any use by the LEGO Group of the adornments on the Porowski Jacket are transformative fair use as the LEGO Group evoked Porowski’s likeness and highlighted the brand collaboration between it and Queer Eye.”
> Contributory & Vicarious Copyright Infringement: Because Concannon’s claim for direct copyright infringement fails, LEGO maintains that “it is axiomatic that Concannon’s indirect copyright infringement claims fail, and the LEGO Group is entitled to summary judgment.”
> Trade Dress Infringement & Unfair Competition: Finally, LEGO argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on Concannon’s claims for trade dress infringement and unfair competition for a couple reasons. Concannon has failed “to establish secondary meaning in his asserted trade dress, which is fatal to his claim,” according to LEGO. At the same time, he has failed to show “any likelihood of confusion between the LEGO Group’s construction toy element and [hits] asserted trade dress – a one-off painted leather jacket, or any other product he sells,“ thereby, warranting summary judgment for the LEGO.
And because Concannon’s claim for trade dress infringement fails, LEGO says that it is also entitled to summary judgment on his unfair competition claim.
The case is Concannon v. Lego Systems Inc., 3:21-cv-01678 (D. Conn).
Share
