With the construction industry looking for ways to improve the efficiency of their workflow, one of the solutions that has helped make concrete construction and concrete repairs easier is the incorporation of modular blocks that have marks on the top and holes in the bottom.
This system is remarkably similar to the interlocking block toy Lego, to the point that in some construction circles, the system of using interlocking concrete blocks is described as some variation of “concrete Lego” or “Lego concrete bricks”.
For the most part, this has flown under the radar of the Denmark toy company’s lawyers, at least until a construction firm known for their high-quality online videos learned that whilst the company’s name was shorthand for “play well”, they were exceptionally serious when it came to their trademark.
Ashville Aggregates is a construction firm based in West Drayton in the London Borough of Hillingdon, who have since 2020 maintained a highly popular web presence, garnered over 60m views on YouTube alone and have publicised work for influences like KSI.
They also fired up a major debate in the construction community by publicising their use of modular interlocking concrete blocks and receiving a cease and desist order from The Lego Group in the process.
Ashville Aggregates’ owner and the presenter of their video content, Daniel Louisy, changed the name on his own content, expressing sadness because of the legal issues caused between his company and the makers of a toy that inspired him to enter the construction trade.
He also noted the damage to his website’s SEO and that the vast majority of the construction industry used the same terminology, wryly wishing the company “good luck” trying to get the rest of the industry to change the name as well.
This highlights the thorny issue of genericised trademarks in separate industries from the one Lego operates in.
Lego is a worldwide trademark, but exactly how far this trademark goes in the construction industry is unclear, since Lego has naturally not taken out a trademark for construction materials.
The only place this question would be answered is in a courtroom, and ultimately this controversy did not reach that point.