Second Circuit Dismisses Zuru’s Appeal in LEGO Minifigure Copyright and Trademark Dispute for Lack of Jurisdiction

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed an appeal filed by Zuru Inc. in its ongoing intellectual property dispute with LEGO A/S, LEGO Systems, Inc., and LEGO Juris A/S, ruling that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to hear the case. The dispute centers on allegations that Zuru’s toy figurines infringe LEGO’s copyright and trademark rights in the iconic LEGO Minifigure.

LEGO first initiated legal action against Zuru in 2019, asserting that Zuru’s “First-Generation” toy figurines infringed on LEGO’s Minifigure copyrights and trademarks. The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted LEGO’s motion for a preliminary injunction, barring Zuru from manufacturing or selling the infringing First-Generation figurines as well as any figurines or images substantially similar to the LEGO Minifigure or likely to cause confusion with LEGO’s trademarks. This injunction was later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Despite the injunction, Zuru introduced “Second-Generation” figurines, which the district court found to be in contempt of the preliminary injunction. Consequently, the court modified the injunction to require Zuru to provide 30 days’ advance notice before manufacturing or selling any new figurines.

In November 2023, Zuru submitted such notice for its “Third-Generation” figurines. The district court enjoined their manufacture and sale, concluding these figurines fell within the scope of the existing preliminary injunction. Zuru appealed this decision to the Second Circuit.

In March 2025, the Second Circuit remanded the case to the district court, instructing it to supplement the record with an assessment of whether the Third-Generation figurines were substantially similar to or likely to be confused with LEGO’s Minifigure. The appellate court also directed the district court to apply the “more discerning observer test” in its analysis.

On remand, the district court issued a detailed 29-page order reaffirming that the Third-Generation figurines were covered by the preliminary injunction. Zuru then filed a second appeal, contending that the district court erred legally in its similarity and confusion assessments and effectively modified the injunction.

The Second Circuit clarified that while it has jurisdiction over interlocutory orders granting, modifying, or dissolving injunctions, it lacks jurisdiction over orders that merely interpret or clarify injunction terms. The court reasoned that if the Third-Generation figurines were substantially similar to or likely to be confused with LEGO’s Minifigure, they would fall under the existing injunction, depriving the court of jurisdiction over the appeal.

The appellate court agreed with the district court’s application of the “more discerning observer test,” which requires isolating protectable elements from unprotectable ones and assessing similarity based solely on the protectable elements. The district court identified unprotectable features of the LEGO Minifigure, such as the stud projection on the head, the inside radius of the C-shaped hands, and holes at the base of the feet and back of the legs.

After reviewing expert testimony, the district court credited LEGO’s expert opinion and found Zuru’s expert analysis deficient. The Second Circuit found no reason to overturn this credibility determination.

Additionally, the district court’s conclusion was supported by an independent finding of likelihood of confusion under the eight-factor Polaroid test. The court noted LEGO’s strong trademark, supported by over $200 million in advertising from 1978 to 2015 and sales exceeding 120 million Minifigures. It also found a high degree of similarity between the figurines, market competition, and bad faith conduct by Zuru, including a truncated redesign process and failure to maintain a safe distance from infringing conduct.

Although the district court considered the “actual confusion” factor neutral due to the preliminary injunction being issued before any evidence of confusion, the Second Circuit agreed with the overall conclusion that the Third-Generation figurines are likely to cause confusion with LEGO’s Minifigure.

Because the district court correctly determined that Zuru’s Third-Generation figurines were substantially similar to and likely to be confused with LEGO’s Minifigure, the Second Circuit held that these figurines fell within the scope of the existing preliminary injunction. This finding deprived the appellate court of jurisdiction, leading to dismissal of Zuru’s appeal.

This ruling underscores the strength of LEGO’s intellectual property protections and the judiciary’s willingness to enforce preliminary injunctions against infringing products that closely resemble protected designs.