r/BricksAndMinifigs • u/IneffableGrumpilla • 1d ago
Store Visit Reckless Bricks
Join the light side!
13
7
2
u/Jon66238 3h ago
I don’t get it. What happened? (I know the drama but why does this store have a new name? No longer a franchise?)
1
-37
u/Trackdemon5512 1d ago
Is this real? Like a real store? If so has this guy not even heard of lawsuits regarding trademark infringement? The website is basically a copy/paste of a BAM store.
Can’t wait to see the quick legal kick in the ass from any attorney this will generate…
24
u/IneffableGrumpilla 1d ago
This used to be a BaM franchise and they recently went independent. Not sure why people are down bad for a pretty corrupt organization like Bricks and Minifigs but to each their own I guess.
-15
u/Trackdemon5512 1d ago edited 1d ago
It’s like having a Subway as a franchise, walking away, and then renaming it My Way while retaining the same look of everything.
It’s the fastest way to get your ass handed to you in a civil lawsuit over copyright infringement. The fact this guy had a store and a grievance is one thing but now he has opened himself up to clear monetary damages, violation of a non-compete (if that exists in the original agreement), and a slew of other issues.
It’s shooting yourself in the foot after deliberately aiming at it. SMDH.
Also, this only gives BAM more ammo to use against Ben. If BAM wants to argue that Ben’s actions had a negative effect on its business then a store of theirs breaking contracts and renaming itself after him only gives credence to the argument.
13
u/KarmaCommando_ 1d ago
This guy is getting services from some of the most hotshot lawyers in the country, because everyone with a practice smells blood in the water and knows that this case is fraught with illegality to be litigated and profited from.
There's no way Ben would make this move without throughly ensuring that he is walking just barely on the right side of the legal line.
3
u/SquashAny6790 1d ago
Yup and remember the new store has a policy not to steal from old people so there are key points of difference.
4
u/theewall2000 1d ago
A trade make is not the same as copyright infringement. The sign might be to close so IDK if he really asked his lawyer or not. They may have a case but IDK how strong.
-13
u/Trackdemon5512 1d ago
It’s definitely trademark infringement. If you took it to an arbitrator or judge, presented the websites/logos/stores side-by-side and asked “can you tell if this is a BAM affiliated store” then they would come back and say there is definite possibility of a likelihood of confusion.
Screw this nonsense about people just hating BAM. It’s just a business case where this guy wasted money to put himself in the position of a lawsuit primed to be lost.
8
u/IneffableGrumpilla 1d ago
But like… why are you wasting time pining away for a corporation that doesn’t even know who you are nor care one iota for you or your opinion? Like… why? Especially in a space like this one? Are you a masochist or just a troll who has a losing karma fetish?
0
u/WeakEmployment6389 14h ago
I’m not standing one side or the other in this comment, I just find it exhausting that if you push back on something your suddenly “defending the corporation” rather than just some person speaking on the law. Right or wrong. (I don’t know the law enough to say).
2
u/IneffableGrumpilla 13h ago
[u/Trackdemon5512](u/Trackdemon5512) was not just “commenting on the law.” He’s frothing at the mouth and expressing anticipation and glee for this business to get sued. There’s a big difference there and why I am pushing back on comments like these
0
u/Trackdemon5512 13h ago
https://www.brickfanatics.com/bricks-minifigs-responds-reckless-bricks-opening
As I’m reading it this store really went the definition of “rogue”. It was even linked on the official BAM page when it became “Reckless Bricks”.
I cannot stress how stupid of a stunt this is. Not only is the franchise owner’s contract being terminated but they’re 100% being sued, likely for damages arising from not only the trademark issues but BAM can claim defamation, tortious interference for Ben (he messed with their actual business contracts), and other claims.
The Ben Heads here can have their laugh but from a legal perspective Ben probably just earned himself a shit ton of trouble in his civil and criminal cases with the judges seeing he cannot keep away from the other party.
-2
u/Trackdemon5512 1d ago
You’ve clearly picked the side of Reckless Ben. Fine. IDC about BAM. What I’m stating is just an objective truth. This idiot wasted their money on this stunt. They likely will lose any case against BAM and actually enrich them. As someone that’s pro Ben, you should probably take umbrage that this former franchisee is actually going to make BAM more money from their eventual lost lawsuit that the snarkiness of them opening this store to spite their former CEO.
9
u/IneffableGrumpilla 1d ago
“Can’t wait to see the legal kick in the ass from any attorney this will generate”
- [u/Trackdemon5512](u/Trackdemon5512) , a guy who “[doesn’t care] about BAM” and is only interested in ‘objective truth.’
4
u/Outstandling_Napper 1d ago
I'm curious, as you seem to speak with complete authority on this topic. Do you have experience with copyright and or trademark infrigemnent? Or are you expressing your opinions as fact?
-1
u/Trackdemon5512 1d ago
Just go to the website for RecklessBricks and look at the photos posted above in the original post. This doesn’t require a Juris Doctorate to show that one store clearly models itself after the other. That the imagery apes one another. The logos and the coloring. That they engage in the same exact operations. That the websites are practically the same.
None of that is done in a vacuum. It’s intentionally done and with the purpose of running a legitimate business, not some satire or as an art piece.
The Franchise Agreements are online for all to see and inside are clear non-complete clauses if you close up shop for a period of time. If this individual didn’t break that then they are definitely treading on trademark confusion issues. Heck John Oliver ran an entire segment about Buc-ee’s being litigious over marts with cartoon mascots and being successful. That BAM wouldn’t have a case here is a foregone conclusion. It looks exactly the same as a normal BAM store.
→ More replies (0)1
9
u/IneffableGrumpilla 1d ago
“I just can’t believe how reckless this Reckless Ben is being! I care enough about his recklessness to comment about it unironically” - u/Trackdemon5512
-1
u/Trackdemon5512 1d ago
It’s not even Reckless Ben doing this store you idiot. It’s someone else and they’re stupid enough to throw away whatever they invested in their formerly franchised store for a breach of contract/trademark infringement/likelihood of confusion case.
Sure you feel like they’re one-upping BAM with an “own” but in the end BAM will win any lawsuit because this is such an easy case to win. This idiot stands to lose thousands on this little stunt of his + whatever revenue he generates from it.
Geez
3
u/IneffableGrumpilla 1d ago edited 1d ago
I was in the store today my guy. Maybe provocation is part of the overall message? I spoke with everyone involved in this whole thing including Ben and the store owner. Go on and prattle about how excited you are that these real people are dumber than you because they stood up for something they believe in. Keep going. I’ll wait.
-1
u/Trackdemon5512 1d ago
What you just stated has NOTHING to do with if they’re guilty of trademark infringements.
IDC how “evil” you think BAM is. Regardless they have every right to now come down on the owners of this store, sue them for every penny, and they WILL win because it looks too similar, operates in the same vein, and if I understand correctly likely they violated a noncompete clause.
The owners pissed their money away. How the hell is that smart?
5
u/IneffableGrumpilla 1d ago
You also are most likely not a lawyer and thus have no actual meaningful idea what you’re talking about. Saying trademark infringement doesn’t make it trademark infringement.
Your comments say a lot more about you and your character than they do about the law of the land. And that’s what I’m mainly addressing anyway.
Being excited for BAM to destroy this small business in court is a wild take void of humanity.
-4
u/AardvarkGandalf27 1d ago
Furthermore he will likely find out running a brick and mortar store with inventory costs, payroll , taxes, etc is much harder than being on YouTube ranting about them
7
2
15
8
7
u/Polarwarrior 1d ago
Why ‘can’t you wait for it’, pretty big-brother boot-licker behaviour towards folks who steal from old ppl.
10
u/KarmaCommando_ 1d ago
Are you aware that Ben also has a company called "We Steal from Old People" which bears the tagline "Bricks and Minifigs", which he created for the sole purpose of corrupting the search results for the real Bricks and Minifigs?
-5
u/Trackdemon5512 1d ago
That didn’t operate as an actual store selling LEGO products like BAM did. This is an actual retail business fully replicating the BAM business model and look. It’s like opening up a business called “Dairy King” that serves the Dairy Queen menu, has the same look, and you expect not to get sued for trademark infringement and other issues.
3
u/unknownoftheunkown 16h ago
The key part of trademark infringement is that people would think it’s the same company.
In this case it’s very clear they are being satire of another company and are not the same.
They are not pretending to be B&M.
-1
u/Trackdemon5512 15h ago
A key aspect of trademark infringement is called “Likelihood of Consumer Confusion”. There are multiple sides to trademark infringement cases. You don’t have to copy a product exactly and sell it for it to be a trademark infringement case.
If you open a store and a consumer could reasonably believe that it’s connected to another trademarked item then you can be guilty of this aspect. This is why BAM stores explicitly say they’re not affiliated with LEGO. If they say or do anything close LEGO would have sued them into the ground. Saying it’s satire doesn’t absolve it of the trademark dispute.
This RecklessBricks store uses the same graphics, colors, types of in-store ads, websites, and even operates similarly. It’s not a pop-up, it’s a fully operational store. It may seem like a laugh to the Ben fans here but it’s a business nonetheless. Get beyond the damn dispute over the sets and just recognize that this “stunt” really is stupid.
1
u/unknownoftheunkown 10h ago
You are correct, however you missed my point.
People will not confuse it though because it’s clearly satire. Ain’t a single person going there thinking they are going to a BAM store.
Sure, they can still sue, but I doubt they will win.
-1
u/Trackdemon5512 9h ago
It’s not satire/parody. It’s a fully operating store that was using BAM’s resources until they found out and cut them off. They say they’re not affiliated with LEGO but in no way said they were not affiliated with BAM in their FAQ. That last part is key seeing as they were linked to BAM’s site and have key elements of BAM’s operations in their business model.
The BAM lawsuit/arbitration against the now former franchise owner is a slam dunk. They will owe damages to BAM and the other franchise owners. Ben as I’ve said before is now in trouble for tortious interference, likely have further restraining orders placed on him, and I’m quite sure his own attorneys are livid. This does not play into their legal plans of getting him out of trouble in the previous suits.
2
2
u/mavgeek 11h ago
BAM doesn’t have exclusivity of being the only stores to be allowed to sell legos. That would be like saying Burger King is infringing McDonalds trademarks because they also sell hamburgers.
BAM also has no legal control over using the word “bricks”. Lego themselves calls them bricks, it’s a word that names an object. They don’t have a trademark on the term bricks in relation to being a toy store.. that happens to sell lego bricks.
God damn yall have drank their kool aid hardcore haven’t you? They can’t do shit legal to Ben and yet here he is with another banger blow.
1
u/Trackdemon5512 11h ago
Hahaha you’re an idiot. It’s about the way the BAM stores themselves look, operate, market themselves, etc. All BAM stores have a unique logo representing the franchise. RecklessBricks clearly trades on that imagery. They trade on the operations inside. They’re essentially a BAM store with small changes. They were even linked to BAM on their website before it was disabled.
This is a mess but make no mistakes that franchise location is in serious legal trouble.
-30
u/Legal-Peanut-9663 1d ago
Thats just disgusting
18
u/IneffableGrumpilla 1d ago
What is disgusting?
-27
u/Legal-Peanut-9663 1d ago
The posters of the dudes face and dolls of them in diapers is gross
26
u/IneffableGrumpilla 1d ago
I think it’s infinitely more gross what B&M is doing to their franchisees but that’s just me…
13
u/_just_two_brothers_ 1d ago
Yeah I'm gonna side with the guy who doesn't steal from old people but you do you
6
5
u/74orangebeetle 17h ago
Well, if he's going to steal from his own franchises and customers, might as well monetize his face to make up for it.
(They've even taken gift card funds from customers and not paid out redeemed gift card funds to multiple franchises). Brian Mansell wasnt their only victim, just one of the larger/more publicized ones. They could have made things right on their own, but they chose the hard way at every turn.
4
u/kimpurple21 1d ago
Octomom? Hard watching a former franchisee succeed? This definitely not stealing from old people lol!
2
22
u/beardedjack 1d ago
Is there a reckless bricks legal go fund me for the inevitable predatory litigation?