On September 27, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled on summary judgment in Concannon v. LEGO Systems, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-01678 (D. Conn.). At the heart of the case are a jacket worn by Antoni Porowski on “Queer Eye” and a LEGO® minifigure.

The Jacket and the Minifigure

In 2018, Antoni Porowski, one of the five members of “Queer Eye,” commissioned a leather jacket from James Concannon, which he later wore on the show. In 2020, LEGO produced a “Queer Eye” set including LEGO Minifigures of all five “Queer Eye”stars. The Porowski Minifigure came with two torso elements, one of which was a black leather jacket (the “Minifigure Jacket”) that closely resembled Concannon’s jacket (the “Porowski Jacket”).

Concannon brought three copyright claims against LEGO, one trade dress infringement claim, and one claim under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Act (CUTPA), all related to the use of the Minifigure Jacket in the LEGO set. LEGO moved for summary judgment on all claims.

Copyright: License and Fair Use

LEGO did not dispute that Concannon owns a valid copyright in the Porowski Jacket. Instead, it argued that (1) it had a valid license and (2) the Minifigure Jacket was fair use under the Copyright Act.

With respect to the license, LEGO argued that Concannon gave Porowski an implied, nonexclusive license to use the jacket as part of his likeness, and that Porowski in turn licensed his likeness to LEGO. An implied license, however, requires a meeting of the minds, and the court found no such showing here. Concannon gave the Porowski Jacket to Porowski knowing he would wear it in public, even on “Queer Eye,” but that does not show the requisite meeting of the minds that Concannon intended for the jacket to be copied and distributed more widely. At most, the court found, Concannon granted Porowski a limited license to wear the jacket on the show, so it rejected LEGO’s license argument.

The Copyright Act permits “fair” uses of copyrighted works, and courts weigh four nonexclusive factors to decide whether a particular use qualifies. Here, the court found that none of them favored LEGO. First, LEGO said it wanted to depict Porowski accurately, but the court saw that as simply reproducing the Porowski Jacket, not transforming it. LEGO also pointed to no purpose beyond selling a commercial product and promoting its “Queer Eye” collaboration. Second, the Porowski Jacket is a creative work, and the Minifigure Jacket was a derivative of it. Third, LEGO took the “heart” of the original design. Finally, LEGO did not show that its use would leave the market for Concannon’s derivative works unharmed. The court therefore concluded the use was not fair.

Because both of LEGO’s arguments failed, the court denied the motion as to the copyright claims.   

Trade Dress: Similar, but Not Confusing

To succeed on a trade dress claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) its product design is distinctive, (2) there is a likelihood of confusion between its product design and that of the defendant, and (3) its product design is not functional. The court did not decide whether the design was distinctive but found that Concannon had offered enough evidence to raise an issue of material fact. The court next turned to likelihood of confusion, which requires weighing eight nonexclusive factors, including similarity, actual confusion, and consumer sophistication. A reasonable jury could find that the Minifigure Jacket very closely imitates the Porowski Jacket, but similarity alone was not enough. The court noted that adult apparel and toys are far apart, that the set was clearly LEGO-branded, and that Concannon’s customers, who pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for his pieces, are likely to be careful buyers. It also found that the congratulations Concannon received suggested people believed he had collaborated on the set, not that he made it. Finding no likelihood of confusion, the court granted LEGO’s motion on the trade dress claim.

CUTPA: Parent and Subsidiary

Lastly, the court denied LEGO’s motion on the CUTPA claim, which alleges that LEGO conspired to misappropriate the Porowski Jacket without compensating or crediting Porowski. LEGO argued that a parent and its wholly owned subsidiary cannot conspire with each other. The court disagreed, noting that parents and subsidiaries are separate legal entities and that LEGO offered nothing showing the parent controlled the subsidiary.

Beyond the Bench

The ruling offers two practical lessons. Creators should spell out how a work may be used: Letting someone wear a piece, even on television, did not give LEGO permission to copy it. Companies, in turn, should get written permission from the creator before reproducing a distinctive design, even as part of a celebrity’s likeness. A commercial reproduction of a distinctive, commissioned work is hard to defend as fair use, even though a trade dress claim over the same product can fail when consumers are unlikely to be confused about its source.

The next date to watch is October 30, 2026, by which the parties must file a status report either (1) indicating that they have resumed settlement discussions, or (2) proposing a schedule for trial. Follow Bradley’s IP IQ blog for updates.