You’re conflating patents, copyrights, and trade marks, which are three somewhat related, but very different things. The only thing that *should* protect Lego’s brick design is patent law and, as you point out, the patent expired some time ago. This is entirely consistent with the purpose of patents, which are only meant to be granted for a relatively short period of time, in order to stimulate invention, before reverting to the public domain for all of us to use however we see fit. That’s the whole point.

None of your analogies above are relevant because this was about a trade mark issue: Lego argued that trade mark law protected their brick design, an argument that was entirely correctly shot down by the courts. Trade Marks protect against someone trading on your product name and logo. Lego’s brick design is not and has never been a trade mark.

“to take the 5th largest toy companies Golden egg and just say “sorry, it’s not yours anymore” amounts to legal theft of a very Cool Toy”

Was the second person to market and sell a baseball bat guilt of “theft”? How about the second person to sell a water pistol, or a die-cast toy car, or a model airplane? Your argument is ridiculous. Designers and manufacturers should get a *limited* amount of time to invent a new product and be able to exclusively attempt to profit from it. After that, it should be free for anyone to make use of. That’s how the system works and it’s worked great for 300 years. What possible public benefit could there be in granted such exclusive rights in perpetuity?