This brings back fond childhood memories! I never had Lego bricks, but I did have other bricks that were designed to look like real bricks. I think those were simply called “Plastic Bricks”. In addition I had another building toy called “Girders and Panels”, where you’d snap girders together to create the structure and then snap on the panels to form the exterior. All the buildings ended up looking like modern university buildings, but I sure did love building toys.
Legos, legos, legos, legos…
They always have been and always will be. If they don’t like it they can kiss my S.
Another (American) vote for Legos.
I fondly remember trips to Toys R Us: “Mooooom. Can I get some Legos? Look! I can build a house out of Legos!!! Mooooom! C’mon!!! It’s only $12.95 and I could have Legggoooooss.” Mom then yanked me out of the store, took me home, and took away the Legos I already had. . . she’s mean 
Saying “Lego” just doesn’t work for me. Now, when I had ONE, I would say, “Look at this Lego,” but when I had more than one (which was always the case), they were ALWAYS LegoS.
Although I can understand where the company is coming from, the move they are doing is… douchey, to say the least.
I’m starting a campaign to get everyone to say Legos!
All your Lego are belong to us!
For the record, i say Legos.
I remember a Pizza Hut commercial about ten years ago where they had… I think it was Kylie Minogue calling Pizza Hut for delivery. She ended the order with “…and two Coke”. “Coke”, not “Cokes”. They were less concerned about it sounding weird than they were about keeping the name “pure”. It was really dumb.
Anybody want a Pringle?
I say Legos. I’ve never heard it referenced in the singular, ever. I also use Legos to refer to any sort of interlocking plastic blocks, which is I guess what they don’t want you to do. Let me just cry about it into my thin paper tissue-like substance.
Why don’t they just trademark “Legos” too?
A frisbee? The yo-yo’s not good enough for you?
For a similar accident early in the last century you could have run down to your friendly neighborhood doctor and gotten some heroin.
Are you saying that adding an “s” to the end of a trademarked product name, to refer to a quantity of two or more of said product, causes the name to become a generic term?
I can’t drink two Pepsis, or own two Fords, without jeopardizing the copyright?
Yes- turning a trademark name into a noun endangers its ability to remain distinct. The problem tends to hit most when their is one major brand widely known, and much smaller competing brands. Pepsi and Ford aren’t in that much danger of becoming generic, because the terms Coke and Chevy and Toyota and Seven Up are just as widely known. However, Coke is an exception, because it is often used to mean any cola.
I suppose all you “Legos” people say “sheeps” and “aircrafts” too?
Language is a funny thing. LegoS is wrong to my ears. Math is wrong to my ears.
As far as I know Math is not a trademark and most of the English speaking world manage to fiddle about with numbers while calling that practice Maths. I am also sure that all those children saying Lego not Legos, did not recieve threatening letters from Legoland reminding them about correct usage of the word.
Language is an evolving thing. Trademarks become part of the language, ask a NZer for clingfilm or plastic wrap and they will think you are an alien…it’s called Gladwrap no matter what brand it is. Americans seem to have the same issue with tissues, they appear to be called Kleenex.
I can’t imagine Lego think people are ripping them off or paying homage to a brand with an “s”. It’s all about the local usage…the brand is still being used.
“Pick up the bloody lego” works for me, I don’t give a shit if it works for Lego (I have bought enough to secure their future 
)
I’ve always said “Legos.” I am dreadful and should be shot.
Having a trademark become a generic term is a bad thing. They don’t think people are ripping them off, but once another company can show that “Lego” has become a generic term, Lego’s right to trademark is gone. Then anyone can call their plastic building bricks “Legos”, cash in on the strength of the Lego name, and Lego loses. You’ll see this argument everywhere: Google doesn’t want you to refer to searching as “Googling”, Adobe is adamantly against the term “Photoshop” being used as a verb.
This page contains a list of terms that are no longer trademarkable because they’ve been genericized:
http://www.nowsell.com/marketing-guide/genericized-trademark.html
I’m not trying to argue here, but I am trying to make clear that Lego DOES care, and they’ve proven it by saying so when you try to go to Legos.com. They specifically ask for help in protecting their trademark by requesting that we as consumers not use the term “Legos” to refer to the blocks themselves, but instead say “Lego™ Blocks”. Clearly this is mainly an American thing, tacking the S onto the end of the word, but the point still stands: Lego doesn’t want anyone to do it.
Maybe they don’t care as much outside of America (where this is obviously an issue), we have been a lego buying family for over 30 years and the only trademark issue I have ever heard about in relation to lego was when Maori tried to get compensation from lego for their use of Maori words/images in a recent promotion…if I recall correctly Maori were told “NO CHANCE”.
There are knock off lego-like plastic blocks out there but I don’t think the lego empire will suffer from the lack of an “s”. Legos just sounds odd to me as I’m sure maths sounds odd to you.
N e s t l e _
Nestle_ makes the very be(st?)
Chocolate
Just for clarity - it’s the American “Legos” that Lego is rallying against, because that’s the potential proof that the term has been genericized. Your usage - Lego - is probably just fine in their book. 
Lego; agree with TheLoadedDog - it just sounds utterly alien (even dumbed-down or childish - sorry, but it does) to my ears - even though I’ve been aware of the American plural form form some years now; I don’t particularly care about the trademark issue, and I’m not going to try to argue from some kind of grammatical standpoint, since there are analogies that work either way.
It Just Sounds Wrong, but that’s entirely because I was brought up in a place where everyone just says ‘Lego’ - recognising that it is the brand name of the set - it makes no more sense to me to call them ‘Legos’ and one of the bricks ‘a Lego’ than it does to say ‘K’nexes’ and ‘a K’nex’ or ‘Meccanos’ and ‘a Meccano’. Your Mileage May (and clearly does) Vary.
With a nitpick (it’s trademark law, not copyright law), I agree with **Suburban Plankton{/b]. It’s not the s on the end that the Lego people need to worry about: it’s the generic use of the word “lego” to describe other building blocks that’s the worry. While I’d use “Lego”, not “Legos”, to describe a pile of Lego bricks, I don’t see that it endangers their trademark, any more than asking for “two Cokes” endangers Coca Cola’s (unless when you ask for “two cokes” you are actually asking for two carbonated beverages marketed by another firm – that’s the problem that “coke” has, and it’s not caused by the s on the end).