LEGOs — Is the Plural form of LEGO incorrect?

wrong
if that were the case gooses would be plural for goose and mices would be plural for mouse
It's not even an English word so how can you tack on English grammar rules to it? "Lego", derived from the Danish phrase leg godt [lɑjˀ ˈgʌd], which means "play well". So it's a verb. Verbs are not pluralized.

There are LEGO tiles, LEGO bricks, LEGO plates, LEGO minifigs, LEGO wheels, LEGO sets, LEGO books etc etc etc. you want to pluralize something, pluralize the item, not the brand.

Regarding the many commenters who've made the "You wouldn't say sheeps..." argument:

Isn't that a classic case of begging the question (in the actual meaning of that oft-misused phrase, i.e., to assume the truth of the premise of one's argument)?

Who decreed that "Lego" is equivalent to "sheep" and "deer," for example, with regard to the toy name supposedly also being a plural forms not needing to end with "s"? And why does the "LEGO/Lego/Legos" debate attract more fervor than does the constant and potentially dangerous misuse of "media" as a monolithic singular entity?

If Ford declares that, henceforth, its name is also a plural, would I then be wrong to say, "I own two Fords"?

If I had told my grammatically precocious child, "Pick up your Lego," he would have scoffed, "Which one?"

I agree because the examples are very clear and they do respond to the question. I found another reference to "LEGO" on the same matter, pluralized or not, and the conclusion was that it's up to you to do it or not, though they mainly referred to it as being mainly an adjective, not a noun. Obviously, it should not be pluralized as an adjective, not as a proper noun -the brand's name-but it can be pluralized as a common noun. I mean, when it denotes units of the brand, just like this article explains. However, it is important to notice that it should be capitalized, which is not the case with common nouns.

LEGO, short for 'Leg Godt' meaning 'play well'. I prefer Lego as a singular and plural form of the word referring to the building bricks. Legos sounds odd/off/weird to me, whereas Lego building bricks as a plural form sounds as good to me as Lego by itself. I understand why someone would be okay with Legos, even when comparing to Macs or Hondas. Legos almost sounds like Lagos. Lego is like rice for me. I don't say rices. Maybe it's the consonant/vowel setup.

"Lego" is the plural of "Lego."
I would no more look at a bunch of branded, plastic pieces and call them "Legos" than I would look at slices of bread and call them "breads."
It's the same. It's a slice of bread, a loaf of bread; it's a piece of Lego, a Lego brick a Lego set, a pile of Lego. It's not "a bread" and it's not "a Lego," either.
And just because a bunch of people say it that way doesn't make it any more acceptable. Unless, of course, they all started saying "breads," too.

LEGO is supposed to be used as an adjective, not a noun, unless referring to the brand/company itself as a whole. So the plural of "LEGO brick" is "LEGO bricks".

A LEGO brick > some LEGO bricks, or simply, some bricks.
A LEGO piece > many LEGO pieces, or simply, many pieces.
One LEGO set > two LEGO sets, or simply, two sets.
The LEGO element > the LEGO elements, or simply, the elements.
A LEGO minifigure > an army of LEGO minifigures, or simply, an army of minifigures.

LEGO is supposed to be used as an adjective, not a noun, unless referring to the brand/company itself as a whole. So the plural of "LEGO brick" is "LEGO bricks".

A LEGO brick > some LEGO bricks, or simply, some bricks.
A LEGO piece > many LEGO pieces, or simply, many pieces.
One LEGO set > two LEGO sets, or simply, two sets.
The LEGO element > the LEGO elements, or simply, the elements.
A LEGO minifigure > an army of LEGO minifigures, or simply, an army of minifigures.

Actually, I never thought about it, but maybe it's actually a mistake