CJEU: Infringement of only some of the pieces of the LEGO build system is not a special reason not to issue a court order
05-09-2025 Print this page
Scope of protection of a design for a component of a modular system (toy building set) to be assessed by reference to the overall impression produced by the design on an informed user who, without being a designer or a technical expert, knows the various designs which exist in the sector concerned, possesses a certain degree of knowledge with regard to the features which those designs normally include and, as a result of his or her interest in the products concerned, shows a relatively high level of attention when he or she uses them as components of the modular system of which they form part, and not on a user who, possessing technical knowledge similar to that which may be expected of a sectoral expert, examines the design concerned down to the smallest detail and whose overall impression is based primarily on technical considerations.
No ‘’special reasons’’ for not making an order prohibiting further infringement in the case of a modular system. Where an infringement relates only to some of the pieces of a modular system, the number of which is small in relation to the total number of components of that system.
Case C-211/24 Lego v Pozitív Energiaforrás
Preliminary questions:
(1) In a case such as that in the main proceedings, in which the holder [(the applicant)] relies on a [Community] design protected under Article 8(3) of [Regulation No 6/2002] in connection with one or more building blocks from a toy building set made by the defendant which perform the same assembly function as the blocks in the applicant’s design, is it compatible with EU law for the courts, when determining the scope of protection, within the meaning of Article 10 of [Regulation No 6/2002], of the applicant’s design,
– to take as their point of reference an informed user who, in respect of the function of the design and that of the product, possesses the technical knowledge to be expected of a sectoral expert,
– to consider an informed user to be one who compares the applicant’s design and the defendant’s product by carrying out a thorough, technical and methodical examination, and
– to assume that the informed user’s overall impression of the design and of the product is formed primarily of a technical opinion?
(2) In the event that, in a case as described above, it is to be concluded that the protection conferred by the applicant’s [Community] design extends to one or a small number of pieces of the defendant’s toy building sets, the number of which is nonetheless small in relation to the total number of building blocks, is it compatible with EU law for a court to have discretion to dismiss the claim for a prohibition on the continued importation of the toy building set into the country, after taking into consideration the partial nature of the infringement, the limited severity and extent of the infringement in relation to the product as a whole, and the interests associated with the unrestricted trade in a toy building set which is for the most part uncontested, those being classified as “[special] reasons” for the purposes of Article 89(1) of [Regulation No 6/2002]?
Ruling CJEU:
1. Article 10 of [Community designs Regularion] must be interpreted as meaning that the scope of protection of a design under Article 8(3) of that regulation must be assessed by reference to the overall impression produced by that design on an informed user who, without being a designer or a technical expert, knows the various designs which exist in the sector concerned, possesses a certain degree of knowledge with regard to the features which those designs normally include and, as a result of his or her interest in the products concerned, shows a relatively high level of attention when he or she uses them as components of the modular system of which they form part, and not on a user who, possessing technical knowledge similar to that which may be expected of a sectoral expert, examines the design concerned down to the smallest detail and whose overall impression is based primarily on technical considerations.
2. Article 89(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘special reasons’, within the meaning of that provision, allowing a Community design court not to make one or more of the orders referred to in that provision does not cover the fact that an infringement relates only to some of the pieces of a modular system, the number of which is small in relation to the total number of components of that system.
IPPT20250904_CJEU_Lego_v_Pozitív_Energiaforrás
ECLI:EU:C:2025:648 and Case C-211/24
