Lego brought an action before the General Court against EUIPO’s decision declaring its registered Community design for a toy building block invalid, following a request by Qman Toys for lack of individual character. EUIPO found that the design produced the same overall impression as an earlier design. The General Court held that differences in shape and the underside, including a central cylindrical element, were insufficient to alter that impression. The action was dismissed and Lego was ordered to pay the costs.
Lego brought an action before the General Court of the European Union against a decision of EUIPO declaring one of its registered Community designs invalid. The contested design concerned a toy building block. The invalidity application had been filed by the Chinese manufacturer Guangdong Qman Toys Industry Co. Ltd on the ground that the design lacked individual character, pursuant to Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002 on Community designs.
EUIPO’s Invalidity Division found that the Lego design did not produce a different overall impression on the informed user compared with an earlier design and therefore declared it invalid. That finding was upheld by the Board of Appeal, which concluded that the main features of the designs at issue—such as a plate with a cylindrical stud and surface reliefs—gave rise to the same overall impression.
Before the General Court, Lego argued that EUIPO had failed to give due weight to visible differences between the designs, in particular as regards their shape, configuration and underside. The Court examined those arguments in light of the established criteria for assessing individual character, including the perspective of the informed user and the degree of design freedom in the sector.
The Court noted that the earlier design relied upon was depicted in a single image that did not show its underside, making it impossible to verify alleged differences with certainty. In any event, it held that the presence of a central cylindrical element on the underside of the contested design was insufficient to outweigh the numerous similarities between the designs.
The General Court therefore dismissed the action, confirmed the decision of the Board of Appeal, and ordered Lego to bear the costs.
