Another brick in the wall - There is no special treatment for LEGO bricks under EU design law

[Marcel Pemsel]

Another brick in the wall - There is no special treatment for LEGO bricks under EU design law

Marcel Pemsel Monday, September 15, 2025 - C-211/24, CJEU reference, designs, Lego, Marcel Pemsel, modular exception

The Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) has once again been asked to clarify the contours of design protection under the Community Design Regulation (‘CDR’; now EU Design Regulation), this time in relation to one of the most famous modular products in the world: the LEGO bricks. In its recent decision in LEGO (C-211/24), the CJEU confirmed that LEGO bricks do not benefit from any special treatment under design law - despite the ‘LEGO exception’ in Art. 8(3) CDR. The Court’s reasoning not only confirms the standard applicable to the informed user when assessing the scope of protection but also offers helpful guidance on the interpretation of ‘special reasons’ under Art. 89 CDR, a provision that allows national courts, in exceptional cases, to refrain from granting enforcement measures.

Background

LEGO A/S (‘LEGO’) owns the following registered Community designs (‘RCD’) for ‘building blocks from a toy building set’ in Locarno class 21.01:

- RCD no. 001950981-0001 containing, inter alia, the following view:

- RCD no. 002137190-0002 containing, inter alia, the following views: 

The defendant, Pozitív Energiaforrás Kft. (‘Pozitív Energiaforrás’), sought to import toy building sets into Hungary, which contained, amongst others, the following parts:

The National Tax and Customs Administration of Hungary seized the sets because of a potential infringement of LEGO’s design rights. LEGO brought an infringement action against Pozitív Energiaforrás before a Hungarian court, which referred several questions to the CJEU:

1. Must Art. 10 CDR be interpreted as meaning that the scope of the protection conferred by a Community design under Art. 8(3) CDR must be assessed on the basis of the perception of an informed 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. The second question relates to the interpretation of the term ‘special reasons’ for not ordering measures against the infringement in Art. 89 CDR. The potentially design infringing building blocks of Pozitív Energiaforrás were part of sets with other non-infringing blocks. Enforcement measures must be fair, equitable, proportionate and avoid the creation of legitimate barriers to trade (Art. 3 Enforcement Directive). Therefore, the referring court wondered whether it may dismiss the infringement claim in part or even entirely, in particular regarding LEGO’s request to prohibit Pozitív Energiaforrás from importing the toy building sets into Hungary.

The CJEU’s decision

First question

The judges recalled that, according to Art. 10 CDR the scope of protection conferred by an EU design shall include any design which does not produce on the informed user a different overall impression. This provision is also applicable to designs protected by virtue of Art. 8(3) CDR, such as the LEGO blocks.

Likewise, the concept of ‘informed user’ has to be interpreted uniformly throughout the CDR. This user is particularly observant, knows the various designs in the sector concerned and the usual design features to a certain degree. The informed user has a relatively high degree of attention when using the designs. The level of attention may vary according to the sector concerned but not simply because a design under Art. 8(3) CDR is concerned. This provision does not require taking a specialist with detailed technical expertise as the yardstick. Furthermore, it does not allow to consider that the overall impression produced on the informed user is formed primarily by technical considerations. In design law, appearance is the decisive factor.

Similarly, the ‘degree of freedom of the designer in developing his design’ under Art. 10(2) CDR must also be interpreted uniformly. This means that the more the designer’s freedom is restricted, the more likely it is that minor differences between two designs will produce a different overall impression on the informed user. Conversely, the greater the designer’s freedom, the less likely minor differences between the designs will produce a different overall impression. A restriction of the designer’s freedom, because a part of the product is solely dictated by the technical function, may result in the finding that minor differences between the designs create a different overall impression.

The only special treatment that modular systems like the LEGO bricks enjoy is that the features of appearance that allow interconnection (protected by Art. 8(3) CDR) must, unlike connecting features of non-modular system referred to in Art. 8(2) CDR, be taken into consideration when assessing the ‘overall impression’. The judges concluded:

"Therefore, the presence, in the Community design concerned, of interconnecting components protected by Article 8(3) [CDR] may operate against a finding of a different overall impression, within the meaning of that Article 10, so that, where there are no sufficiently significant differences in the overall appearance of the designs at issue, the existence of connection points that have the same form and dimensions, for the purposes of the assembly or connection of mutually interchangeable products within a modular system, is capable of precluding such a finding."

The Court backed up this finding by relying on Recital 7 of the CDR stating that the purpose of the CDR is to encourage innovation and the development of new products. According to Recital 11 CDR, mechanical fittings of modular products may constitute an important element of the innovative characteristics of modular products and present a major marketing asset.

For these reasons, the CJEU responded to the first question:

"Article 10 of Regulation No 6/2002 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."

Second question

As regards the interpretation of ‘special reasons’ in Art. 89 CDR, the judges held that they must be interpreted uniformly and strictly on the EU level. Referring to its previous case law, inter alia, H. Gautzsch Großhandel, C‑479/12 (IPKat here), this condition relates to factual circumstances specific to a given case and is limited to exceptional situations, for example where the defendant cannot continue the infringing act. In this case, a national court is not required to issue an injunction.

The judges found that an infringement which 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, does not, as such, constitute such an exceptional situation allowing the national court not to render an injunction.

For these reasons, the judges responded to the second question:

"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."

Comment

The CJEU’s judgment offers important clarifications for both rights holders and alleged infringers in the modular products sector. First, the Court resisted the temptation to narrow the interpretation of the ‘informed user’ in the context of Art. 8(3) CDR. By rejecting the idea of an ‘expert-level’ informed user whose perception is primarily driven by technical considerations, the Court reinforced a fundamental principle of design law: appearance is decisive, even when technical interconnection is at stake. This ensures that the LEGO exception remains true to its purpose: Allowing protection for modular systems without eroding the broader harmonisation of design law.

Second, the CJEU’s restrictive interpretation of ‘special reasons’ under Art. 89 CDR limits the flexibility of national courts when infringement is found. The fact that infringing components represent only a small proportion of a larger modular set will not, by itself, exempt the infringer from injunctive relief. However, the CJEU missed the opportunity to decide whether non-infringing parts in the defendant’s sets are also subject to enforcement measures, in particular to destruction.