On 14 January 2026, the General Court of the European Union delivered an important judgment in proceedings between the Danish company Lego A/S, the well-known manufacturer of construction bricks, and the Chinese company Guangdong Qman Toys Industry Co. Ltd.
The dispute concerned the validity of a Community design registered by Lego in 2008, representing a construction element intended to be incorporated into a modular brick building set. Qman sought a declaration of invalidity before EUIPO, arguing that the design lacked individual character in light of an earlier disclosed design.
By its judgment of 14 January 2026, the General Court confirmed EUIPO’s position and dismissed the action brought by Lego.
The contested design was filed by Lego on 28 November 2008 and concerned a construction element for modular brick building sets, falling within Class 21.01 of the Locarno Classification.
In March 2021, Guangdong Qman Toys Industry Co. Ltd filed an application for a declaration of invalidity before EUIPO, contending that the design lacked individual character in view of an earlier design corresponding to part reference No. 61252, included in a construction kit entitled Fire Car.
In 2022, EUIPO’s Cancellation Division upheld that application and declared the design invalid, finding that it did not produce, on the informed user, an overall impression different from that produced by the earlier design.
Lego appealed before the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO, which confirmed the invalidity of the design. The Danish company then brought an action before the General Court of the European Union seeking annulment of that decision.
The dispute arose under Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs, which provides that a Community design may be declared invalid where it does not fulfil the requirements for protection laid down in the Regulation, in particular the requirement of individual character.
Pursuant to Article 6 of the same Regulation, a design is deemed to have individual character if the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from that produced by any design which has been made available to the public before the date of filing.
According to settled case-law, the assessment of individual character involves several steps: identifying the sector concerned, defining the informed user, determining the degree of freedom of the designer, and comparing the overall impressions produced by the designs at issue.
In the present case, the products belonged to the sector of modular construction toys, in which various elements are intended to be assembled and disassembled to form different structures. The informed user is therefore a person who regularly uses such products and possesses a certain degree of knowledge of the features usually present in that sector.
Lego argued in particular that the differences between the two designs, notably the rectangular shape of the contested design, the presence of an additional stud, and certain visible differences in the structure of the underside, should have led to a finding of a different overall impression.
However, the General Court recalled that, in the field of modular construction toys, the designer enjoys relatively broad freedom as regards the shape, proportions and arrangement of visible elements.
Although certain technical constraints exist due to the requirement of interoperability between bricks, which must fit together, those constraints do not determine the entire appearance of the blocks, and numerous variations of shapes and configurations remain possible.
Under a well-established principle of design law, the greater the designer’s freedom, the less likely minor differences will suffice to produce a distinct overall impression.
In those circumstances, the difference between a square shape and a rectangular shape was regarded as minor, the informed user being liable to perceive the contested design as a mere extension of the earlier pattern.
The General Court then confirmed the Board of Appeal’s assessment that the two designs share several essential characteristics:
Those similarities dominate the overall visual perception of the products. The differences relied upon by Lego, in particular the presence of a second stud and certain variations in the structure of the underside, were considered insufficiently significant to alter that overall impression.
The Court also emphasised that certain features located on the underside of the piece are scarcely visible during normal use of the product, the elements generally being interlocked with one another. Accordingly, those elements have only a limited impact in the assessment of the overall impression.
In light of all those considerations, the General Court concluded that the contested design does not produce an overall impression different from that of the earlier design.
By its judgment of 14 January 2026, the General Court therefore dismissed Lego’s action and confirmed the invalidity of the contested design. The Danish company was also ordered to pay the costs.
This decision forms part of the established case-law on the individual character of Community designs, reiterating that the assessment must remain global and synthetic, and that minor differences, even if numerous, do not necessarily suffice to create a distinct overall impression where the essential features of the products coincide.
