Skip to main content

    Blog

    Dec 4, 2025

    The LEGO Exception” under review: European Court of Justice confirms protection of modular system as primarily a visual form of protection

    Table of contents

      Paula de Andrés Gómez

      Paula is an IP expert focused on protecting the results of creative work. With over a decade of experience related to design rights, she is a seasoned and versatile professional who specializes in design and brand protection. Paula understands the business objectives of industrial design and is tuned in to the designer’s standpoint. She is the head of our office in Alicante, Spain, and she has more than 20 years of experience in the field of IP and copyright. Paula is also qualified to represent our clients before the EUIPO.

      Lego A/S, a Danish toy manufacturer, is best known for its iconic Lego bricks. The company holds two Community designs that cover modular components and connectors of building blocks. Lego has actively defended its intellectual property rights, with the latest case being a dispute with the Hungarian company Pozitív Energiaforrás Kft.

      In 2022, Lego notified Hungarian authorities that Pozitív Energiaforrás Kft had imported products resembling Lego bricks under the trademark Qman. As a result, Hungarian customs authorities seized the products and initiated administrative infringement proceedings.

      The Hungarian court referred two questions to the CJEU:

      1. Should Article 10 be interpreted such that the scope of protection of a design covered by Article 8(3) must be assessed by reference to an “informed user” who has technical knowledge akin to a sectoral expert, examines all details thoroughly and bases their overall impression primarily on technical considerations?
      2. Should Article 89(1) be interpreted to mean that “special reasons”, which allow a national court not to order the prohibition or other measures for infringement, include the fact that the infringement relates only to a small part of a modular system (i.e., only some pieces of the set, in minimal quantity)?

      Court decision

      Regarding question 1 (Article 10 & Article 8(3)): The “informed user” is not a designer or technical expert, but someone who knows the various designs in the sector, is relatively attentive and uses the products as components of a modular system; the assessment must focus on the visual appearance and overall impression from that user’s perspective, not on a technical expert’s detailed analysis.

      Regarding question 2 (Article 89(1): The concept of “special reasons” must be interpreted strictly; a situation where the infringement concerns only a small number of modules in a modular system does not, by itself, constitute a “special reason” allowing the court to withhold ordering the prohibition or other measures.

      The Court explained that proportionality can still play a role—but under national law, not under Article 89. This means courts may adjust remedies to avoid disproportionate outcomes, but they must do so based on their own procedural rules, not by stretching the concept of “special reasons” in EU law. 

      Conclusions

      The Court’s ruling reinforces the notion that Community design protection is primarily visual and should not be narrowed by technical assessment criteria. The CJEU confirmed that the protection under Article 8(3)—the so-called “LEGO exception”—should be interpreted in the same way as other design rights under the Regulation, based mainly on visual appearance. Furthermore, the ruling clarifies that “special reasons” under Article 89(1) are truly exceptional; the mere fact that the infringement affects only a minor part of a modular system is not enough to avoid injunctions or other legal consequences.