A brick becomes a question about legal boundaries
In 1996 LEGO applied to OHIM, the predecessor of EUIPO, for a three-dimensional sign representing a red building brick. The dispute over its subsequent invalidation reached the Court of Justice. The function of the distinctive studs was central: they enabled the toy bricks to interlock. The relationship between product appearance and technical operation defined the dispute. [2]
The question: identifying origin or controlling a solution?
The Court examined the exclusion for signs consisting exclusively of a product shape necessary to obtain a technical result. The existence of alternative shapes producing the same technical result did not, by itself, remove that obstacle. On 14 September 2010 it dismissed LEGO’s appeal, leaving the invalidation outcome intact for the mark at issue. [1]
Method: linking each shape feature to its function
The reasoning required identification of the sign’s essential characteristics, followed by assessment of their technical nature. A minor decorative detail does not change the treatment of a shape whose essential characteristics are all functional. An archived edition of EUIPO’s Guidelines refers to this case when explaining functional shapes and the significance of alternatives. [3]
Editorial methodological inference: a three-column matrix can organise the analysis — the feature visible in the representation, its role in the product, and evidence of that role. This separates the belief that something looks distinctive from an argument that an essential feature is not technically determined. The matrix organises the material; it is not a legal test in its own right.
What the dispute helps a product designer understand
Editorial interpretation: a business should identify the interest it seeks to protect. Commercial origin, a technical solution and product appearance pose different questions. Starting with a registration form can conceal a basic mismatch between the selected right and the project’s actual value.
For a Kraków business developing a modular system, a useful starting point would be separate descriptions of the connecting mechanism, aesthetic variants and branding. This is a hypothetical application of the method, not a client case or product assessment. Each layer can then be investigated against its own legal criteria and sources.
Lessons from the analysis
- Identify the subject matter and purpose of protection before choosing a procedure.
- For a product shape, analyse essential characteristics and evidence of their function. [1]
- The refusal of one mark does not answer every question about other product rights.
Limits of interpretation
This study concerns a particular three-dimensional sign and the invalidity ground examined in 2010. It does not determine every LEGO right, other bricks, toy figures or industrial-design protection. A different subject matter or protection regime requires a separate assessment. [1]
Sources and further reading
- 1Court of Justice, Lego Juris v OHIM ↗
C-48/09 P; ECLI:EU:C:2010:516; 2010-09-14
Full judgment; particularly paragraphs 51–58 and 68–76.
- 2Court of Justice, Press Release 91/10 ↗
CP 91/10; 2010-09-14
Press release explaining the context; it does not replace the judgment.
- 3EUIPO — archived Trade Mark Guidelines on technical function ↗
Article 7(1)(e)(ii); C-48/09 P, paragraphs 51–58
Archived Guidelines edition; the judgment remains the primary source.