ext/celex/62024TJ0628

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)

14 January 2026 ( * )

( European Union design – Invalidity proceedings – Registered EU design representing a building block from a toy building set – Earlier EU design – Ground for invalidity – No individual character – No different overall impression – Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 )

In Case T‑628/24,

Lego A/S, established in Billund (Denmark), represented by V. von Bomhard and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent,

defendant,

the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court, being

Guangdong Qman Toys Industry Co. Ltd, established in Shantou (China), represented by A. Ginzburg, lawyer,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber),

composed, at the time of the deliberations, of A. Marcoulli, President, W. Valasidis (Rapporteur) and L. Spangsberg Grønfeldt, Judges,

Registrar: J. Čuboň, Administrator,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

further to the hearing on 10 October 2025,

gives the following

Judgment

1 By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Lego A/S, seeks the annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 September 2024 (Case R 162/2023-3) (‘the contested decision’).

Background to the dispute

2 On 31 March 2021, the intervener, Guangdong Qman Toys Industry Co. Ltd, filed with EUIPO an application for a declaration of invalidity of the EU design registered following an application filed on 28 November 2008, which is represented in the following views:

View 1

View 2 View 3 View 4

View 5 View 6 View 7

3 The products to which the design, in respect of which a declaration of invalidity was sought, is intended to be applied were in Class 21.01 of the Locarno Agreement of 8 October 1968 establishing an International Classification for Industrial Designs, as amended, and corresponded to the following description: ‘Building blocks from a toy building set’.

4 The grounds relied on in support of the application for a declaration of invalidity were those set out in Article 25(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on European Union designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1), in the version prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024 (OJ L, 2024/2822), read in conjunction with Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.

5 In the application for a declaration of invalidity, the intervener claimed that the contested design lacked individual character, since it did not produce on the informed user a different overall impression from that of the prior design reproduced on the website ‘www.brickset.com’ and corresponding to the representation of piece No 61252 belonging to the toy brick construction set No 7241 ‘Fire Car’ represented by the following view:

6 On 28 November 2022, the Invalidity Division declared the contested design invalid on the ground that it lacked individual character on the basis of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, in its earlier version, read in conjunction with Article 6 of that regulation.

7 On 20 January 2023, the applicant filed a notice of appeal with EUIPO against the decision of the Invalidity Division.

8 By the contested decision, the Board of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It found, in essence, that the coincidence in the main features of the designs at issue, namely a plate with a cylindrical solid stud on the upper side, smooth surfaces and a crescent-shaped clamp placed at the centre of and perpendicular to one of the outer walls, produced a similar overall impression on the informed user. It concluded that the contested design lacked individual character and dismissed the appeal on the basis of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, in its earlier version, read in conjunction with Article 6 of that regulation.

Forms of order sought

9 The applicant claims that the Court should:

– annul the contested decision;

– order EUIPO and the intervener to pay the costs.

10 EUIPO contends that the Court should:

– dismiss the action;

– order the applicant to pay the costs in the event that an oral hearing is convened.

11 The intervener submits that the Court should:

– dismiss the action;

– order the applicant to pay the costs.

Law

12 The applicant puts forward, in essence, a single plea in law alleging infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, in its earlier version, read in conjunction with Article 6 of that regulation.

13 The applicant essentially submits that the Board of Appeal did not give sufficient weight to the significant and immediately visible differences, first, in the outer shape and overall configuration of the designs at issue and, secondly, in the underside of those designs.

14 In particular, the Board of Appeal did not take into account, in the views from above and from the side of the designs at issue, the rectangular shape of the contested design as opposed to the square shape of the prior design, the difference in the number of features present, in particular the number of solid studs, and the proportion of the various elements in relation to each other.

15 Moreover, in respect of the views of the undersides of the designs at issue, the Board of Appeal also failed to take into account their different structure and the presence in the contested design of a ‘prominent [cylindrical] element that is entirely absent’ in the earlier design.

16 In those circumstances, the Board of Appeal made an error of assessment in concluding that the designs at issue produced a similar overall impression on the informed user.

17 EUIPO and the intervener dispute the applicant’s arguments.

18 Under Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, in its earlier version, an EU design may be declared invalid if it does not fulfil the requirements of Articles 4 to 9 of that regulation, in its earlier version, and, in particular, those of novelty and individual character.

19 According to Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, a registered EU design is to be considered to have individual character if the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from the overall impression produced on such a user by any design which has been made available to the public before the date of filing the application for registration or, if a priority is claimed, before the date of priority.

20 Article 6(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 also specifies that, in assessing that individual character, the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design must be taken into consideration.

21 It follows from recital 14 of Regulation No 6/2002 that the assessment as to whether a design has individual character under Article 25(1)(b) of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 6 thereof, should be based on whether the overall impression produced on an informed user viewing the design clearly differs from that produced on him by the existing design corpus, taking into consideration the nature of the product to which the design is applied or in which it is incorporated, and in particular the industrial sector to which it belongs and the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design.

22 The assessment of the individual character of an EU design is therefore carried out in four stages. That examination consists in deciding upon, first, the sector to which the products in which the design is intended to be incorporated or to which it is intended to be applied belong; second, the informed user of those products in accordance with their purpose and, with reference to that informed user, the degree of awareness of the prior art and the level of attention to the similarities and the differences in the comparison of the designs; third, the designer’s degree of freedom in developing his or her design, the influence of which on individual character is in inverse proportion; and, fourth, taking that degree of freedom into account, the outcome of the comparison, direct if possible, of the overall impressions produced on the informed user by the contested design and by any earlier design which has been made available to the public, taken individually (see judgment of 13 June 2019, Visi/one v EUIPO – EasyFix (Display holder for vehicles) , T‑74/18, EU:T:2019:417, paragraph 66 and the case-law cited).

The sector to which the products to which the contested design is intended to be applied belong

23 As regards the sector to which the products to which the contested design is intended to be applied belong, it is common ground that that design is intended to be applied, as is expressly stated in the application for registration, to building blocks from a toy building set, which the Board of Appeal rightly noted in paragraph 32 of the contested decision.

24 The toy building sets of which the products to which the contested design is intended to be applied form part are modular systems in which the various building blocks can be easily put together and taken apart, which makes it possible freely to create and disassemble building structures of varying shapes (judgment of 4 September 2025, LEGO (Concept of informed user of a design) , C‑211/24, EU:C:2025:648, paragraph 15).

The d efinition of the informed user

25 In the present case, the applicant does not dispute the Board of Appeal’s assessment, as set out in paragraphs 37 to 40 of the contested decision, according to which, in essence, the informed user of the building blocks from a toy building set is whoever habitually purchases such items, puts them to their intended use, possesses a certain degree of knowledge with regard to the features that those designs normally include and shows a relatively high level of attention.

26 There is no reason to call that assessment into question, including having regard to the judgment of 4 September 2025, LEGO (Concept of informed user of a design) (C‑211/24, EU:C:2025:648), relied on by the applicant at the hearing.

The designer’s degree of freedom

27 As regards the designer’s degree of freedom in developing a design, it should be borne in mind that, according to the case-law, that freedom is established, inter alia, by the constraints of the features imposed by the technical function of the product or an element thereof, or by statutory requirements applicable to the product. Those constraints result in a standardisation of certain features, which will thus be common to the designs applied to the product concerned (judgment of 18 March 2010, Grupo Promer Mon Graphic v OHIM – PepsiCo (Representation of a circular promotional item ), T‑9/07, EU:T:2010:96, paragraph 67).

28 In the present case, it is common ground between the parties, as the Board of Appeal points out in paragraph 35 of the contested decision, that the degree of freedom of the designer of the contested design is limited by the interoperability requirement, which means that the blocks from a toy building set must be capable of connecting with one another.

29 However, the requirement of interoperability between the blocks in a building set does not limit the general appearance of the visible features of those blocks, not all of which are dictated by their technical function. The illustrations reproduced in the contested decision demonstrate a multitude of possible variations in building blocks from a toy building set and show, as the Board of Appeal found, without being challenged on that point, that their designer has a wide choice in terms of the shape and contours of the blocks, their size and components, the number and position of those features as well as the colour or decoration.

30 The influence of the factor relating to the designer’s freedom on individual character varies according to a rule of inverse proportionality. Thus, the greater the designer’s freedom in developing a design, the less likely it is that minor differences between the designs at issue will be sufficient to produce a different overall impression on an informed user (see judgment of 13 June 2019, Display holder for vehicles , T‑74/18, EU:T:2019:417, paragraph 76 and the case-law cited).

31 In the present case, the prior design is square in shape whereas the contested design is rectangular. In construction, as the Board of Appeal pointed out, when two squares are combined, they naturally form a rectangle, with the result that the informed user will be able to perceive the contested design as a continuation of the same pattern established in the prior design. In those circumstances, the difference in shape in the contours of the blocks to which the designs at issue are applied must be regarded as minor.

32 In accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 30 above, the Board of Appeal was therefore entitled to find, in paragraph 50 of the contested decision, that the informed user will not pay particular attention to the difference in shape (square or rectangular) of the toy building blocks to which the designs at issue are intended to be applied. The fact that the designer has a wide choice in the shape or contours of the blocks is, in that regard, such as to reinforce the conclusion that designs which do not have significant differences produce the same overall impression on an informed user.

33 The fact that the designer has considerable freedom in developing the contested design with regard to the shape and contours of the building blocks to which that design is intended to be applied is therefore not in contradiction, contrary to the applicant’s submissions, to the Board of Appeal’s assessment that the differences in the shape, square or rectangular, of the building blocks to which those designs are intended to be applied, which are minor differences, do not contribute to producing a different overall impression on the informed user.

The comparison of the overall impressions produced by the designs at issue

34 According to settled case-law, the individual character of a design results from an overall impression of difference or lack of ‘déjà vu’, from the point of view of an informed user, in relation to any previous presence in the design corpus, without taking account of any differences that are insufficiently significant to affect that overall impression, even though they may be more than insignificant details, but taking account of differences that are sufficiently marked so as to produce dissimilar overall impressions (see judgment of 16 February 2017, Antrax It v EUIPO – Vasco Group (Thermosiphons for radiators for heating) , T‑828/14 and T‑829/14, EU:T:2017:87, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited).

35 It must be borne in mind, in that regard, that the overall impression consists of the informed user’s visual perception of the appearance of the product at issue resulting, in particular, from the features listed in Article 3(a) of Regulation No 6/2002, namely the lines, contours, colours, shape, texture and/or materials of the product itself and/or its ornamentation (judgment of 4 September 2025, LEGO (Concept of informed user of a design) , C‑211/24, EU:C:2025:648, paragraph 47).

36 The assessment as to whether a design has individual character must be conducted in relation to one or more earlier designs, taken individually from among all the designs which have been made available to the public previously, and not in relation to a combination of features taken in isolation and drawn from a number of earlier designs (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 June 2014, Karen Millen Fashions , C‑345/13, EU:C:2014:2013, paragraphs 25 and 35).

37 The comparison of the overall impressions produced by the designs at issue must be synthetic and may not be limited to an analytic comparison of a list of similarities and differences. It must relate to the designs, in principle, as registered, and the invalidity applicant cannot be required to produce a graphic representation of the earlier design, comparable to the representation in the application for registration of the design at issue (see judgment of 13 June 2019, Display holder for vehicles , T‑74/18, EU:T:2019:417, paragraph 84 and the case-law cited).

38 Moreover, that comparison must take as a basis the characteristics disclosed of the contested design and must relate solely to the characteristics protected, without taking account of the characteristics, in particular technical features, excluded from the protection (see judgment of 21 February 2024, Nextrend v EUIPO – Xiamen Axent Corporation and Axent Switzerland (Toilet units (part of –)) , T‑82/23, not published, EU:T:2024:102, paragraph 56 and the case-law cited).

39 In that regard, Article 8(2) provides that an EU design is not to subsist in features of appearance of a product which must necessarily be reproduced in their exact form and dimensions in order to permit the product in which the design is incorporated or to which it is applied to be mechanically connected to or placed in, around or against another product so that either product may perform its function. However, notwithstanding that provision, pursuant to Article 8(3) of Regulation No 6/2002, an EU design must under the conditions of novelty and individual character subsist in a design serving the purpose of allowing the multiple assembly or connection of mutually interchangeable products within a modular system.

40 Thus, in order to give practical effect to Article 8(3) of Regulation No 6/2002, the features of appearance that allow interconnection, protected by that paragraph 3, must, unlike the features of appearance referred to in Article 8(2) of that regulation, be taken into consideration when assessing the overall impression produced by those features on the informed user. Therefore, the presence, in the design concerned, of interconnecting components protected by Article 8(3) of that regulation may operate against a finding of a different overall impression, 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 (judgment of 4 September 2025, LEGO (Concept of informed user of a design) , C‑211/24, EU:C:2025:648, paragraph 54).

41 In the present case, the Board of Appeal found, in essence, that the designs at issue coincided in a plate with a cylindrical solid stud on its upper side, smooth surfaces and a crescent-shaped clamp placed at the centre of and perpendicular to the end wall. Given the coincidence of those features, the Board of Appeal took the view, in paragraph 47 of the contested decision, that the designs at issue produced similar overall impressions.

42 In that regard, the Board of Appeal added, in paragraph 51 of the contested decision, that the fact, relied on by the applicant, that, on the underside, the contested design depicts a round hollow wall in the centre, which is absent in the prior design, could play only a secondary role in the overall impression. When using the building blocks to which the designs at issue are applied, such a difference on the underside would be hidden when the blocks are interlocked with each other.

43 In so far as the prior design, as invoked, is depicted in a single image that does not reveal its bottom, making it impossible to confirm any alleged differences with certainty, the Board of Appeal considered, in any event, that the presence of a central cylindrical element in the underside view of the contested design was not sufficient to outweigh the numerous similarities found between the designs at issue.

44 In order to challenge the Board of Appeal’s assessment, the applicant submits, first of all, in essence, that, contrary to the case-law, the Board of Appeal undertook an analytic comparison of the differences and similarities between the designs at issue without taking into account the overall impression that those designs may produce on the informed user.

45 It is apparent from paragraphs 45 to 47 of the contested decision that, after listing all the features of the designs at issue, the Board of Appeal carried out a synthetic comparison of those features, as set out in paragraph 41 above, in order to conclude that, taking into account all their features, those designs produced similar overall impressions. The applicant’s argument set out in paragraph 44 above is the result of a misreading of the contested decision and must therefore be rejected.

46 The applicant takes the view, next, that the Board of Appeal did not take account of the fact that the presence of an additional stud in the contested design compared to the prior design, and the rectangular shape of the contested design, which is twice as long as the square shape of the prior design, correspond to a 100% addition of that feature of the prior design to the overall configuration of the building block to which the contested design is intended to be applied.

47 It is sufficient, in any event, to note that the additional stud in the contested design merely reproduces identically a feature which is already present in the prior design. Moreover, as already noted in paragraph 31 above, in construction, when two squares are combined, they naturally form a rectangle.

48 In that regard, the applicant argued at the hearing that the Board of Appeal considered, if not explicitly at least implicitly, that there was no need to take into account, in the comparison of the overall impressions produced by the designs at issue, the presence of the additional stud in the contested design, since it is a ‘technical feature’.

49 It is apparent, first of all, from paragraph 45 of the contested decision that the Board of Appeal expressly took into account, in support of its assessment, the ‘two cylindrical solid studs vertically aligned on the plate’s upper surface and arranged symmetrically’ in the contested design. Moreover, as noted in paragraph 41 above, the Board of Appeal found, in paragraph 47 of the contested decision, that the designs at issue produced a similar overall impression on the informed user solely on the basis that some of their features, as listed in paragraphs 45 and 46 of the contested decision, ‘coincide’, including, inter alia, ‘one cylindrical solid stud’. Lastly, after noting, in paragraph 48 of the contested decision, that the additional stud was one of the differences between the two designs at issue, it found that that additional stud would contribute little to the overall impression on the ground that it will be perceived ‘as a mere repetition of the identical stud already present in the prior design’.

50 It is therefore in no way apparent from the contested decision that the Board of Appeal considered that the additional stud in the contested design was not ‘relevant because it was a technical feature’ or that it had implicitly based its reasoning on the fact that it did not have to take that feature into account in the contested design on the ground that it fulfilled a technical function.

51 On the contrary, in paragraph 28 of the contested decision, the Board of Appeal endorsed the reasoning of the Invalidity Division, which found, as is apparent from paragraph 12 of the contested decision, that the contested design ‘fall[s] within the exception for protection under Article 8(3) [of Regulation No 6/2002]’. As was pointed out in paragraph 40 above, in accordance with Article 8(3) of Regulation No 6/2002, the features of appearance that allow interconnection, protected by that paragraph 3, are taken into consideration when assessing the overall impression produced by those features on the informed user (judgment of 4 September 2025, LEGO (Concept of informed user of a design) , C‑211/24, EU:C:2025:648, paragraph 54).

52 In those circumstances, notwithstanding the fact that, contrary to what is stated in the contested decision, the additional stud in the contested design, placed opposite the crescent-shaped clamp located at the centre of the block wall, has not been reproduced ‘in exactly the same position’ as the stud in the prior design, which is located directly next to the crescent-shaped clamp, as was acknowledged by EUIPO at the hearing, the informed user will be able perceive the contested design as a continuation of the same patterns as those established in the prior design, as the Board of Appeal correctly found.

53 Consequently, the fact that the rectangular shape of the contested design is twice as long as the square shape of the prior design or that the contested design has two studs rather than one is not sufficient to produce a different overall impression on an informed user.

54 Nor can the applicant rely on the judgment of 24 January 2024, TA Towers v EUIPO – Wobben Properties (Building materials) (T‑201/22, not published, EU:T:2024:27, paragraph 61). In the case which gave rise to that judgment, the sector concerned was that of building materials and the contested design made it possible to obtain a cylinder, whereas the prior design made it possible to obtain an element corresponding to a truncated cone. The applicant does not explain how the solution adopted by the Court in a case concerning a sector and a design that are clearly different from those at issue in the present case can be applied to the designs at issue.

55 In that regard, the applicant merely asserts that, in the case which gave rise to the judgment of 24 January 2024, Building materials (T‑201/22, not published, EU:C:2024:27), the difference in the shape of the sheets at issue and in the number of bends in them had a significant influence on the overall impressions produced by the designs in question on the informed user. Such a fact cannot, by itself, in the absence of any additional explanatory evidence, have any bearing on the review of the assessment carried out by the Board of Appeal in the contested decision. As the applicant itself acknowledges, referring to numerous other examples taken from the case-law, the significance that ‘differences in proportions’ might have in each individual case ‘depends on the case’.

56 Lastly, the applicant submits, in essence, that the differences in the underside of the designs at issue must be taken into account and contribute to reinforcing the overall impression of difference between the contested design and the prior design.

57 In the first place, the Board of Appeal erred in law in finding that it did not need to take into account the underside of the designs at issue, on the ground that the view of the underside of the prior design had not been invoked by the intervener. Consequently, the Board of Appeal erred in finding that ‘[as] the prior design is depicted in a single image that does not reveal its bottom, [such a factor made] it impossible to confirm any alleged differences with certainty’.

58 In the second place, the Board of Appeal made an error of assessment in finding that the central cylindrical element in the contested design had less impact on the overall impression than the other elements.

59 It should be noted that, in the context of the examination of the ground for invalidity referred to in Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002, in its earlier version, read in conjunction with Article 6 of that regulation, the sole function of the earlier design is to reveal what must be taken into consideration in that examination within the state of the prior art (judgment of 1 December 2021, Muratbey Gida v EUIPO – M. J. Dairies (Triple helicoid cheese) , T‑662/20, not published, EU:T:2021:843, paragraph 17).

60 In that context, it is for the party who lodged the application for a declaration of invalidity to provide EUIPO with the necessary information and, in particular, to identify and reproduce precisely and entirely the design that is allegedly earlier in order to demonstrate that the contested design cannot be validly registered (judgment of 21 September 2017, Easy Sanitary Solutions and EUIPO v Group Nivelles , C‑361/15 P and C‑405/15 P, EU:C:2017:720, paragraph 65).

61 In the first place, as regards the complaint alleging an error of law, it must be held, on reading paragraph 51 of the contested decision, that the Board of Appeal, as EUIPO points out, did not consider that it did not have to take into account the underside view of the prior design. Responding to an argument put forward by the applicant, it found only that, in the absence of a view of the underside of the prior design produced by the intervener, ‘any alleged differences’ with the underside of the contested design could not be confirmed ‘with certainty’, contrary to what the applicant claimed. The complaint put forward by the applicant, set out in paragraph 57 above, is therefore based on a misreading of the contested decision.

62 However, such an assertion cannot confirm the absence of any difference between the views of the undersides of the contested designs. EUIPO, both in its written pleadings and at the hearing, argued, moreover, that any feature of the contested design which was not present in the prior design was, in principle, to be regarded as a difference.

63 In accordance with the case-law recalled in paragraph 60, it was for the intervener, and not the applicant, to identify precisely and comprehensively the design that was allegedly earlier in order to demonstrate that the contested design could not be validly registered. It is common ground that the intervener did not provide any view of the underside of the prior design in the application for a declaration of invalidity.

64 The view of the underside of the prior design can, however, be easily deduced from the view relied on in support of the application, since the stud on the top is likely to correspond to a recess of the same circumference located underneath. Such a feature is illustrated by the products marketed which correspond to the designs at issue, of which the applicant, during the proceedings, provided views of the underside, including for the prior design, which may be taken into consideration, when assessing the overall impression of the designs at issue, for illustrative purposes (see, to that effect, judgment of 10 November 2021, Eternit v EUIPO – Eternit Österreich (Building panels) , T‑193/20, EU:T:2021:782, paragraph 33).

65 In those circumstances, the Board of Appeal was right, as is apparent from paragraph 52 of the contested decision, to take into account, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 64 above, all the available views of the designs at issue, including those submitted by the applicant, which had provided a view of the underside of the prior design during the proceedings.

66 At the hearing, however, EUIPO submitted that it could not be inferred with certainty that the view of the underside provided by the applicant during the proceedings actually corresponded to the top view of the prior design produced by the intervener in support of its application for a declaration of invalidity. In that regard, it should be noted that page 342 of the case file, to which EUIPO refers, reproduces both the underside view and the top view of a design identified under reference No 61252, which, as is apparent from paragraph 4 of the contested decision, corresponds to the reference of the prior design. Therefore, EUIPO is not justified in claiming that the view of the underside of the prior design provided during the proceedings did not in fact correspond to the top view of that design produced in support of the application for a declaration of invalidity.

67 In the second place, as regards the complaint alleging an error of assessment, it should be borne in mind that the overall impression produced by a design referred to in Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 concerns an overall visual impression produced by the visible characteristics of that design (judgment of 13 June 2017, Ball Beverage Packaging Europe v EUIPO – Crown Hellas Can (Cans) , T‑9/15, EU:T:2017:386, paragraph 76).

68 When assessing whether a design has individual character in relation to any previous presence in the design corpus, account is to be taken of the nature of the product to which the design is applied or in which it is incorporated and, in particular, the manner in which the product at issue is used, in particular according to the manner in which it is normally handled when used (see judgment of 7 November 2013, Budziewska v OHIM – Puma (Bounding feline) , T‑666/11, not published, EU:T:2013:584, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).

69 Moreover, the informed user pays only limited attention to elements which are entirely banal and common to all examples of the type of product in question and focuses, in particular, on the most visible and most important elements (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 June 2019, Display holder for vehicles , T‑74/18, EU:T:2019:417, paragraph 91).

70 Lastly, where designs placed side by side do not differ significantly in their fundamental characteristics, the synergy of those characteristics conveys to the informed user, who is particularly vigilant and sensitive to them, a similar overall impression (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 October 2020, Dvectis CZ v EUIPO – Yafo (Support pillow) , T‑818/19, not published, EU:T:2020:486, paragraphs 66 and 67).

71 In the present case, it should be noted that the features present on the underside of a building block from a toy building set that allow interconnection with other building blocks are interlocked with each other when they are used. This is the case for the studs, which are present on the underside and the top of those blocks, and the recesses into which such elements fit. The central cylindrical element present in the underside view of the contested design, but not present in the prior design, will therefore remain hidden most of the time when the products to which the designs at issue are applied are used.

72 The manner in which a design is used, which depends on the nature of the product to which that design is applied, must be taken into account when assessing its individual character, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 69 above. Contrary to the applicant’s submissions, ‘the visibility of … features after “interlocking”’ must therefore be taken into account as regards designs applied to products which form part of a modular system, as in the present case.

73 Therefore, notwithstanding the fact, on which the applicant rightly relies, that the informed user of a building block from a toy building set is aware of all perspectives of that block when using it, the upper part of the designs at issue intended to be applied to those building blocks will remain decisive in the comparison of the overall impression produced by those designs on the informed user.

74 Although, moreover, the ‘“underside” [of a building block] can be facing upwards’ when manipulated, it will remain visible to the user only for a short time, since, as it fulfils an essentially technical function, which the applicant does not dispute, it will disappear from his or her field of vision once interlocked with another building block. It is true that the upper face of a building block may also be interlinked with another block and, consequently, be covered by it, since, as the applicant points out, ‘construction toy elements interlock on the top or on the bottom or both’. The fact remains that such building blocks are designed to interlink with other blocks, in such a way that, at least in part, the upper faces remain exposed for longer than the lower faces, on which the entire toy building set rests, in accordance with the assembly instructions specific to each toy building set.

75 At the hearing, the applicant added that the technical function of the central cylindrical element, protected under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 6/2002, was to reinforce the attachment system. Even if such an assertion were correct, the applicant has not demonstrated that such a factor would have led the user to pay particular attention to it.

76 It is true that such a user’s level of attention, which is, in any event, relatively high, is likely to vary according to the sector concerned, including in the case of designs covered by Article 8(3) of Regulation No 6/2002. Consequently, it cannot be ruled out that, in the latter situation, a level of attention or observance appropriate to the sector concerned should be taken into consideration. However, even in such a situation, it is not necessary to take into consideration the perception of a user who is a specialist in the field concerned, who has detailed technical expertise, like a sectoral expert, or to consider that the overall impression produced on that user should be formed primarily of a technical opinion (judgment of 4 September 2025, LEGO (Concept of informed user of a design) , C‑211/24, EU:C:2025:648, paragraph 50).

77 The scope of protection of a design under Article 8(3) of Regulation No 6/2002 cannot therefore be assessed by reference to the overall visual impression produced by that design on an informed user who, possessing technical knowledge similar to that which may be expected of a sectoral expert, would examine the design concerned down to the smallest detail and whose overall impression would be based primarily on technical considerations (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 September 2025, LEGO (Concept of informed user of a design) , C‑211/24, EU:C:2025:648, paragraph 58).

78 It should also be noted that the designs at issue are not applied to a product which constitutes a component part of a complex product. Therefore, the applicant cannot rely on the definition of normal use of a component part of a complex product, within the meaning of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 6/2002, which, in accordance with the case-law cited by the applicant, should take account of all acts which are customary from the perspective of the end user, including those which may be performed before or after the product has fulfilled its principal function.

79 In any event, the fact that the view of the underside of a building block from a toy building set may also be visible before or after that block has been assembled with other blocks from that toy building set, for example when unpacking or storing that block, is not sufficient to call into question the Board of Appeal’s assessment. While such handling remains marginal during the use of the building block, it is sufficient to recall, as is apparent from paragraph 75 above, that, once that block has been assembled with another block forming part of the same modular system, the informed user will no longer be able to see the underside view of that block.

80 In so far as the part of the product represented by a design that is outside the user’s immediate field of vision will not have a major impact on the perception which that user has of the design in question (judgment of 22 June 2010, Shenzhen Taiden v OHIM – Bosch Security Systems (Communications equipment) , T‑153/08, EU:T:2010:248, paragraph 65), the Board of Appeal was therefore entitled to find that the underside of a building block from a toy building set could have only a minor impact on the overall impression produced on the informed user of the designs at issue.

81 In addition, as the Board of Appeal also noted, the features of the underside of the designs at issue reveal similarities, such as a wide rim and circular elements corresponding to the studs on top.

82 Contrary to the applicant’s submissions, the rim of the underside of the prior design does not appear, in the light of the views reproduced in the file, to be ‘thicker’, let alone ‘much thicker’, than the rim of the underside of the contested design on the ground that the latter is ‘half the size’ of ‘the size’ of that design.

83 Although, as the applicant points out, the circular elements corresponding to the studs on top are visually less important than the central cylindrical element present only in the contested design, it should be borne in mind that, in accordance with the case-law cited in paragraph 37 above, the comparison of the overall impressions produced by the designs at issue must be synthetic and may not be limited to an analytic comparison of a list of similarities and differences.

84 In those circumstances and given that the building blocks from a toy building set are manipulated mainly from above, the central cylindrical element is a minor detail of the contested design in the overall impression created by the designs at issue. The informed user will therefore not pay particular attention to it, since the comparison of the designs at issue placed side by side shows mainly that they coincide, as the Board of Appeal rightly points out, in a plate of very similar, if not identical, thickness, with a stud on its top and a clamp, the connection between the clamp and the plate also being identical, with a smooth curved corner and covering approximately half of the end wall’s length.

85 Therefore, the only difference resulting from the presence of the central cylindrical element in the contested design is not sufficient to create a different overall impression on the informed user.

86 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, since the single plea in law relied on by the applicant in support of its claims must be rejected, the action must be dismissed.

Costs

87 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.

88 Since a hearing has been convened and the applicant has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs, in accordance with the forms of order sought by EUIPO and the intervener.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)

hereby:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders Lego A/S to pay the costs.

Marcoulli | Valasidis | Spangsberg Grønfeldt

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 14 January 2026.

V. Di Bucci | S. Papasavvas

Registrar | President

* Language of the case: English.