EU General Court annuals LEGO design and expands
on the concept of “overall impression” in design law
On 14 January, the General Court handed down the judgment of Case T 628/24 in which LEGO, a Danish multinational company, faced off against Guangdong Qman Toys Industry Co. Ltd, a Chinese company. The validity of the following registered design was essentially evaluated:
The invalidity in question was based on LEGO´s disclosure of the following piece:
In both the first and second instances before the EUIPO, the design in question was declared invalid on the basis of the requirement of ¨overall impression,¨ an element that is at the core of the Judgment, as will be seen below.
After assessing the case, the Luxembourg Court confirmed the decisions of the European IP Office and concluded that the design in question is invalid.
The Court concluded that the differences between this design and the earlier design (the part is longer and has two studs instead of one) are not sufficiently substantial to conclude that a different overall impression is made on an informed user. Sensu contrario, the design in question would simply be perceived as an extension of the characteristics of the prior design.
The decision has given rise to a heated debate among professionals in the field for several reasons. Of particular interest among them is the fact that the Court uses the expression “similar overall impression” in its reasoning, though EU law refers to a different a priori concept, “same general impression.”
This terminological nuance may not be minor. A literalist interpretation of the judgment might imply that the Court is committed to lowering the standards when assessing whether or not a design is invalid based on the criterion of an overall impression. It is obviously not the same to require that comparable designs create the “same overall impression” rather than creating a “similar overall impression.”
Without a doubt, close attention will need to be paid to the practical application of this decision, particularly with regard to whether the Chamber’s interpretation of the law will become precedent or influence future decisions, which would have a direct impact not only on matters of invalidity but also on design infringement.
Copyright © 2026 All rights reserved