The Lego Exception and Proportionality in Injunctive Relief: A Case for Clarity

On March 6, 2025, Advocate General (AG) Szpunar delivered his Opinion in the case Lego A/S v Pozitív Energiaforrás Kft. (C-211/24), focusing on the so-called “Lego exception” under the Community Design Regulation (CDR). This exception allows Lego to continue protecting its modular toy designs despite the expiration of its patents. While the Lego patents on its building blocks date back to the 1950s, the company has leveraged other legal avenues, including trademark and copyright law, to safeguard the distinctive appearance of its toy sets.

Under EU law, designs are protected only for their appearance, excluding technical features dictated by functionality. However, a special provision under Article 8(3) CDR allows Lego to claim protection for modular systems despite their functional interconnection, as seen in earlier rulings like Lego v Delta Sport.

In this case, the Budapest High Court referred two key questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The first question concerns how the “informed user” perceives the overall impression of the design under the CDR. While AG Szpunar provided a detailed analysis of this, the second question delves into the issue of proportionality when determining the scope of injunctions for design infringements. Specifically, it asks whether courts can limit injunctive relief for a minor infringement, given the importance of proportionality and the wider context of the product.

AG Szpunar chose not to directly answer the second question, referencing established case law from Nikolajeva and Nokia. However, these cases do not fully address the nuances of proportionality in the context of multi-component products like toys, smartphones, or cars. The underlying question is whether and how courts should tailor injunctive relief to the severity of the infringement, particularly when the infringement relates to only a small part of a larger product. While courts typically issue injunctions when a right’s validity is clear, ECJ case law suggests that remedies must be proportionate to the infringement’s seriousness.

This issue of proportionality remains unresolved, especially in the context of multi-component products, where removing or replacing a single infringing part may be impractical or costly. While there may be cases where limiting relief is justified, there’s no clear guidance on how this principle should apply.

The absence of detailed clarification from the CJEU on the second question leaves national courts and the upcoming Unified Patent Court (UPC) to navigate this issue, potentially leading to divergent decisions across jurisdictions. Legal certainty in this area would be beneficial, and we may hope that future cases will address the proportionality of injunctive relief in greater detail.