Can you stop a competitor who copies only some parts of your product?

Suppose you market a modular product, such as a construction game. A competitor sells a similar product, but copies only some of your unique, protected parts. Does this "minor" infringement provide sufficient basis to have the sale of the entire competing product banned? In a judgment of 4 September 2025 the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that it does. Protection for design owners is robust, and an infringement, even on a limited number of parts, should in principle lead to a sales ban.

The facts: LEGO versus Qman

The case revolved around the well-known toy manufacturer LEGO A/S, holder of several registered Union Models for its iconic building blocks. LEGO found that a competitor, Pozitív Energiaforrás Kft. was planning to import Qman brand construction toys in Hungary. These construction sets contained parts that LEGO said infringed on two of its protected designs.

After a complaint from LEGO, the goods were seized. The ensuing legal battle led to a request to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. The Hungarian court asked the Court to clarify two crucial questions:

1. How should the protection of a model for a modular system (such as a LEGO brick) be assessed? Should the judge put himself in the shoes of a technical expert or a "common" user?
2. Can a court deny a sales prohibition if the infringement affects only a small number of parts of the overall product?

The decision of the Court of Justice

The Court gave a clear and, for design owners, favorable answer to both questions. The ruling strengthens the position of designers and manufacturers investing in modular systems.

1. The 'informed user' is not a technical expert

In determining whether a competing model creates a "different overall impression," the court must rely on the perception of the 'informed user". The Court confirms that this concept should be interpreted uniformly.

An informed user:

• is not an average consumer, but is more observant and has some knowledge of the product sector in question.
• however, is also not a technical expert or professional who analyzes models in great detail with technical measuring instruments.

Thus, the assessment remains focused on the overall visual impression left by the product. The technical functionality of the connectors should not dominate the assessment. This means that the protection is broader and cannot be circumvented by minute technical modifications that are barely visible to a user.

2. A 'minor' infringement is still an infringement

The legislation provides that a judge must impose measures, such as a sales ban and seizure of the products, if an infringement is established. The judge can depart from this only if there are "special reasons."

The Court held that this concept must be interpreted very strictly. The fact that the infringement concerns only a quantitatively small number of parts of a larger whole (e.g., a few cubes in a large construction set) does not constitute a "special reason" for rejecting a sales ban.

In other words, an infringer cannot argue that the infringement is "proportionally too small" to justify selling its entire product.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling is of great strategic importance for the design right in the European Union.

First, the Court creates legal certainty by sticking to a single definition of "informed user. There will be no separate, more technical interpretation for designs of a functional nature, such as connectors. The focus remains on visual perception. In fact, the Court emphasizes that the design of the connectors themselves is an important part of the overall impression and scope of protection.

Second, the Court closes the door on a proportionality test that could play in the infringer's favor. The reasoning "the infringement is too small to prohibit my entire trade" does not apply. This confirms that the exclusive right of the design holder prevails. Even a minor infringement gives the holder the right to completely exclude the competitor from the market. This is a powerful signal that the value of intellectual property is taken seriously.

What this specifically means

• For holders of models: Your protection is strong even for functional components of modular systems. You can take effective action against competitors even if they only partially copy your design. A judge will in principle be obliged to issue a sales ban.
• For competitors and importers: Be extremely careful. Copying even a few protected parts of a product can lead to the seizure and a sales ban of your entire product line. The defense that it is "just a few pieces" will not help you.
• For designers: The ruling encourages innovation in the design of modular and compatible products. The visual aspects of connecting elements enjoy full protection, which represents significant commercial value.

FAQ (frequently asked questions)

What is an "informed user" in design law?
An informed user is a fictional person between the average consumer and a technical expert. He or she is observant, knowledgeable about existing products in the industry, but evaluates a design based on overall visual impression, not through in-depth technical analysis.

Can a judge refuse to impose a sales ban if the infringement is minimal?
In principle, no. The law requires the court to sanction an infringement with, among other things, a sales ban. Only in very exceptional situations can this be deviated from. The fact that the infringement is quantitatively limited is explicitly not accepted by the Court of Justice as a valid ground for exception.

Is the technical function of a part important in evaluating a model?
The protection of a design relates to its appearance. Features determined solely by a technical function are in principle excluded from protection. However, the law makes a crucial exception for connecting pieces within a modular system, which is precisely why the design of these pieces can be protected.

Conclusion

The ruling in the LEGO/Pozitív Energiaforrás case is an important victory for design right holders. The Court of Justice confirms that the protection of modular systems is broad and that penalties for infringement, no matter how small, must be applied rigorously. This provides the necessary deterrent and rewards those who invest in unique design.