Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 September 2010.

Lego Juris A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Community trade mark - Suitability of a shape of goods for registration as a trade mark - Registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the upper surface and two sides of a Lego brick - Declaration of invalidity of that registration on application by an undertaking marketing toy bricks having the same shape and dimensions - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of that regulation - Sign which consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result.

Case C-48/09 P.



Top of the page Documents in the Case
Document Date Name of the parties Subject-matter Curia EUR-Lex
Judgment (OJ)
06/11/2010 Lego Juris v OHIM
View pdf documents
Judgment
ECLI:EU:C:2010:516
14/09/2010 Lego Juris v OHIM
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Judgment (Summary)
ECLI:EU:C:2010:516
14/09/2010 Lego Juris v OHIM
Opinion
ECLI:EU:C:2010:41
26/01/2010 Lego Juris v OHIM
EUR-Lex text EUR-Lex bilingual text
Application (OJ)
04/04/2009 Lego Juris v OHIM
View pdf documents
Top of the page Legal analysis of the decision or of the case

Reports of Cases

2010 I-08403

Subject-matter

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 12 November 2008 in Case T-270/06 Lego Juris A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), in which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of the Community three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a Lego brick for goods in Classes 9 and 28 for annulment of Decision R 856/2004-G of the Grand Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 10 July 2006 dismissing the appeal brought against the Cancellation Division’s decision declaring that mark partially invalid in the context of the application for a declaration of invalidity brought by Mega Brands - Interpretation of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Systematic classification scheme

1.
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.03 European Union trade mark
      4.11.03.01 Absolute grounds for refusal
        4.11.03.01.05 Signs consisting exclusively of the natural or functional shape of goods or of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.03 European Union trade mark
      4.11.03.01 Absolute grounds for refusal
        4.11.03.01.05 Signs consisting exclusively of the natural or functional shape of goods or of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.03 European Union trade mark
      4.11.03.01 Absolute grounds for refusal
        4.11.03.01.05 Signs consisting exclusively of the natural or functional shape of goods or of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.03 European Union trade mark
      4.11.03.01 Absolute grounds for refusal
        4.11.03.01.05 Signs consisting exclusively of the natural or functional shape of goods or of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods
4 Internal policy of the European Union
  4.11 Approximation of laws
    4.11.03 European Union trade mark
      4.11.03.01 Absolute grounds for refusal
        4.11.03.01.05 Signs consisting exclusively of the natural or functional shape of goods or of the shape which gives substantial value to the goods


Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

  • Directive 89/104 -A03P1LB : paragraph 75
  • Directive 89/104 -A03P1LE : paragraph 75
  • Directive 89/104 -A03P1LET2 : paragraphs 43, 58, 83
  • Directive 89/104 -A03P3 : paragraph 47
  • Regulation 40/94 -A04 : paragraphs 2, 39
  • Regulation 40/94 -A07 : paragraph 3
  • Regulation 40/94 -A07P1 : paragraphs 43 - 45
  • Regulation 40/94 -A07P1LB : paragraph 75
  • Regulation 40/94 -A07P1LE : paragraphs 47, 75
  • Regulation 40/94 -A07P1LEPT2 : paragraphs 38 - 62, 68 - 78, 83 - 87
  • Regulation 40/94 -A07P3 : paragraph 47
  • Regulation 40/94 -A09P1 : paragraphs 4, 56
  • Regulation 40/94 -A51 : paragraph 5
  • Regulation 6/2002 : paragraph 46
  • Regulation 207/2009 : paragraph 6
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -299/99 : paragraph 52
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -363/99 : paragraph 52
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -299/99 : paragraphs 43, 47, 52, 58, 83
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -363/99 : paragraph 75
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -517/99 : paragraph 38
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -53/01 : paragraph 43
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -104/01 : paragraph 75
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -206/01 : paragraph 38
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -456/01 : paragraphs 39, 43
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -468/01 : paragraph 70
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -173/04 : paragraph 43
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -286/04 : paragraph 70
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -412/05 : paragraph 38
  • General Court - Judgment T -270/06 : paragraphs 1 - 87
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -488/06 : paragraph 70
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -48/09 : paragraph 69

Operative part

Opinion

  • Directive 89/104 -A03P1LE : point 11
  • Regulation 40/94 -A04 : point 5
  • Regulation 40/94 -A07P1 : points 6, 92
  • Regulation 40/94 -A07P1LB : point 92
  • Regulation 40/94 -A07P1LE : point 92
  • Regulation 40/94 -A07P1LEPT2 : points 10, 49 - 98
  • Regulation 40/94 -A07P1LF : point 91
  • Regulation 40/94 -A07P3 : points 7, 76
  • Regulation 207/2009 -A37P2 : point 73
  • Court of Justice - Opinion C -299/99 : point 56
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -299/99 : points 8, 50, 56, 57, 59 - 61, 66, 69, 70, 72, 78, 79, 81 - 83, 85, 90, 97
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -473/01 : point 75
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -286/04 : point 64
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -25/05 : points 66, 75
  • General Court - Judgment T -270/06 : points 1 - 98
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -238/06 : point 64
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -304/06 : points 66, 75
  • Court of Justice - Judgment C -542/07 : point 76


Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

  • 29/01/2009

Date of the Opinion

  • 26/01/2010

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

14/09/2010


References

Publication in the Official Journal

Application: OJ C 82 from 04.04.2009, p.19

Judgment: OJ C 301 from 06.11.2010, p.3

Name of the parties

Lego Juris v OHIM

Notes on Academic Writings

  1. Schabenberger, Andreas: EuGH: Ein Legostein kann keine Marke sein, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht - Praxis im Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht 2010 p.431
  2. Idot, Laurence: Conditions d'enregistrement d'une marque communautaire, Europe 2010 Novembre Comm. nº 11 p.34
  3. Quaedvlieg, A.A.: Wezenlijk, Uitsluitend en Noodzakelijk, Bulletin bij de industriële eigendom 2010 p.424-427
  4. Marino, Laure: Propriété industrielle et commerciale - Marque tridimensionnelle : la CJUE joue au Lego, Gazette du Palais 2010 nº I 300-301 Jur. p.20-21
  5. Vatankhah, Parwis: Konsolidierung des markenrechtlichen Eintragungshindernisses der technisch bedingten Form, European Law Reporter 2010 nº 12 p.388-393
  6. De Wit, Severin ; Vlaar, Serge: Intellectuele eigendom & Reclamerecht 2010 p.584-586
  7. Reich, Anke: Lego-Stein - nicht eintragungsfähig als Gemeinschaftsmarke - technische Wirkung einer Form, MR-Int : europäische Rundschau zum Medienrecht, IP- & IT-Recht 2010 p.142
  8. Liakatou, Vlotina ; Maniatis, Spyros: Lego - Building a European Concept of Functionality, European Intellectual Property Review 2010 Vol. 32 Issue 12 p.653-656
  9. Sujecki, Bartosz: Zur Markenfähigkeit von Lego-Bausteinen, Markenrecht 2011 p.9-11
  10. Spoor, J.H.: Nederlandse jurisprudentie ; Uitspraken in burgerlijke en strafzaken 2011 nº 303
  11. Aladzhova, Petya: Ogranicheniya v registratsiyata na triizmerni marki, Evropeyski praven pregled 2011 nº 2 p.99-118



Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Information not available

Subject-matter

  • Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
  • - Trade marks

Procedure and result

  • Actions for annulment
  • Appeals : dismissal on substantive grounds

Formation of the Court

grande chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Ilešič

Advocate General

Mengozzi

Language(s) of the Case

  • English

Language(s) of the Opinion

  • Spanish