The shape of the Lego brick is free for all to use

Cappuyns, Patricia

doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpp069

Download

Article (Scientific journals)

The shape of the Lego brick is free for all to use

Cappuyns, Patricia

2009 • In Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, p. 499-505

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2268/236810

DOI
10.1093/jiplp/jpp069

Files (1)Send to Details Statistics Bibliography Similar publications

Files

Full Text

The shape of the Lego 2009.pdf

Publisher postprint (191.47 kB)

Download

All documents in ORBi are protected by a user license.

Send to

RIS BibTex APA Chicago Permalink X Linkedin

Details

Keywords :

Patent; Lego

Abstract :

[en] Shapes are in principle eligible for trade mark protection. However, in light of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) CTMR as interpreted by the European Court of Justice in Philips v Remington, this is not the case for shapes that are essentially functional. The same issue now lies before the ECJ once again in Lego v OHIM – MEGA Brands.

Disciplines :

Economic & commercial law
European & international law

Author, co-author :

Cappuyns, Patricia ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de droit > Propiété intellectuelle - Droits des brevets

Language :

English

Title :

The shape of the Lego brick is free for all to use

Publication date :

2009

Journal title :

Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice

ISSN :

1747-1532

eISSN :

1747-1540

Publisher :

Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom

Pages :

499-505

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Available on ORBi :

since 12 June 2019

Statistics

Number of views

60 (1 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

327 (0 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

OpenAlex citations

Bibliography

CFI, 12 November 2008, Case T-270/06 Lego Juris A/S v OHIM-MEGA Brands, Inc (hereafter 'Lego v OHIM-MEGA Brands').
Koninklijke Philips v Remington Case C-299/99 [2002] ECR I-5475, [2002] ETMR 81 (hereafter 'Philips v Remington').
Philips v Remington, paragraph 78, emphasis added.
Philips v Remington, paragraphs 81-83, emphasis added.
Philips v Remington, paragraph 84, emphasis added.
Advocate-General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer's Opinion of 23 January 2001 in Philips v Remington, paragraphs 30-31.
Advocate-General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer's opinion of 23 January 2001 in Philips v Remington (paragraph 28).
Case T-153/03 Inex SA v OHIM-Robert Wiseman & Sons Ltd; in the context of distinctiveness under Art 7(1)(b) CTMR, CFI 15 March 2006
Case T-129/04 Develey Holding GmbH & Co Beteiligungs KG v OHIM, and CFI, 17 January 2006
Case T-398/04 Henkel KGaA v OHIM.
Koninklijke Philips Electronics v Remington Consumer Products Limited and Rayovac Europe Limited [2004] EWHC 2327 (Ch), (pages 1042-1113
Lego v OHIM-MEGA Brands, paragraph 38.
Lego v OHIM-MEGA Brands, paragraph 70, emphasis added.
See reference to 'freedom of choice' in paragraph 79 of Philips v Remington.
Lego v OHIM-MEGA Brands, paragraph 39, emphasis added.
OHIM Grand Board of Appeal, 10 July 2006, case R 856/2004-G, paragraphs 39-42.
The German Bundesgerichtshof held in Philips v Remington, 17 November 2005
(Annex 1 to TrafFix Devices, Inc. v Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 US 23 (2001)).
The same is true for Canada (Thomas & Betts, Ltd v Panduit Corp. et al. 4 CPR (4th) 498).
Lego v OHIM - MEGA Brands, paragraphs 79, 85, and 86.