2026 archive topic · 2026-02-12
Retrospectively prepared on 13 November 2026. The archive date places the topic in the annual overview; the legal review and sources reflect the stated preparation date.
In its judgment of 14 January 2026, T-628/24, the General Court upheld the finding that the building-block design lacked individual character. Differences in outline and an additional stud did not change the overall impression in the circumstances examined. The way the blocks were used mattered to the assessment of their visible features.
Four practical situations
The following examples illustrate possible review steps; they are not reports of client matters or predictions of an outcome.
1. A longer component
Adding length or repeating a familiar pattern should trigger a fresh comparison with the earlier product. Counting changed features is not a substitute for assessing overall impression.
2. A hidden underside
Identify which views users encounter during ordinary use. Preserve both assembled and unassembled samples so the comparison does not depend on an unrepresentative marketing angle.
3. A crowded product field
Assemble dated examples that show the available design choices. Explain why a particular difference matters instead of merely asserting that freedom is limited.
4. An invalidity response
Separate the prior design relied on from illustrations used only to explain it. A complete comparison file should identify the source, date and purpose of each image.
Preparing a useful instruction
Provide the exact product version, the relevant filing or registration record, the intended territories and a dated chronology. For a dispute, add the complete demand and supporting images. The next step should answer a defined commercial question: whether to file, amend a launch plan, preserve evidence, negotiate or investigate a particular risk. Scope and fees should be agreed before substantive work is commissioned.
Bausteine: Eigenart nach dem Urteil T-628/24
Im Urteil vom 14. Januar 2026, T-628/24, bestätigte das Gericht die fehlende Eigenart des geprüften Bausteindesigns. Die dortigen Unterschiede in Kontur und Noppenzahl veränderten den Gesamteindruck nicht hinreichend. Auch die übliche Verwendung der Bausteine floss in die Beurteilung ein.
Die vier oben erläuterten Praxisfälle zeigen typische Prüfschritte. Sie sind keine Berichte über konkrete Mandate. Für eine Einschätzung sind Produktdarstellungen, Schutzrechtsunterlagen, Zielmärkte und Fristen hilfreich. Eine Anfrage ist auf Deutsch möglich; sämtliche Formularfelder sind freiwillig.
Official source / Amtliche Quelle
Official guidance or decision / Amtlicher Hinweis oder Entscheidung. Accessed and reviewed: 13 November 2026.