On 4 December 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a seminal judgment in the joined cases Mio/Asplund (C‑580/23) and USM/Konektra (C‑795/23), both concerning the copyright protection of furniture designs. The judgment builds upon and refines the CJEU’s established case law – most notably in Cofemel and Brompton – to delineate more precisely the conditions under which functional design objects (or ‘works of applied art’) can benefit from copyright protection in the EU and how copyright infringement should be assessed.
At the center of the dispute were two sets of furniture: the Swedish ‘Palais Royal’ and ‘Cord’ dining tables in Mio/Asplund, and the well‑known German‑Swiss USM Haller modular furniture system in USM/Konektra. Although the factual backgrounds differ, the legal questions are similar: what is the threshold for originality in ‘works of applied art’, which factors are relevant in assessing that originality, and how does one determine copyright infringement in such objects? National courts in Sweden and Germany expressed uncertainty about these criteria and referred detailed questions to the CJEU.
The Threshold for Protection and the Originality Requirement
The CJEU’s starting point is fully consistent with Cofemel (C-683/17): originality remains the sole substantive requirement for copyright protection under the EU InfoSoc Directive. A work – whether a sculpture, a chair, or a modular furniture system – must only reflect the author’s personality through free and creative choices. There is no additional requirement of artistic merit or aesthetic value.
Crucially, the CJEU rejected the idea raised by the Bundesgerichtshof, that applied art should be subject to a stricter originality threshold because of its functional nature or its overlap with design protection. It confirmed that copyright and design law are cumulative and independent systems: neither is ‘exceptional’; neither takes priority. This is an important clarification, as several national systems historically require applied art to reach a higher level of ‘artistic creativity’ to be protected under copyright. It also opens the door to broader and more predictable protection.
The originality test must, however, be applied carefully. The CJEU stresses that ‘works of applied art’ differ from other categories of works by the fact that they are primarily utilitarian objects and that designers often work under technical, ergonomic or sector‑specific constraints that limit creative freedom. In such cases, creative choices cannot be presumed; courts must actively identify which elements of the final product genuinely result from free and creative decisions. Even where the author has made choices that are not dictated by technical or other constraints, it cannot be presumed that those choices are creative.
The judgement places a renewed focus on whether the object presents a ‘unique appearance’ that can be traced back to such creative choices.
Considering The Creative Process, Intentions and Other External Factors
The CJEU dedicated considerable attention to how originality must be evaluated for utilitarian objects. It held that the assessment must focus on visible, perceptible elements of the object – the expression of the author’s creative choices – rather than on abstract ideas or the designer’s intentions. The author’s intentions lie within the realm of ideas, which are not protected. They can therefore be protected only in so far as the author has expressed them in the work concerned.
The CJEU explicitly addressed situations that frequently arise in design litigation: the use of common shapes, the reworking of earlier designs, or the existence of similar products created independently. None of these elements automatically exclude originality. A design composed of available shapes can still be original if the author expresses creativity in the way these shapes are arranged. Variants of earlier works may also be protected, provided that new creative features are added. Even independent similar creations, although potentially indicative of low originality, do not rule out originality altogether, particularly in domains where functional constraints restrict the number of viable design solutions.
Originality should emerge from the final appearance as perceived by third parties. Expert reports, explanations of design choices, and documentation of the creative process can support a claim to originality, but only to the extent that these choices manifest themselves in the finished object.
Similarly, external post‑creation circumstances – such as museum exhibitions, professional recognition or design awards – cannot play a decisive role in the originality assessment. These elements may be interesting in context, but they do not determine whether the work reflects free and creative choices. The focus remains squarely on the features of the object as they objectively appear.
Assessing Copyright Infringement in Applied Art
One of the most practically important parts of the judgment concerns infringement. The CJEU draws a sharp line between copyright and design law. While design infringement depends on whether two objects produce the same overall visual impression, that criterion does not apply to copyright.
Copyright infringement occurs when the original creative elements of a protected work are reproduced in a recognisable manner in the allegedly infringing product. Even small parts may suffice, provided those parts embody creative choices. Conversely, where an allegedly infringing object merely follows an aesthetic trend or general style, without reproducing identifiable creative features, there is no infringement. The degree of originality does not affect the scope of protection; an original work of applied art enjoys the same level of protection as any literary or artistic work.
The ‘recognisable reproduction’ test provides a powerful tool against close, detail-oriented copying, even where the overall appearance differs slightly. This will likely lead to more targeted, feature‑by‑feature analyses in litigation, departing from the broader and more holistic design‑law approach.
A Parallel with Deity Shoes: No Creativity Threshold in Design Law
The CJEU’s reasoning in Mio/Konektra resonates with its judgment in Deity Shoes (C-323/24), delivered two weeks later (on 18 December 2025), in which the CJEU clarified that design protection does not require any minimum level of human creativity. Unlike copyright, which hinges on the presence of free and creative choices, the EU design regime protects the appearance of a product irrespective of the designer’s artistic input. Moreover, the CJEU confirmed that fashion trends or market influences do not restrict the designer’s freedom when assessing the individual character of a design. Even where stylistic tendencies guide the creation of a product, the designer retains freedom to choose among multiple possible forms.
Taken together, Mio/Konektra and Deity Shoes offer a coherent articulation of how copyright and design law protect creativity and innovation in applied art: copyright demands demonstrable creative choices, while design law protects novel and distinctive appearances without imposing a creativity threshold. When assessing infringement, design law focuses on whether the later design produces a different overall impression on the informed user, whereas copyright infringement can arise from the recognizable copying of even small original details.
Conclusion: A Positive but Complex Development for Design Industries
Overall, the Mio/Konektra judgment strengthens the position of rights holders. The CJEU confirms the strategic value of cumulative copyright and design protection and reinforces a relatively accessible originality threshold, without aesthetic or artistic filters. It also broadens potential enforcement strategies by recognising protection not only for entire products but also for their components, arrangements of pre‑existing shapes and variants that include new creative input.
However, the decision also creates practical challenges. Because originality in applied art cannot be presumed, designers and right holders must be prepared to document their creative choices. The tests for originality and recognisable reproduction are inherently fact‑sensitive and may require expert evidence, technical documentation and detailed visual comparisons. Differences in how national courts apply these standards may lead to uncertainty in litigation.
Despite these challenges, Mio/Konektra represents a welcome step in EU copyright law. It offers a clearer, more coherent, and more generous protection regime for applied art, reflecting the reality that creativity does not disappear simply because an object serves a function. By further aligning copyright protection for applied art with the protection available for other types of works, the CJEU provides stronger incentives for design innovation and a more effective shield against imitation.
For any questions or assistance, please reach out to our Intellectual Property Team | IP@simontbraun.eu – +32 (0)2 543 70 80
***
This newsletter is not a legal advice or a legal opinion. You should seek advice from a legal counsel of your choice before acting upon any of the information in this newsletter.