Background
In Sweden, furniture producer Galleri Mikael & Thomas Asplund claimed that its “Palais Royal” dining tables, protected as works of applied art, were infringed by similar “Cord” tables sold by furniture and interior retailer Mio.
In Germany, Swiss company USM U. Schärer Söhne AG asserted copyright in its modular USM Haller furniture system and sued German company konektra GmbH, which marketed compatible components, complete sets and assembly services using images of fully assembled furniture.
The Swedish Court of Appeal and the German Federal Court of Justice referred questions to the CJEU on:
- the relationship between copyright and design protection,
- the criteria for assessing originality of works of applied art, and
- the criteria for establishing copyright infringement in such objects.
The Court’s decision
On cumulation of rights, the CJEU confirms that design and copyright protection are independent regimes, with different purposes and requirements (novelty/individual character versus originality). There is no rule–exception relationship between them; cumulative protection remains possible but is not automatic.
On the requirements for protection:
- Originality is the only requirement, also for works of applied art; Member States may not impose additional conditions (such as “artistic value” or museum display).
- A work is original if it is the author’s own intellectual creation, reflecting their personality through free and creative choices.
- Where the design is dictated by technical, functional, ergonomic or safety constraints leaving no room for artistic freedom, originality is lacking.
On the test for infringement:
- Infringement occurs where creative elements of the protected work are recognisably reproduced in the allegedly infringing object.
- The overall impression of the objects and the degree of artistic creativity of the original work are irrelevant for the infringement analysis.
- The mere possibility of an independent similar creation is not a sufficient reason to deny protection. (Grünecker)
Reasoning: originality, evidence and limits for applied art
Building on earlier case law (notably Cofemel and Brompton Bicycle), the Court refines how originality should be assessed and proven:
- What matters is expression, not ideas or intentions as such. The author’s intentions and the creative process may be considered only insofar as they are reflected in the work itself.
- External factors (awards, exhibition in museums, recognition by professional circles, following a trend) may at best be indicators, but are neither necessary nor determinative for originality.
- Elements dictated solely by technical function cannot support copyright protection, because idea and expression coincide and leave no room for free creative choices.
The Court also stresses that:
- Works of applied art are primarily functional objects, yet they can still qualify for copyright protection if some aspects of their form result from genuine creative choices.
- Individual parts of a functional object (e.g. iconic connectors or frame elements) may themselves attract protection if they reflect the author’s own intellectual creation and contribute to the overall originality of the work.
Practical impact: what designers, manufacturers and retailers should do now
For rights holders:
- The ruling confirms that furniture, lamps, game pieces and other design objects can enjoy robust copyright protection, provided they meet the standard of originality – no higher threshold applies merely because they are functional.
- To support enforcement, it is advisable to document design choices and alternatives early on (sketches, mood boards, design briefs, internal notes) to evidence free and creative choices in future disputes.
For manufacturers, retailers and “compatibility” providers:
- Copying design classics or modular systems (such as USM Haller) now carries a higher litigation risk, even where design rights are weak, expired or never registered.
- It is no longer enough to argue that a product is “on trend” or that many similar designs exist; the focus is on recognisable appropriation of specific creative features.
- Any product strategy based on replicas, spare parts or “compatible systems” should be revisited, with thorough copyright and design clearance and careful review of marketing materials and product visuals.
To the point
Works of applied art are not a second-class category under EU copyright law: utilitarian objects are protected under the same originality standard as other works, and infringement hinges on the recognisable copying of creative features – not on overall impression or “artistic value”.
Case Nos.: C-580/23 – Mio and Others; C-795/23 – konektra
Source: CJEU, judgment of 4 Dec 2025, C-580/23, C-795/23; Press Release No. 151/25 of 4 Dec 2025 (Europäischer Gerichtshof)