Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art

On 4 December 2025, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) issued a landmark judgment in the joined cases C-580/23 (Mio v. Asplund) and C-795/23 (USM v. Konektra) concerning copyright protection for “works of applied art” (i.e., utilitarian objects such as tables, furniture, lighting fixtures, sofas, chairs, kitchen appliances, vases, and fashion items).

A. Background 

In a case before the Swedish courts, Galleri Mikael & Thomas Asplund AB (Asplund) designs and markets furniture, including dining tables from the “Palais Royal”-series. Mio Försäljning AB (Mio) operates a retail business selling, among other products, dining tables from its “Cord” series. Before the Swedish courts, Asplund claimed that the “Palais Royal” tables are protected by copyright as works of applied art and that Mio infringed its exclusive rights by manufacturing and selling similar tables. Mio disputed that the “Palais Royal”-tables were sufficiently original to qualify as copyright works, arguing that the tables merely reflected variants of already known designs.

(“Palais Royal”-table from Asplund)[1]

Similar questions arose in a case before the German courts. USM U. Schärer Söhne AG (USM) has produced the USM “Haller” modular furniture system for decades, consisting of chrome tubes connected by spherical joints, with metal panels inserted into the structure. Konektra GmbH and its director (jointly: “Konektra”) initially sold spare parts (not produced by USM) but later offered the complete range of components required to assemble furniture comparable to USM Haller units. USM claimed copyright protection on its “Haller” units as a work of applied art and alleged that Konektra infringed this right.

(“Haller” unit of USM)[2]

The referring courts questioned whether works of applied art may only exceptionally be protected by copyright, what criteria determine the originality of such objects, and how infringement must be assessed. The CJEU decided to join the otherwise unconnected cases and answer the prejudicial questions together.

B. CJEU’S Findings 

In this long-awaited decision, the CJEU provides important guidance on the relationship between design rights and copyright, on the concrete application of the “originality”-requirement, and on how national courts must assess infringement in the context of applied art.

1. Relationship between design law and copyright protection

The Court was asked to elaborate on its previous decision in Cofemel (C-683/17) that an object may “only in certain situations” be protected under both design rights and copyright. The CJEU confirmed that both regimes are not mutually exclusive and that the concurrent protection of the same subject-matter is limited to certain situations, adding that “an author is deemed to create a unique work bearing the imprint of his or her personality, which, as such, is protected [under copyright].”

The Court rejected the view that the primary regime for utilitarian objects is design law and that copyright protection for applied art is an exception. A registered design may also be protected under copyright if the conditions of protection (expression and originality) are met. This copyright protection is not granted automatically, simply because a design is registered: it must be demonstrated that the same originality requirement that applies to all other categories of works (e.g., literature, music, theatre) is met.

The Court emphasized that design law and copyright pursue different objectives and apply different requirements for protection. Design law protects products intended for serial production that are new and have individual character, and this for a limited time. In contrast, copyright law focuses on the expression of the author’s own intellectual creation, its protection is significantly longer (namely 70 years following the death of the author). Cumulation of protection is possible if these distinct criteria are met but it must not undermine the balance struck in design law.

The debate about how copyright and design protection relate to one another is now finally laid to rest. The Cofemel judgment by the Court of Justice already provided elaborate guidance on the subject, and any remaining questions have been answered by Asplund and Konektra. Dual or single protection is matter of analyzing both sets of requirements.

2. Originality in works of applied art: what counts as creative expression?

The CJEU reiterates the well-established principles that copyright protects “original” creations, in the sense that they constitute the “expression of free and creative choices reflecting the personality of its author.” This is not the case where the design of an object is dictated solely by technical constraints, rules, or standards.

In addition, the Court provided further guidance specifically as it relates to applied art:

• The originality assessment must concern the object itself for which protection is sought. The designer’s intentions or explanations about his/her creative process may be taken into account but, ultimately, the author’s personality must be reflected in the expression of the work.
• An object’s aesthetic or artistic effect alone is insufficient to establish originality. The fact that a product is visually appealing does not necessarily mean that it is the result of creative choices.
• The mere use of generally available forms as such does not preclude copyright protection. If the arrangement or combination of such forms embodies creative decisions, the result may still be original.
• Where an author has taken inspiration from an existing work by another author, the resulting “inspired work” may enjoy copyright protection, which is limited to the second author’s own creative elements.
• Copyright does not require novelty. However, evidence of identical or highly similar earlier works may be a relevant indicator that the later work lacks originality. This is especially nuanced in applied art: where technical constraints limit design freedom, independent creation of similar or even identical products cannot be excluded and does not automatically negate originality.
• Later circumstances, such as exhibitions in museums or critical acclaim, are neither necessary nor decisive, because originality must be assessed based only on circumstances existing at the time of creation.

Taken together, the Court requires that any copyright protection must be based strictly on those features of the subject matter that reflect the personality of its author, expressing his or her free and creative choices.

3. Copyright infringement: recognition of creative features is key

In order to establish infringement, the Court required a two-step assessment: First, the allegedly infringing object must contain original elements, meaning they express the author’s creative choices. In line with the Infopaq-ruling (C-5/08), the CJEU confirmed that even the use of small parts of the original work can constitute infringement, if those parts embody protected creativity. Second, the author of the original work must establish that the protected elements are recognizable in the allegedly infringing object. Remarkably, the Court thus extends the test of recognition, first applied in the Pelham judgment ( C-476/17) to phonogram producers’ rights, to copyright infringements. This shift has already prompted uncertainty amongst scholars and practitioners as to how the recognizability test should be applied in concrete cases.

The Court made clear that the “overall similar impression” test (used in design law) is not applicable in copyright law.

The Court further explained that once an object has been found original and thus qualifies as a work, the scope of its protection does not depend on the degree of creative freedom. Irrespective of the degree or level of creative freedom, the author benefits from the same protection as any other author.

Trends are not relevant when assessing infringement. The mere fact of following the same trend or artistic current as the author of an earlier work does not constitute an infringement, in the absence of the reproduction of specifically identifiable creative elements of that earlier work.

Interestingly, the Court also confirmed that “independent creation” (i.e., the creation of similar works by different persons) is possible in sectors with limited design freedom and, if proven, does not infringe copyright. Whether such independent creation has occurred must be examined by “all the relevant factors of the case,” as they existed at the time of the creation of the objects in question. Unfortunately, no further guidance is offered in this respect.

C. Conclusion and Practical Takeaways

The judgment has concrete consequences for manufacturers and retailers in all industries producing functional objects with creative design: furniture and interior design products, lighting fixtures, kitchen appliances, fashion, footwear, jewelry, consumer electronics, and toys.

First, companies should recognize that copyright protection may arise automatically and may coexist with design protection. This creates both opportunities for stronger IP portfolios and risks of broader enforcement exposure.

Second, the decision confirms that free and creative choices in product design may create copyright protection but originality is not presumed: companies should therefore maintain internal documentation of design decisions to demonstrate the free and creative choices in the actual design. Documenting the creative process as such may not be enough.

Third, businesses drawing inspiration from existing products must be aware that infringement may result from the copying of recognizable creative elements, even if the overall appearance differs. Providers of look-alike products should exercise particular caution when showing or assembling products in ways that visually reproduce the author’s original elements.

Finally, the Court confirmed, once more, that trends or styles are not protected under copyright. Taking over elements of style or fashion can be permissible only if no protectable personal expression is reproduced. Furthermore, infringement risks extend beyond individual elements or parts to how products are presented in commercial communication and advertising.

Beyond the protection and infringement of design, this CJEU decision also contains important cues as to the copyright protection of AI-generated and AI-assisted output (resulting from more or less extensive prompting processes) but when copyright infringements may be found in AI-output or in the preparatory processes.

Our team is ready to provide further advice and support on how to navigate these opportunities and challenges successfully. Engage with our copyright law specialists to assess the impact of this ruling on your products and to strategize effectively in light of this development.