CJEU clarifies copyright protection for applied art: insights from Mio/Konektra judgment

Two national proceedings formed the basis of the Court’s ruling:

• Mio AB v. Galleri Mikael & Thomas Asplund Aktiebolag (Sweden)

  Asplund, a designer of interior furniture, sued Mio for copyright infringement concerning the “Palais Royal” dining tables. Mio disputed that these tables were protected by copyright, arguing they lacked sufficient originality.
   

• USM U. Schärer Söhne AG v. Konektra GmbH (Germany)

  Before the German Federal Court of Justice, the dispute concerned the modular furniture system USM Haller. Konektra initially sold spare parts and later complete pieces identical to USM’s products.

In both cases, the referring courts raised preliminary questions regarding the copyright protection of works of applied art, focusing on whether a higher threshold applies to utilitarian objects such as furniture.

Given the shared core question, the CJEU joined the cases and delivered its judgment on 4 December 2025, largely following Advocate General Szpunar’s Opinion of 8 May 2025.

2.1    No higher threshold 

EU copyright law does not impose stricter conditions on utilitarian objects, including furniture, for copyright protection. In practice, uncertainty persisted as to whether such objects should meet heightened originality requirements.

The CJEU now expressly confirms that no elevated threshold exists for works of applied art. Courts may not impose stricter standards on the designer’s free and creative choices. The notion that cumulative protection should be regarded as exceptional has now been unequivocally dismissed.

Design and copyright protection are not mutually exclusive and may coexist, provided the respective requirements are met.

2.2    Originality

The referring courts also asked how originality should be assessed and which elements should be considered to determine whether a work of applied art reflects the

author’s personality through the expression of free and creative choices.

Works of applied art differ from other categories because they are primarily utilitarian objects. The CJEU confirms that copyright protection is possible if the work embodies a unique creative expression of his/her author. 

Choices dictated solely by technical function, or choices that are free but do not contribute to a distinctive personal imprint, are irrelevant.

Factors that may indicate creativity and originality, though never decisive on their own, include:

• the mere aesthetic effect of the design;
• the designer’s intentions or sources of inspiration;
• use of existing forms or trends, unless their combination or arrangement demonstrates creativity;
• variations of earlier works, provided original creative elements remain and reflect the author’s personality; and
• presentation in museums or trade fairs and professional recognition, as these arise post-creation and are not determinative.

2.3    Overall impression

To establish copyright infringement, the court may not rely on the “overall visual impression” or the general impression created by the two objects. The applicable criterion is whether creative elements of the protected work have been reproduced in a recognizable manner in the infringing object.

The “overall impression” test has been applied in various jurisdictions as a standard for determining infringement. However, the CJEU now explicitly states that such an assessment belongs exclusively to design law and not to copyright law.

2.4    The “recognisability criterion” 

The CJEU holds that, when determining copyright infringement, judges must assess whether the original creative elements of the protected work have been reproduced in a recognizable manner in the allegedly infringing object.

This criterion, first applied in the Pelham judgment C-476/17 (music sampling), is now generalized to applied art.

However, the CJEU does not clarify in whose perception such recognizability must exist.

For designers and manufacturers, this judgment brings greater legal certainty: creative choices in utilitarian objects enjoy the same protection as other works. For companies in the furniture and design sector, aligning IP strategies accordingly is crucial. Document the design process to demonstrate which specific lines, shapes, and combinations result from creative freedom rather than technical necessity.

Simply altering a few details to change the “overall impression” may no longer suffice to avoid infringement.

If you have any questions about how this ruling affects your design and copyright protection, our Intellectual Property team at Lydian is available to assist you.