On 4 December, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) issued its judgment in the joined Mio and Konektra cases, settling long-standing debates about how copyright law applies to functional design objects across the European Union.

The cases originated from disputes in Sweden and Germany involving furniture manufacturers alleging copyright infringement through the sale of virtually identical products. The CJEU's ruling, following AG Szpunar's May 2025 opinion, establishes an EU unified framework for determining when industrial designs qualify for copyright protection and when such protection is infringed.

The Court's decision

Copyright and design law operate independently

The CJEU emphasised that copyright protection and design protection constitute two separate and independent forms of protection. The conditions for copyright protection (originality) must not be confused with those for design protection (novelty and individual character), and there is no rule-exception relationship between the two regimes. Instead, the two regimes can cumulate.

Crucially, the Court reconfirmed that works of applied art must satisfy the same originality requirements as any other category of copyright-protected work. The concept of "work" is an autonomous EU law notion subject to full harmonisation, meaning Member States cannot apply stricter criteria to works of applied art.

Determining originality: what matters and what doesn't

When examining whether an object is original, courts must seek and identify the creative choices "in the form" of that object. The author's intentions belong to the realm of ideas and can be protected only insofar as they are expressed in the work itself. While courts may consider the creative process, this cannot form the primary basis for assessment. The only relevant requirement is that the personality of the author be reflected in the object for which protection is sought, in that it expresses the free and creative decisions of that author. No other or additional requirements can be applied.

The Court rejected aesthetics or artistic effect as a criterion for originality. While such considerations form part of creative activity, the fact that a design has an aesthetic or artistic effect does not, in itself, enable a determination as to whether it satisfies the originality requirement. It is not required that subject matter display a certain level of artistic quality or aesthetic value beyond the standard originality test. Similarly, the fact that a design produces a distinctive aesthetic or artistic visual effect cannot, in itself, justify classifying it as a "work". This represents a clear departure from the traditional German approach.

Originality must be assessed based on circumstances existing at the time of creation, not on subsequent developments. The use of existing design elements does not preclude originality, for example if the author has made creative choices in selecting and arranging those elements. Where authors develop new variants of their own earlier work, the new version may enjoy full copyright protection since the creative elements derive from the same author's personality.

External recognition factors such as museum exhibitions or professional acclaim are neither necessary nor, in themselves, decisive for establishing originality.
The CJEU clarified that also parts of works of applied art are subject to the same protection rules as complete objects, provided those parts contain elements independently expressing the author's personality and contributing to the work's overall originality.

Establishing infringement: a different test from design law

Copyright infringement occurs when the creative elements expressing the author's personality are recognisably reproduced in the allegedly infringing object. The Court stressed that comparing the overall impression produced by each object cannot be decisive, as that criterion belongs to design law.

Infringement can arise even when only a portion of the protected work is reproduced, provided that portion expresses the author's own intellectual creation. Once the originality threshold is met, the work enjoys full protection regardless of the degree of creative freedom or level of originality.

Following the same design trend or artistic movement does not constitute infringement unless specifically identifiable creative elements from the earlier work are adopted. While independent parallel creation would not infringe copyright if proven, the mere theoretical possibility of such creation cannot justify refusing protection—courts must determine based on all case circumstances whether independent creation actually occurred.

Significance

This judgment marks a decisive clarification of EU-wide standards for copyright protection of functional design. The Court has, to a far-reaching extent, removed the uncertainties surrounding the applicable criteria, thereby creating a strong expectation that divergent national approaches that existed until now, will substantially diminish going forward. The ruling conclusively rejects qualitative assessments based on artistic merit or cultural recognition, instead requiring courts to focus on identifying free and creative choices visible within the object itself. By clarifying that component parts merit independent protection and that infringement analysis differs fundamentally from design law's overall impression test, the Court has removed the ambiguities that previously enabled varying national interpretations. This provides essential—and now unequivocal—guidance for rights holders, manufacturers and courts throughout the Union.