On December 4, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued an important judgment in joint referral cases C-580/23 (Mio) and C-795/23 (USM Haller System) and clarified the rules governing copyright protection for works of applied art.
Following the published opinion of the Advocate General on May 8, 2025, this CJEU decision has attracted considerable attention, as it aims to harmonize the currently inconsistent case law among EU Member States – illustrated, for example, by two recent decisions on copyright protection for iconic fashion items, where the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) denied copyright protection for Birkenstock sandals, while a Paris court confirmed such protection for Hermès’ Birkin and Kelly handbags.
As anticipated, the CJEU followed the recommendation of the Advocate General.
Key findings: The CJEU held that there is no relation of rule and exception between copyright and design. Besides, when assessing originality, the author´s intentions, the use of known shapes or recognition by professional circles may be taken into account as indicators, but they are not decisive. As for assessment of infringement, the reproduced creative elements must be recognizable – the overall impression and the level of artistic creativity are, however, irrelevant.
I. Background: Referred Cases to the CJEU
-
Referral C-580/23 (Mio) of the Swedish Court
The Swedish case involved a dispute concerning copyright protection for a table design. The company Galleri Mikael & Thomas Asplund Aktiebolag (Plaintiff) is the producer of the “Palais Royal” design table. The Plaintiff then brought a lawsuit against Mio companies (Defendant) based on copyright infringement because of the design of its “Cord” table.
The Plaintiff was successful in the first instance. In 2023, the Swedish Appeal court then referred the case to the CJEU.
-
Referral C-795/23 (USM Haller System) of the German Court
The German case concerns the USM Haller furniture system, a classic in German offices. The lawsuit was filed by the Swedish company USM U. Schärer Söhne AG (Plaintiff) against Konektra GmbH (Defendant). The Defendant firstly produced and offered spare parts for the USM Haller system. However, later, when the Defendant´s offers included all components necessary for completing the USM Haller system and were also advertised using pictures of the assembled furniture, the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit before the German court, claiming infringement of its copyright and unfair competition law.
In the first instance, the claim was granted based on copyright infringement. The Appeal Court however overruled this decision, dismissing the copyright claim but confirming infringement of German competition law. The lawsuit was then brought to the German Federal Court (BGH), which referred it to the CJEU in 2023.
II. Questions to the Court
The referred questions of the Swedish and German courts could be summarized as follows:
-
What is the relationship between copyright and design protection for applied art?
Does there exists a rule–exception relationship between design protection and copyright protection in such a way that, in the copyright examination of the originality of these works, higher requirements are to be imposed on the free creative choices of the author than in the case of other categories of works?
-
What are the criteria for assessing originality?
Is (also) the subjective perspective of the author on the creative process to be taken into account, or (solely) factors that are objectively perceptible in the work itself?
Are circumstances that occurred after the point in time relevant for the assessment of originality, namely, may the creation of the design also be taken into consideration?
-
What are the criteria for assessing the infringement of protected copyright?
Which factors do need to be taken into account when assessing copyright infringement and is the overall impression of the compared objects relevant?
III. Key Findings of the Court
On December 4, 2025, the CJEU published its ruling on the referred questions:
Regarding the first question, the CJEU confirmed the Advocate General´s opinion that there is no relation of rule and exception between copyright and design that would justify higher requirements on originality of works of applied art than on other works.
Nevertheless, even though such cumulative protection is possible, the CJEU stressed that copyright and design protection are based on different criteria – originality on the one hand, and novelty and individual character on the other. Therefore, since these requirements differ significantly, cumulative protection under copyright and design law is only possible in certain cases.
With regard to the second question relating to the criteria for assessing originality, the CJEU re-defined “work” as an object that reflects the personality of its author by expressing their free and creative choices. Such choices are not free and creative if they are dictated by, for example, technical constraints that bind the author during the creation process, or if they are free but do not express the author’s personality. Accordingly, circumstances such as the creation process and the author’s intentions may be taken into account, but only insofar as they are reflected in the object itself. This follows from the principle that copyright protects the expressed form, not the underlying idea.
The same applies to other external subsequent circumstances, such as presentation in art exhibitions and museums or recognition by professional circles, which are likewise neither necessary nor decisive for assessing originality. They may be taken into account, but the assessment cannot be primarily based on them.
Besides, the Court held that also the specific characteristics of the type of work must be considered. In this sense, works of applied art differ from other categories of works because they are primarily functional objects, resulting from the creator’s craftsmanship and choices, which may be dictated by technical, ergonomic, or safety constraints. Such objects are still subject to copyright protection as long as they meet the requirement of originality, and technical considerations did not prevent their creator from reflecting their personality in the object by making free and creative choices. As for the parts of a functional object, they are subject to the same rules as the object as a whole and may be protected under copyright, provided that they contain certain elements that constitute the author’s own intellectual creation and that, as such, contribute to the originality of the overall work.
Finally, also with regard to the third question regarding the criteria for assessing the infringement of protected copyright, the CJEU held that one must determine whether creative elements of the protected work are recognizably reproduced in the allegedly infringing object. In this respect, the overall impression created by the compared objects and the level of artistic creativity are irrelevant. The mere possibility of a similar but independent creation cannot justify denying copyright protection. The same rules apply, if only a (small) part of the work is reproduced, provided that this part, in itself, reflects the author’s own intellectual creation.
The full decision is currently available in German, Swedish and French language under the following link.
IV. Why This Decision Matters
This decision is highly anticipated, as it aims to harmonize the currently inconsistent case law among EU Member States. Recently, two significant decisions were issued regarding copyright protection and originality of iconic fashion items, but with very different outcomes: The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) denied copyright protection for Birkenstock sandals, while a Paris court confirmed such protection for Hermès’ Birkin and Kelly handbags.