CJEU: Furniture May Be Protected by Copyright – Landmark Judgment of 4 December 2025 (C-580/23 and C-795/23)
On 4 December 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a long-awaited judgment in the joined cases C-580/23 and C-795/23. The ruling addressed a fundamental question: whether, and under what conditions, works of applied art – such as furniture – may benefit from copyright protection.
The judgment is of significant importance for designers, manufacturers, and national courts throughout the European Union.
Background – disputes between furniture manufacturers
The cases originated in disputes between furniture manufacturers in Sweden and Germany.
Case C-580/23 – Sweden
Mio and Others v Galleri Mikael & Thomas Asplund
The dispute concerned the “Palais Royal” tables. The producer claimed that a competing company had placed on the market furniture identical to its designs, which – as works of applied art – should enjoy copyright protection.
Case C-795/23 – Germany
USM v Konektra
This case concerned the well-known modular furniture system “USM Haller.” The manufacturer alleged that its competitor had copied elements of the system which, in its view, constituted original creative work protected by copyright.
The national courts referred preliminary questions to the CJEU concerning the interpretation of Article 2(a), Article 3(1), and Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC (the so-called InfoSoc Directive).
Can a utilitarian object qualify as a copyrigh-protected “work”?
The Court confirmed its established case law:
A utilitarian object may constitute a “work” within the meaning of copyright law, provided that it satisfies the requirement of creativity.
This means that:
it must be the author’s own intellectual creation,
it must be the expression of free and creative choices reflecting the author’s personality.
Importantly, works of applied art are not subject to stricter criteria than other types of works (such as literary or artistic works). They do not need to be “more artistic” or possess any particular aesthetic merit. The key criterion for recognizing an object as a work is its uniqueness resulting from the reflection of the author’s personality.
Originality and technical constraints
One of the key issues was the relationship between technical function and creativity.
The CJEU clarified that:
the fact that a design was partly determined by technical considerations does not exclude protection,
protection is excluded only with regard to elements that perform purely technical functions,
copyright does not protect ideas or technical solutions themselves, but their creative expression.
If the designer had the possibility to choose between different solutions and made free aesthetic decisions giving the object an individual character, the requirement of creative expression sufficient to qualify the object as a work may be fulfilled.
Copyright infringement – what is decisive?
The Court emphasized that, in order to establish infringement, it is necessary to determine whether:
protected creative elements of the work were reproduced,
those elements were reproduced in a recognizable manner.
What is NOT relevant in qualifying an object as a copyrigh-protected “work”?
the overall visual impression (this is the criterion applicable to design law),
the degree of originality (protection does not depend on reaching a certain “level” of creativity; a minimal degree of creativity suffices),
the mere possibility of independently creating a similar design (so-called “parallel creation,” i.e. creating a similar work without knowledge of the earlier work, drawing solely from one’s own personality).
If two similar designs were created independently, without copying specific creative elements, no copyright infringement occurs.
Common source of inspiration
The Court also indicated that:
being inspired by the same earlier design does not automatically constitute infringement,
following the same stylistic trend is not unlawful,
infringement may arise only where specific, identifiable creative elements are reproduced.
Practical significance of the judgment
The judgment is of considerable practical importance.
For designers
It confirms the possibility of cumulative protection of works of applied art (copyright + design law).
It eliminates the need to meet additional, “extra-statutory” requirements.
For manufacturers
It clarifies that functional similarity does not automatically amount to infringement.
However, reproducing specific creative elements may lead to liability.
For national courts
The originality of works of applied art must be assessed according to the same criteria as other copyright-protected works.
The introduction of additional requirements (e.g. special artistic merit, exhibition history, or professional recognition) is not permissible.
The infringement analysis should focus on identifiable creative elements, not on general similarity between products.
Relationship between copyright and design law
The judgment is also significant for clarifying the distinction between two protection regimes:
copyright protects creative expression (i.e. the concretely fixed form of an object, such as the marketed product itself, as well as photographs, sketches or drawings – but not the underlying idea),
design law protects the appearance of a product assessed on the basis of the overall impression produced on the informed user.
The Court clearly emphasized that these systems are autonomous and grant legal protection based on different criteria. The “overall impression” test from design law cannot therefore be transferred to copyright infringement analysis.
At the same time, cumulative protection is possible: the same object may be protected simultaneously as a design and as a copyright-protected “work”, provided that it satisfies the requirements of each regime.
What does this mean for the design market?
The CJEU judgment brings clarity to a debate that has been particularly intense in recent years, especially in light of divergent national rulings concerning fashion products and industrial design.
Three key conclusions emerge:
Works of applied art are not a “second-class” category of works in copyright law. Even a minimal level of creativity visible in the object justifies its protection as a work (without any formalities such as registration with an authority).
Originality must be assessed uniformly throughout the European Union, without additional aesthetic requirements.
Infringement analysis must be precise and element-based, rather than relying solely on overall similarity.
For the design industry, this means greater legal predictability. For manufacturers, it means the need for careful risk assessment when launching products inspired by existing designs.
Conclusion
The judgment of 4 December 2025 in cases C-580/23 and C-795/23 constitutes an important reference point for copyright practice throughout the European Union.
The Court confirmed that:
utilitarian objects may qualify as copyright-protected “works”,
technical constraints do not exclude protection where room for creative choices still exists,
infringement requires the reproduction of identifiable creative elements of a prior work.
no heightened level of artistic merit is required for protection.
This ruling should influence the way utilitarian art disputes are resolved in Member States, including Poland, and limit the application of additional, non-statutory criteria in the application of copyright law.
For designers, this is good news: the legal protection of their creative output becomes more accessible.
For manufacturers, it is a clear signal that the line between inspiration and copyright infringement is thin and must be assessed with precision.
