On Dec. 4, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a decision reaffirming its established case law on how copyright and design rights apply to works of applied art, such as furniture and functional design objects. In its rulings on two separate, furniture-focused cases, the CJEU confirmed that copyright and design protection can overlap, and applied the established criteria for the copyright protection of works of applied art.
This decision comes at a time when creative industries face increasing legal uncertainty in cross-border markets, and national courts across the EU have taken divergent approaches to protecting design objects. Although the judgments do not introduce new substantive standards, they are nevertheless important for translating the court’s settled principles into potential guidance for practice.
Background – Disputes Over Iconic Furniture Designs
The ruling (joined cases C-580/23 and C-795/23; available here) arose from two separate disputes involving well-known furniture products:
1. The Swedish Table Case (Palais Royal)
In a Swedish court, Galleri Mikael & Thomas Asplund Aktiebolag (Asplund) claimed that Swedish company Mio copied its Palais Royal table design. Asplund said Mio marketed a similar table under the name Cord and alleged copyright infringement, arguing that the creative choices in its table deserved copyright protection as a work of applied art. While the Swedish Patent and Commercial Court initially ruled in favor of Asplund, Mio appealed the case and the Svea Court of Appeal sought CJEU guidance on the standards for originality in the copyright protection of works of applied art.
2. The German Modular Furniture Case (USM Haller)
In Germany, the Swiss firm USM U. Schärer Söhne AG (USM) pursued legal action against Konektra GmbH (Konektra), a company offering spare parts and compatible components for USM’s modular furniture system known as USM Haller. USM alleged that Konektra’s sale of fully assembled furniture and related services infringed its copyright in the distinctive design of the USM Haller system. Following mixed rulings in lower courts, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) referred questions to the CJEU regarding the requirements for copyright protection and the interplay with design law.
After the decision of the CJEU, it is now for the courts in Sweden and Germany to apply the criteria to the specific cases.
Key Aspects of the CJEU Ruling
- Copyright and Design Protection May Apply to the Same Object: As already stated in the 2019 much noted Cofemel decision (C-683/17), the CJEU affirmed that both copyright and design rights may apply to the same object, provided their respective requirements are met. Neither form of protection is subordinate to the other. Each has its own purpose and is governed by different criteria: copyright protection is based primarily on originality arising from the author’s personal creative expression, whereas design protection depends on novelty and individual character.
- Copyright Protection – Originality of Works of Applied Art: In line with its settled case law, the CJEU confirmed that copyright protection for works of applied art is not subject to stricter originality standards than for other types of works. Accordingly, originality is assessed based on whether the work reflects the author’s free and creative choices and expresses their personality. In the case of applied art, copyright does not extend to features dictated solely by technical or functional requirements. Instead of protecting ideas, copyright safeguards only those elements that result from the author’s individual creative freedom and are expressed in the object itself. While factors such as the creator’s intentions, the process of creation, or later professional recognition (e.g., awards, competitions, exhibitions, or museum displays) may be considered, only the objectively perceptible creative choices incorporated into the work are decisive.
- Criteria for Infringement: The CJEU stated that the overall impression of the protected and the (allegedly) infringing objects is relevant for design law protection but is not decisive for copyright analysis. In cases of copyright infringement, the key question is whether the unique, original elements of the protected work have been incorporated into the contested design. The degree of originality of the work is also irrelevant in this context.
Practical Implications
For utilitarian objects such as furniture, questions of copyright eligibility often present particular challenges – which is why creators often obtain design protection. However, given the longer term of copyright protection, parallel protection alongside design rights may be of special interest. The CJEU’s ruling provides clarification regarding the protection of creative elements in functional design. While documentation of the creative process may help support claims of originality, the decisive factor remains the creative features embodied in the final product. To rely on copyright protection, designers and businesses may need to show that the core creative features of their products are both original and clearly demonstrable.