The central questions were straightforward: first, did copyright subsist in the claimant’s furniture; and, if so, did the defendant’s reproductions infringe that copyright?

In answering these questions the CJEU took the opportunity to examine three core issues: the interplay between copyright and design protection, the assessment of originality in copyright works, and the requirements for establishing copyright infringement.

1. Copyright v design rights

The CJEU confirmed that copyright and design rights may occasionally cover the same subject matter, but they remain distinct legal rights. Each pursues different objectives and is governed by separate requirements: copyright protects original works in specified subject matter, while design protection depends on novelty and individual character. This distinction reinforces that overlapping subject matter does not merge the legal standards, but rather each right has its own criteria.

2. Copyright subsistence

The referring courts sought clarification on how originality should be assessed in the context of utilitarian objects, such as furniture. The CJEU reaffirmed that the sole requirement for copyright subsistence is originality, defined as “free and creative choices reflecting the author’s personality”. There is no higher threshold for works of applied art, even where functional constraints can limit creative freedom.

Such free choices and the author’s personality must be visible in the subject matter for which protection is claimed, and identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity. The CJEU recalled previous case law, including the Brompton Bicycle judgment, confirming that technical constraints do not preclude copyright protection if the author’s personality is expressed. However, these choices cannot be presumed; they must be identifiable by the court. Additionally, aesthetic or artistic merit is not required, as confirmed in Cofemel.

Another key point relates to derivative works: copyright covers only an author’s own creative elements, but a later work that draws on, without reproducing, those elements can also qualify for protection. This is especially relevant for applied art, where designs are often reworked and antique and contemporary elements combined.

In short, the court confirmed that originality remains the sole requirement for copyright subsistence across all works, including applied art.

3. Copyright infringement

The referring courts also asked the CJEU to clarify the standard for infringement. Specifically, they questioned whether infringement requires that the copied work reproduce the creative elements in a recognisable form, or whether replicating the overall impression is sufficient. They also queried whether factors such as the work’s originality or the existence of similar works should influence this assessment.

The CJEU confirmed that infringement hinges on whether the creative elements have been reproduced in a recognisable way. Interestingly, it did not clarify to whom the work must be recognisable, whether an average observer, a professional designer, or someone else within the relevant industry. The court further clarified that the overall visual impression and the degree of originality are not relevant when assessing infringement.

In short

Originality remains the cornerstone of copyright protection for all works in the EU. For designers, this means ensuring that their free and creative choices are clearly expressed and identifiable in their designs. However, the lack of clarity around the recognisability test could create challenges going forward, as the perception of similarity may differ significantly between the average observer and someone well-versed in the history and archives of design in a specific sector. In the UK, it will remain challenging for courts to reconcile the EU position with the UK law on copyright protection for “works of artistic craftmanship” which, in addition to being original, must also have “artistic” quality and “craftmanship” (according to the House of Lords decision in Hensher v Restawile which also considered furniture designs).

Case details at a glance

Jurisdiction: EU 
Decision level: CJEU 
Parties: Joined cases C 580/23 (Mio AB and others v Galleri Mikael & Thomas Asplund Aktiebolag) and C 795/23 (USM U. Schärer Söhne AG v konektra GmbH and LN)
Citation: Joined cases C 580/23 and C 795/23 
Date: 04 December 2025
Decision: dycip.com/cjeu-c-58023-c79523