THE BOTTOM LINE
- Broader Copyright Protection is Available: Your functional product designs (furniture, lighting, fashion, etc.) are eligible for long-term copyright protection under the same originality standard as traditional art, without needing to meet a higher “artistic” threshold.
- Focus on Demonstrable Creativity: To secure copyright, the “author’s personality” must be visible in the final product through free and creative choices not dictated by technical needs. The story behind the design matters less than the objective, visible result.
- A Sharper Sword Against Copycats: Infringement is not judged on a vague “overall impression.” Courts will now look for the recognisable reproduction of your design’s specific creative elements, providing a more targeted and potent way to challenge lookalikes.
THE DETAILS
In a significant ruling for any business that creates and sells uniquely designed products, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified the test for when “works of applied art“—like furniture—are protected by copyright. The decision stemmed from two separate disputes involving furniture makers in Sweden and Germany who claimed competitors were infringing on their designs. The central question was whether functional items must clear a higher bar for originality to gain copyright protection compared to other works. The Court’s answer was a resounding “no.” It confirmed that copyright and design protection are distinct legal regimes with different goals. Copyright protects an “author’s own intellectual creation,” and this standard applies uniformly, whether the object is a painting or a dining table. This levels the playing field, ensuring functional designs aren’t treated as second-class works.
The Court provided crucial guidance on what “originality” means in practice for a functional product. The key is the expression of the author’s “free and creative choices.” This means the design must feature elements that were not simply dictated by technical constraints or industry standards (for example, a chair needing legs to be stable). Crucially, these creative choices must be objectively visible in the final product itself, reflecting the creator’s personality. The Court noted that while factors like the designer’s intentions, sources of inspiration, or later recognition in museums or professional circles can be considered, they are not decisive. The ultimate test is what a court can see in the design as an imprint of the author’s unique creative stamp.
Finally, the judgment sharpens the legal test for infringement. The CJEU explicitly rejected using the “same overall visual impression” standard, a hallmark of design law, for copyright cases. Instead, to win an infringement claim, a rights holder must demonstrate that the specific creative elements that make their work original have been reproduced in a recognisable manner in the competitor’s product. This requires a more precise, granular analysis focused on the core of the design’s originality. Furthermore, the Court stated that the “degree” of originality is irrelevant; once a work qualifies for copyright, it receives full protection. This gives businesses a more focused legal argument when fighting against copycat products in the market.
SOURCE
Source: Court of Justice of the European Union
