The Court of Justice has ruled on two requests for preliminary rulings from courts in Sweden and Germany regarding the criteria utilitarian objects must fulfill in order to be eligible for copyright protection.

The dispute arose when two furniture manufacturers claimed in court that retailers in the sector had infringed their copyright on certain items of furniture. Asplund sued Milo in Sweden for marketing “Cord” dining tables that infringe the copyright protecting the plaintiff’s “Palais Royal” dining tables. On the other hand, the company USM sued Konectra, in Germany, for marketing all the components necessary for the complete assembly of the USM Haller modular furniture system, thereby infringing the plaintiff’s copyright as it is a work of applied art.

In light of the above, the Swedish and German courts have referred a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, in order to clarify the conditions under which an object intended for practical use can be considered a work of applied art, and thus be eligible for  copyright protection.

Upon examining the matter, the Court of Justice concluded that there is no relationship of rule and exception between the protection reserved for designs and the protection ensured by copyright. Consequently, the originality of subject matter of applied art must be assessed according to the same requirements as those used to assess the originality of other types of subject matter.

For an object to be considered a work of art, it must reflect the personality of its creator through the exercise of free and creative choices. Objects that are characterised solely by their function cannot be protected by copyright, because they are dictated by various technical limitations. However, creative freedom  is not sufficient to determine the originality of a work; it must also reflect the author’s personality, giving the object a certain individual character and somewhat a unique appearance. Additional criteria may be considered to demonstrate the originality of a work, but these shall never be decisively. Examples include: the author’s intention, the source of inspiration and  the use of common forms.

To consider copyright infringement, it is necessary to assess whether the creative elements of the protected work have been reproduced in a recognisable manner in the allegedly infringing subject matter. However, the Court concludes that the same overall visual impression between the disputed objects and the degree of originality of the work concerned are irrelevant because the possibility of  similar creations cannot justify the refusal to grant protection.In the case of works of applied art, the scope for creativity is limited by technical considerations.

Judgement of the Court of Justice (First chamber) of 4 December 2025 in joined cases C‑580/23 and C‑795/23