CJEU judgment in Mio & Konektra about copyright protection of works of applied art
Evert van Gelderen
by Evert van Gelderen
On 04 December 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered an important judgment on the copyright protection of works of applied art in the joined cases Mio (C-580/23) and Konektra (C-795/23). Both cases revolve around an interesting and topical issue: copyright protection for works of applied art. This ruling was eagerly awaited in copyright circles.
Background of the Mio and Konektra cases
Both disputes concerned furniture designs alleged to infringe earlier works: in Sweden, the Palais Royal table series designed by Asplund versus Mio’s Cord tables, and in Germany, the modular USM Haller system versus components and later complete systems marketed by Konektra.
In both referrals, national courts asked the CJEU to clarify the criteria for originality for works of applied art and the appropriate test for copyright infringement.
The CJEU largely endorsed Advocate General Szpunar’s opinion and further systematised the European Union (EU) copyright acquis.
Copyright protection: free and creative choices
The CJEU confirmed first that works of applied art are not subject to heightened or additional protection requirements compared to other categories of works. Copyright and design protection coexist without a hierarchy. Applied art must satisfy the originality criterion, meaning the work must be the author’s own intellectual creation.
Technical, ergonomic, or safety constraints may restrict design freedom but do not preclude protection so long as the creator still has scope to make free and creative choices. Such choices must be identifiable in the shape of the subject matter; the creative nature of a choice cannot be presumed. Aesthetic appeal or the striking visual effect of a product is insufficient unless it can be traced to free and creative choices that bear the imprint of the author’s personality.
Intentions, thought processes, and design narratives remain part of the unprotectable domain of ideas, although they may be considered insofar as they are made manifest in the object itself. All relevant circumstances at the time of creation may be assessed. Using pre-existing shapes, drawing inspiration from earlier works, or producing variants of earlier works (either one’s own or those of others) does not exclude originality, provided that the object incorporates identifiable creative features attributable to the author. The existence of similar earlier works may indicate low originality but does not exclude independent parallel creation, which is particularly plausible in applied art.
Copyright infringement: reproduction of creative elements, not the overall impression
On infringement, the CJEU drew a sharp line between copyright and design law. The relevant test is not whether the two objects produce the same overall impression (a design law criterion), but whether original creative elements of the protected work have been reproduced recognisably in the contested object. Even a small part of a work may be infringed if that part reflects the author’s intellectual creation.
The degree of originality does not alter the scope of protection once the work qualifies. The CJEU noted that factors such as the defendant’s intent, shared trends or artistic movements, or similar functional solutions are irrelevant unless specific original elements are actually taken. Independent creation remains a full defence if convincingly demonstrated.
EU copyright law further harmonised?
Mio and Konektra thus refine the coherence of EU copyright law on applied art: originality remains a positive, evidence-based inquiry into the presence of free and creative choices, and infringement hinges on the recognisable reproduction of those choices. The judgment provides national courts with a structured framework to evaluate both protection and infringement in design-adjacent disputes.
This does not mean however that all questions are answered. For instance, what can be considered a free and creative choice? How many creative choices have to be recognisably reproduced to conclude infringement? It will be interesting to see how the European national courts will apply the Mio & Konektra judgment.
Clairfort Advocaten is an international law firm with three offices in the NEtherlands. Clairfort is a ‘firm of niches’ – they offer specialist advice in six areas of the law.
XLNC member firm Clairfort AdvocatenZeist, The NetherlandsT: +31 30 307 5465
Legal
Evert van Gelderen is founding partner and attorney-at-law specialising in intellectual property at Clairfort Attorneys in the Netherlands. Contact Evert.
