Copyright
on
furniture.
Copyright
on
furniture.
from
When is a piece of furniture protected by copyright – and when is a competitor’s product more than just “compatible”? The ECJ ruling of December 4, 2025 provides some clarity.
How a dining table and a shelving system occupied Europe.
It begins with two quite everyday cases:
In Sweden, two dining tables that appear similar at first glance are under scrutiny. In Germany, the modular furniture system “USM Haller” is causing controversy because a third-party supplier sells matching components, assembly instructions and services. In both countries, the same question arises: how much creativity is there in a commodity – and how much protection can it afford?
The original courts wanted to know whether furniture can be considered a work at all if its form is partly subject to technical constraints. And if so, how do you check for copyright infringement when the eye immediately recognizes a similarity that needs to be defined more precisely in legal terms?
The European Court of Justice uses this opportunity to fundamentally clarify the relationship between design, function and copyright protection. The decision serves as a compass for all sectors in which design and use are inextricably linked.
Originality without special examination: The ECJ clears the air.
In its Judgment of 04.12.2025 – Ref. C-580/23 and C-795/23 (Mio/Asplund; USM/konektra) unequivocally puts an end to the idea that works of applied art require a higher creative threshold. Literally it says:
There is no rule-exception relationship between protection under design law and copyright law in which higher standards of originality would be required for objects of applied art.
This makes it clear that a piece of furniture can be a work – without legal artifice.
The only decisive factor is that the object “reflects the personality of its author” by “expressing free and creative choices”. This concept is not new, but this is the first time that the ECJ has consistently applied it to everyday objects.
It is particularly important that the Court detaches the originality test from the subjective creation process. It emphasizes:
The creative process of the author as such is neither necessary nor decisive.
In other words, it’s not about what the designer was thinking, but about what you see in the object.
Function, design, inspiration: where creativity begins
The ECJ draws a clear line between technical constraints and creative freedom. Originality can only arise where the designer had genuine creative freedom. Decisions that are “determined by technical or functional considerations” do not count.
At the same time, the Court emphasizes a freedom that is crucial in practice:
The use of the general vocabulary of forms does not exclude originality.
Design can therefore look familiar. Even a variation of an existing work – be it your own or someone else’s – can be original. Inspiration is allowed as long as it is translated into a unique design language.
Also noteworthy is the rejection of the widespread assumption that similar designs could arise by chance and therefore not constitute copyright.
The possibility of a parallel, independent creation does not preclude the recognition of the character of a work.
For companies, this means that not every similarity is a coincidence and not every coincidence protects against liability.
When does copyright infringement occur? The ECJ sets the course.
The decision clearly separates copyright law from design law. While design law compares the overall impression, copyright law is concerned with the adoption of specific creative elements.
The ECJ formulates this as follows:
In order to establish a copyright infringement, it must be determined whether the creative elements of the protected work have been recognizably incorporated into the contested object.
This means that it is not the overall appearance that is decisive, but the creative details adopted. It is not enough for a piece of furniture to “somehow look the same”. It must be possible to identify which design-defining decisions were taken from the original.
And another striking sentence from Luxembourg that is likely to influence many processes:
The height of the design is irrelevant as soon as the character of the work has been established.
In legal terms, this means: a work is a work. Period.
There are no “slightly protected” or “only weakly protected” works.
What does the distinction mean in practice?
For manufacturers and trademarks
The decision strengthens design-intensive companies. Furniture, lighting, modular systems and many other products can be protected by copyright – in parallel with design law. The previously widespread assumption that articles of daily use require “more” level of design is therefore no longer valid throughout the EU.
For spare parts and accessories suppliers
The USM constellation shows the sensitivity of the aftermarket. Components that are technically essential can usually be freely copied. However, as soon as they are aesthetically characterized – for example through proportions, lines or iconic connection forms – there is a risk of creative elements being taken over.
Even assembly instructions or product photos can become problematic if they reproduce the protected design.
For retailers and platforms
Anyone who advertises compatible products using images of iconic designs is operating within narrow copyright boundaries. Even the visual link to a protected work can be legally relevant.
For designers
Inspiration remains permissible, but it must be recognizably transformed. If you orientate yourself too closely to the model, you risk adopting creative elements, even without a technical copy.
Conclusion
The ECJ’s decision leads to a clear and uniform definition of a work. As a result, furniture and other everyday objects can now enjoy copyright protection more easily. This increases the risk for imitators, but also for the spare parts and accessories industry, of being sued by the copyright holder for copyright infringement.
Anyone who designs, sells or replicates products will have to take a closer look in future. Which form is technically necessary and which is creative?
Because this distinction determines protection, freedom and liability.
We are happy to
advise you about
Copyright!
