Copyright protection of furniture design: recent case law on ‘banal’ forms and originality

Is furniture design copyrighted even if it uses common trends or styles? Yes, as long as the design is the result of free and creative choices that reflect the personality of the creator.

A judgment of the Dutch-speaking Enterprise Court in Brussels of Jan. 29, 2026, confirms that there is no raised threshold for applied art. Everyday utilitarian objects, such as tables and chairs, also enjoy copyright protection when they exhibit an original combination of formal elements, even if those elements are not individually unique.

The facts and context

The case pitted Belgian interior design brand Gommaire against Zoco Home, a Spanish online retailer. Gommaire, active since 2015, designs and sells furniture with names such as “Bistro Table Dennis” and “Chair Jared.” In December 2024, Gommaire noted that Zoco was offering furniture through its website that bore strong similarities to the Gommaire collection.

This was initially three pieces of furniture, but the claim was later expanded to seven models, including tables, chairs and a lounge set. Notable detail: Zoco itself had purchased some of these specific pieces of furniture from Gommaire in the years before (2020-2021).

Zoco defended itself by arguing that the furniture was merely variations on general styles (such as “Indonesian style” or “boho”), that the shapes were technically necessary, or that the market was “flooded” with similar designs. Zoco promised to take the furniture offline “subject to all rights,” but Gommaire pressed ahead with the proceedings to obtain a lasting cease-and-desist order and transparency.

The court's decision

The president of the enterprise court ruled largely in favor of Gommaire. The court found that five of the seven contested pieces of furniture infringed copyright.

The key points of the decision are:

• Originality: The court confirmed that utensils are protected if they “reflect the personality of the creator by being an expression of free and creative choices.”.
• No raised threshold: The idea that copyright in design should be exceptional so as not to impede freedom of enterprise was explicitly rejected as contrary to harmonized Union law.
• Combination of elements: Even if individual elements (such as an X-leg or wooden bars) are trivial, their specific selection, arrangement and combination can produce a copyrighted work.
• Sanctions: Zoco was ordered to immediately cease sales under penalty of a fine of €2,500 per day per infringing design. An information order was also imposed to identify the origin and sales figures of the counterfeit products.

For two models (the “Kayu Lounge Chair” and “Fern desk”), the claim was dismissed because the judge ruled that the creative core was not adopted recognizably enough or that the differences were too great.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This judgment is an example of the application of the Court of Justice's case law on copyright in applied art (think of the Cofemel, Brompton and the recent Mio-jurisprudence).

1. The concept of work in Union law

The President explicitly refers to the Court of Justice's Mio ruling of December 4, 2025. There is no longer a “rule-exception relationship” between design protection and copyright. Older Belgian case law sometimes required that a design piece had to have a clear “artistic character” beyond the banal. The court now clearly states: the same originality requirements apply to utilitarian objects as to literature or music.

2. Technology versus creativity

An important distinction remains that choices dictated entirely by technical considerations enjoy no protection. However, as soon as there is room for choice - for example, in the thickness of a leg, the curvature of a handrail or the rhythm of slats - room for copyright arises. In this case, for example, the court ruled on the “Dennis” table that the choice of wide legs that widen upward and the specific visual tension between massiveness and open space are creative choices that are not purely technical.

3. The infringement test

The court applied the criterion of whether the creative elements of the protected work were reproduced in a recognizable way in the disputed object. An overall visual impression is not enough; one must look to see if the specific intellectual creation has been reproduced. The fact that Zoco pointed out differences in workmanship or exact dimensions did not help when the “creative core” (the composition and proportions) was identical.

What this specifically means

For designers and furniture companies

This ruling is good news. It confirms that you do not necessarily need a registered design right to act against imitation.

• Document your creation: Make sure you can demonstrate why you made certain choices. Gommaire succeeded in the “statement requirement" by clearly describing which elements reflected the designer's personality.
• Originality is in the nuance: No need to reinvent the wheel. A unique combination of familiar style elements will suffice.

For retailers and web shops

“Following trends” is not a license for copycat behavior.

• Risk of ‘mood images. Even if you are not actively selling a product, displaying it online (for example, in portfolio photos) can already be an infringement because it adds to its commercial appeal.
• Competence: If you target Belgian consumers through a website (delivery to Belgium possible), the Belgian courts have jurisdiction even if you are based in Spain.
• Penalties: In Belgium, injunctions and information orders are very effective and can be high (in this case, up to €550,000).

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Is a piece of furniture protected if it resembles a general trend?
Yes, the existence of a trend (such as “Scandinavian” or “Industrial”) does not preclude copyright protection. A designer can make original choices within an existing style by a specific selection and arrangement of shapes. If that specific combination is copied, there is infringement.

What is the difference between design rights and copyright for furniture?
A Benelux design right must be registered and is valid for up to 25 years. It protects novelty and individuality. Copyright arises automatically upon creation (without registration) and is valid for up to 70 years after the creator's death. In this case, Gommaire successfully relied solely on copyright, without needing valid design registrations.

Can I recreate a design if I make 7 differences?
No, that's a myth. The courts look not at the number of differences, but whether the creative elements of the original have been reproduced in a recognizable way. If the “creative core” (the copyrighted traits) recurs in your product, there is infringement, even if you change the color, material or minor details.

Conclusion

The verdict Gommaire vs. Zoco reaffirms that the threshold for copyright protection of design in Belgium is low, in line with European case law. For designers, this offers powerful weapons against imitation; for traders, it is a warning not to push “inspiration” by competitors too far.