Joris DeeneYes, that should suffice. On July 22, 2026, the presiding judge of the Dutch-language Commercial Court in Brussels issued a cease-and-desist order against two Greek furniture sellers, even though no sales or deliveries in Belgium had been proven (Presiding Judge, Dutch-Language Commercial Court of Brussels, July 22, 2026, A/25/02427 and A/25/03798). The Belgian design manufacturer Tribù was proven right: the commercial display of six replicas of its furniture on a Greek website—which included the option to contact the company or request a quote—was sufficient to constitute a potential infringement of its design rights and copyright in Belgium.
The facts
Tribù designs, manufactures, and sells high-quality designer outdoor furniture. For its Tosca, Amanu, and Suro collections, it holds four Union designs and one international design valid throughout the European Union. In addition, it asserts copyright over the specific furniture designs.
Two Greek companies displayed six pieces of furniture on their website and in commercial documentation that, according to Tribù, copy its designs: the La Mer sofa, the La Mer Plus sofa, the La Mer Plus lounge armchair, the La Mer sunlounger, the Mirante dining armchair, and the Penida armchair. On February 26, 2025, Tribù sent a notice of default. The Greek sellers disputed the claims and stated that the Mirante and the Penida were never produced, imported, or sold, and were taken offline after the notice of default was sent.
Tribù filed a lawsuit against the first company on June 5, 2025, and against the second on October 29, 2025. The defendants pointed out that their website is a Greek .gr website, that their showrooms are located in Greece, that the phone number is Greek, and that there is no evidence of any sales, deliveries, or quotes in Belgium. In their view, the Belgian court therefore had no jurisdiction over this case.
The ruling
Why a Belgian court has jurisdiction over a Greek website
For the Union models, the authority is based on Article 82(5) of Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 With regard to EU designs: the court of the Member State where the infringement has occurred or is likely to occur. Article 83(2) limits that jurisdiction to infringements occurring within the territory of that Member State. With regard to copyright, the presiding judge applies Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation that is: the place where the damage occurs or is likely to occur.
The presiding judge agreed with the Greek sellers on one point: the mere fact that a foreign website is technically accessible from Belgium is not sufficient in and of itself. There must be a sufficient connection to an infringement in Belgium or an imminent infringement in Belgium. On the other hand, as far as jurisdiction is concerned, Tribù does not need to prove that an actual sale, delivery, or invoice took place in Belgium. According to the presiding judge, it is sufficient that the evidence available as of the date of the summons reasonably indicates that the threat of a Belgian infringement is not merely hypothetical.
That threshold had been met in this case. The furniture was presented as part of a commercial product line, in a professional context, and visitors from Belgium could contact the company or request a quote. That possibility, together with the commercial presentation, constituted the decisive additional connecting factor. Belgium does not necessarily have to be the exclusive or primary target market. The chair declared himself competent to rule on the matter, but only with regard to Belgian infringements, imminent Belgian infringements, and actions directed at Belgium.
The counterclaim seeking the invalidation of the EU designs
The Greek sellers filed a counterclaim seeking to have Tribù’s five design registrations declared invalid. To that end, they presented earlier designs: the Ami sofa and lounge chair by Paola Lenti, the Tibidabo, Cove, and Kobo daybeds, the Lia chair by Sergio Rodrigues, and the Vimini dining armchair by Kettal.
The presiding judge dismissed that counterclaim in its entirety. The comparison with existing designs must be made holistically, based on the overall impression formed by an informed user. A mere listing of familiar elements—such as a sofa, a metal frame, wickerwork, cushions, and four legs—is not sufficient to negate the design’s distinct character. What is decisive is how those elements are specifically combined in each model. For each of the five models, the chair ruled that the differences from the earlier designs are sufficiently striking: the shape of the enveloping shell, the continuous arm and backrest sections, the balance between volume and light support, and the visual role of the wickerwork.
Copyright in Furniture Designs: Recognized but Strictly Delimited
Under copyright law, no one has a monopoly on the idea of an outdoor sofa, wickerwork, cushions, or a lounge chair. According to the ruling, the latter concept dates back to Greco-Roman times and long before that. Tribù itself stated, incidentally, that it is not seeking protection for a woven shell or woven fabric per se.
According to the chairperson, the protection lies in the specific selection, combination, and arrangement of design elements for each piece of furniture: in the case of the Tosca sofa, for example, the cohesion between the rounded, enveloping shell, the continuous arm and backrest sections, the wickerwork serving as the visual skin of the shell, and the balance between volume and lightness. These choices are visible in the object itself and are not dictated by its functional purpose. Within that framework, all five of Tribù’s designs qualify as works in the sense of copyright law.
The infringement: Six pieces of furniture replicate the protected overall impression
Only after the issue of validity was addressed was the question of infringement considered, on a per-item basis for each piece of furniture in dispute. The Greek sellers pointed out differences in width, depth, height, angle, legs, color, cushions, and the technical design of the wickerwork. Those differences do exist, the presiding judge ruled, but they remain differences in execution within the same design framework and do not affect the elements that contribute to the overall impression. The Penida armchair’s different base was also included in the comparison, but the base is not the element that dominates the overall impression of the Suro armchair.
Regarding the Mirante and the Penida, the sellers argued that these chairs were never produced or sold and were only temporarily visible online. According to the chairperson, that argument does not address the visual comparison. Displaying a piece of furniture in a commercial context can also constitute an act for which the design owner may refuse permission, or at least a potential infringement. Article 18 of the Judicial Code (Ger.W.) permits action to be taken to prevent the infringement of a right that is seriously threatened. The removal of the images following the notice of default did not eliminate the risk of recurrence, especially since the sellers continued to dispute the infringing nature of the images and had failed to comply with a previous cease-and-desist agreement regarding another product.
The measures: a strike ban limited to Belgium
Because the jurisdiction is limited to a specific territory, so is the injunction. The cease-and-desist order covers the display, offering, sale, delivery, import, and distribution of the six pieces of furniture in Belgium or directed at Belgium, including websites, digital brochures, catalogs, and bidding procedures to the extent that they are directed at Belgium. There will be no EU-wide or worldwide ban, except for technical adjustments outside Belgium that are necessary and proportionate to bring the Belgian infringement to an end.
The requested three-month grace period was denied, as such a period may not constitute implicit permission to continue offering the products. The sellers were given fifteen calendar days to make technical adjustments to their websites, catalogs, and sales procedures. The penalty was set at 2,000 euros per individual infringement, with a maximum of 200,000 euros: less than the 5,000 euros per infringement claimed by Tribù, but much more than the 100 euros with a cap of 5,000 euros proposed by the sellers.
The disclosure order was also limited to Belgium. Within thirty calendar days, the sellers must provide written notice stating whether the furniture was offered for sale or delivered in Belgium, who the potential Belgian customers and intermediaries are, what Belgian requests for quotes were received, and what measures they took to prevent further display or delivery in Belgium. The requested security deposit of 50,000 euros and the lump-sum compensation of 50,000 euros per measure in the event of a subsequent reform were rejected, as was the counterclaim for vexatious and reckless litigation. The sellers were ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the summons costs of 1,663.18 euros and 1,908.33 euros, as well as litigation costs of 10,000 euros.
The disputed piece of evidence and the 2019 statement of abstention
Two procedural defenses are worth mentioning. One piece of evidence submitted by Tribù—an email obtained using a fictitious identity that referred to a nonexistent restaurant—was not deemed to have conclusive probative value by the chair. However, the document was not excluded from the proceedings: its content was not materially falsified, and the decision does not rely on it. The requested action for forgery and the counterclaim alleging a misleading marketing practice within the meaning of Article VI.105, 6° of the Code of Economic Law (WER) were dismissed.
The sellers also cited a 2019 declaration of abstention regarding the La Mer sunlounger, which they claimed constituted a settlement and rendered the injunction judge without jurisdiction. The presiding judge rejected that defense: a settlement presupposes mutual concessions, and the declaration did not show that Tribù had waived its claims regarding future acts. The statement does not constitute the legal basis for the cease-and-desist order, but it does confirm that the sellers were aware of Tribù’s claims and that the risk of recurrence is not merely theoretical.
Legal analysis and interpretation
When does a foreign website become a Belgian problem?
A Greek company, a .gr website, showrooms in Greece, a Greek phone number—and yet a Belgian injunction. The chairman navigates between two extremes. Mere technical accessibility of a website is not enough—that much is certain. On the other hand, a proven sale in Belgium is not required. The standard lies somewhere in between: a commercial product presentation, combined with the ability to contact the company or request a quote, makes a Belgian legal threat sufficiently concrete.
This flexible entry requirement is offset by strict limitations on the scope of the order. Jurisdiction is limited to Belgium, and so is the order itself. Anyone who files a summons through this process will not obtain an EU-wide injunction, and the discovery order does not provide insight into the global distribution chain. Tribù requested a report from an auditor covering all manufacturers, suppliers, and sales figures, but received only the Belgian data.
The timing of the proceedings before the Court of Justice is striking. The sellers requested a stay of the case pending the Anne Frank Foundation Ruling (ECJ, July 9, 2026, C-788/24) on whether an online publication subject to geo-blocking constitutes a communication to the public in a country where the work is still protected. The Court of Justice issued that ruling thirteen days before this judgment. In any event, the presiding judge did not consider the case to be decisive for a factual reason: the Greek sellers failed to demonstrate that they had excluded Belgium from access through technical measures. Those who do not use geoblocking cannot therefore rely on that case law—a topic we previously addressed in our article on geoblocking and copyright.
The Mio/Konektra Ruling in Practice: No Stricter Threshold, but a Strict Order
The sellers broke down each piece of Tribù furniture into familiar building blocks and presented older designs by Paola Lenti, Sergio Rodrigues, and Kettal. That defense strategy hit the same wall twice. Under design patent law, it is the overall impression that counts, not the sum of the similarities. Under copyright law, Tribù is not seeking protection for the individual elements, but for the specific, visible combination found in each piece of furniture.
That approach is consistent with the Mio v. Konektra Judgment (ECJ, December 4, 2025, C-580/23 and C-795/23) on furniture designs: applied art is not subject to a stricter threshold for protection than other works, and there is no rule-and-exception relationship between design rights and copyright. The use of forms that were already available does not preclude originality, as long as the creative choices are reflected in the arrangement. The judgment clearly applies this line of reasoning. We previously discussed how the Belgian trial court specifically approaches a design comparison in the context of the reproduction of a fashion design.
Equally important is the order that the presiding judge has set for himself. First, the validity of the Tribù designs is assessed in light of the earlier designs; only then is the issue of infringement addressed. The judgment explicitly states why: this prevents the similarity between the parties’ products from being wrongly used as an argument for the validity of Tribù’s designs. The result for the rights holder is an explicitly limited scope of protection per piece of furniture. That limited scope was nevertheless sufficient in this case for all six contested pieces of furniture, because the copies replicated the defining combination of shapes in each instance.
Specifically, what does this mean?
For Belgian designers and manufacturers of designer furniture. You do not need to prove that a sale took place in Belgium in order to have a foreign counterfeiter convicted in Belgium. Document the commercial presentation: screenshots of the website and catalog, the contact and quote options, and the date of each finding, because jurisdiction is assessed at the time the summons is served. A prior cease-and-desist declaration by the opposing party does not prevent the injunction judge from issuing an order and may even strengthen your case regarding knowledge of the infringement and the risk of recurrence. Be careful, however, with evidence collected under a fictitious identity: it is not automatically excluded, but the judge will assign it reduced probative value. Anyone building a cross-border case should seek guidance from a lawyer specializing in intellectual property.
For online stores and distributors operating in the European market. The argument that you do not sell or deliver anything in Belgium does not protect you. Anyone who displays products commercially online and allows requests for quotes without technically excluding Belgium may be sued in Belgium for an impending infringement. Removing disputed products from your website after receiving a notice of default is also insufficient, as long as you continue to dispute the infringing nature of the products. Also be aware of short compliance deadlines: in this case, the sellers were given fifteen calendar days to make technical adjustments, under penalty of a daily fine of 2,000 euros per infringement.
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Do I have to prove that the products were sold in Belgium in order to stop the counterfeiting?
No. A threatened infringement is sufficient to establish the jurisdiction of the Belgian court and to issue a cease-and-desist order. In this ruling, the commercial presentation of the furniture on a foreign website—which included the option to contact the seller or request a quote—was deemed sufficient. However, the lack of proven sales in Belgium did have consequences for the scope of the measures: the injunction and the order to provide information were limited to Belgium.
Is a furniture design protected by copyright?
Yes, provided that the design is the creator’s own intellectual creation. Since the Court of Justice’s Mio/Konektra ruling, it has been established that the threshold for utilitarian objects is no stricter than that for other works. The protection never covers the idea or the style—such as a wicker outdoor sofa—but rather the specific combination of design choices visible in the piece of furniture.
Is it sufficient for an online store to remove the disputed products from its website?
Not automatically. According to the chairperson, a request for injunctive relief remains possible as long as the risk of recurrence has not been objectively ruled out—for example, because the seller continues to dispute the infringing nature of the act or has failed to comply with a previous cease-and-desist agreement. However, the removal may be taken into account when determining the amount of the penalty.
Conclusion
This ruling demonstrates just how limited the scope has become in Belgium for foreign sellers who display copies of protected furniture designs online. A commercial presentation that includes the option to request a quote is sufficient to constitute a potential infringement, even without a single proven sale in Belgium. The downside is that the injunction is strictly territorial: anyone who files a lawsuit in Belgium based on the location of the infringement will receive a Belgian injunction, not a European one. For designers, this is a practical tool; for online stores, it is a clear warning.
Dutch 
English