Joris DeeneIs a utility item, such as a designer table or a modular cabinet system, protected by copyright? And when does counterfeiting occur? On 4 December 2025, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) provided clarity in the joined cases Mio and USM Haller . The core message is threefold: (1) there are no stricter requirements for the protection of designs than for other works, (2) purely technical choices are unprotected, and (3) the criterion of ‘overall impression’ in cases of infringement is replaced by the test of ‘recognizable adoption of creative elements’. This ruling necessitates a review of established Belgian case law.
The facts and legal context
This ruling stems from two preliminary questions referred by a Swedish and a German court, respectively.
In the Swedish case (C-580/23) stood furniture giant Mio faced off against Gallery Mikael & Thomas Asplund. The issue at stake was the copyright protection of the ‘Palais Royal’ dining tables. Mio disputed that these tables were protected by copyright, arguing that they were based on simple variations of well-known models and were insufficiently original.
In the German case (C-795/23) it revolved around the iconic modular furniture system from USM Haller. Konektra sold spare parts and even complete furniture sets that were identical to those of USM. The German court questioned whether higher standards of originality should be applied to ‘works of applied art’ (design) than to other works (the so-called ‘rule-exception relationship’).
The key question in both cases was identical: how does design law (protection of new appearances) relate to copyright law, and what criteria apply to protection and infringement?
The decision of the Court of Justice
In its ruling of December 4, 2025, the Court of Justice provides clarity on three fundamental pillars.
1. No higher threshold for design
The Court rejects the idea that there is a ‘rule-exception relationship’ between design right and copyright. Objects of applied art (design) must meet the same originality requirements as any other work (such as literature or music). No higher requirements may be imposed on the designer's free and creative choices. This definitively dismisses the theory that concurrent protection must be ‘exceptional’.
2. Originality = free and creative choices
An object is a copyright-protected work if it reflects the personality of the author. This is achieved by making free and creative choices.
- What doesn't count? Choices dictated by technical limitations, ergonomics, or safety. The mere fact that a design has an “aesthetically significant effect” is also insufficient.
- What does count? The external design on which the author has left his personal mark, even if he uses existing forms, as long as the combination or arrangement shows creativity.
3. Infringement: end of the ‘overall visual impression’
This is the most far-reaching part of the ruling. In order to establish copyright infringement, the judge may not consider the “overall visual impression” (or overall impression) created by the two objects. The criterion, on the other hand, is whether creative elements of the protected work have been incorporated in a recognizable manner into the infringing object .
Legal analysis and interpretation
This ruling is more than a confirmation of the status quo; it is an adjustment that directly affects Belgian legal practice.
The failure of the ‘overall impression’
For many years, Belgian courts, including the Court of Cassation (see, for example, the ruling of September 25, 2003, in the case of Index/Biblo), often used a comparison that relied heavily on the “overall impression” or the “synthetic consideration of similarities” to determine infringement.
The CJEU now explicitly states that the comparison of the overall impression belongs in design law, not in copyright law.
With this ruling, the Court is clearly breaking with the tradition of the Benelux courts. The focus must shift from “do these two tables resemble each other?” to “has table B specifically copied those creative elements (e.g., the shape of the legs or the edge of the tabletop) from table A?”.
The explicit rejection of the term ‘general impression’ forces Belgian legal practice to formulate conclusions and judgments differently.
The introduction of the ‘recognizability criterion’
Instead of the overall impression, the criterion is: have the creative elements been copied in a recognizable way ?
This concept, borrowed from the Pelham-ruling (which was about sampling in music) is now being generalized to design. The question here is: for whom should this recognizability exist? For the consumer? For the judge? For the expert? Or for an AI?
The vagueness of ‘recognizability’ can lead to legal uncertainty. There is a risk that judges will interpret this subjectively, which can lead to unpredictable rulings in counterfeiting cases.
Intent and context
The Court also clarifies the burden of proof. The designer's intention (“I wanted to create art”) is irrelevant if it is not objectively expressed in the object. Even success in museums or recognition in professional circles after the fact is not decisive for protection..
Copyright protection must be evident from the object itself. This is an important filter against subjective claims by designers who retrospectively claim ‘art’ for banal work.
What does this mean for your business?
Whether you are a designer, manufacturer, or retailer, the rules of the game have been tightened.
1. For designers and rights holders
- Good news: The threshold for protection has not been raised. You do not need to prove ‘artistic value,’ only that you have made free, creative choices.
- Action item: Document your design process. Because intentions don't count unless they are visible, you must be able to point out exactly which specific lines, shapes, or combinations are the result of your creative freedom (and not technical necessity) in a lawsuit.
- Strategy: In cases of counterfeiting, you should no longer focus on the ‘broad similarities’, but on the dissection of your design: “The opposing party has recognizably copied elements X and Y, which bear my creative stamp.”
2. For competitors and ‘inspired’ creators
- Warning: Changing a few details to alter the ‘overall impression’ may no longer be enough to get away with it. If you recognizably copy a specific, creative element (e.g., a unique connection on a cabinet), you are committing infringement, even if the cabinet looks different as a whole.
- Way out: If you can demonstrate that the elements you have adopted are purely technical (e.g., a standard screw connection or a shape necessary for stability), there is no copyright infringement.
FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions
Is every piece of furniture now protected by copyright?
No. Only furniture that is the result of the maker's “free and creative choices.” Objects that owe their form purely to their technical function (e.g., a standard warehouse rack) are not covered by copyright, because there was no room for creative freedom.
What is the difference between design rights and copyright following this ruling?
Design rights protect ‘novelty’ and ‘individual character’ and usually require registration. Copyright arises automatically and requires ‘originality’ (personal stamp). The Court confirms that both rights can coexist on a single object, but they have different assessment frameworks. The ‘overall impression’ remains relevant for design rights, but no longer for copyright.
May I draw inspiration from existing trends?
Yes. Following a style or trend is not in itself an infringement. Infringement only occurs when you specifically adopt those elements that constitute the personal, creative expression of another designer. Mere stylistic similarities are permitted.
Conclusion
The Mio/USM Haller is important for the protection of design in Europe. It confirms the low threshold for access to copyright protection, but introduces a new, surgical precision in determining infringement. The era of the “fleeting glance” and the “overall impression” in copyright law is over; the era of detailed analysis of creative elements has arrived.
Dutch 
English