Does your design or copyright always protect you from competitors with a similar product?

Even if you hold a valid registered design or copyright, this does not automatically mean that you can exclude every similar competitor from the market. The Brussels Court of Appeal ruled in a ruling dated March 27, 2026 that there is no infringement if the competing product creates a substantially different ‘overall impression’ or if any adopted creative elements are incorporated sufficiently unrecognizably. Below we analyze the Court's decision and you will discover exactly where the boundaries of product design protection lie.

The facts and legal context

The dispute revolves around two companies specializing in the development and sale of wood-burning stoves and built-in fireplaces: the SA Stûv on the one hand, and the BV Barbas Bellfires and SRL Barbas Belgium (together ‘Barbas’) on the other hand. Stûv has held a registered community design for its built-in fireplace “Stûv 16in” since 2007”. This model is characterized by a sleek and pared-down design, including a fine outer frame, a wide shadow joint, a concealed opening mechanism and a sober combustion chamber.

Stûv found that competitor Barbas was marketing fireplaces (under the “Unilux”, “Box” and “Universal” ranges) that it claimed infringed its registered design and its copyrights. In addition, Stûv accused the competitor of parasitic competition (unfair market practices).

Barbas defended and counterclaimed: it claimed invalidity of Stûv's design right, arguing that the model did not possess “individual character” due to the prior history of similar, older stoves on the market.

At first instance, the French-speaking Enterprise Court of Brussels considered the case. In its decision of October 6, 2022, the first judge ruled that both Stûv's main claim for infringement and Barbas' counterclaim for invalidation of the design were unfounded. Stûv filed an appeal and Barbas an incidental appeal.

Court of Appeal decision

The Brussels Court of Appeal ruled that both Stûv's appeal and Barbas' incident appeal were unfounded.

First, the Court upheld the validity of Stûv's model; the older stoves referred to by Barbas created a different overall impression (e.g., due to more robust frames or visible handles), which meant that Stûv's model did retain an “individual character” and thus could not be invalidated.

Despite the validity of the design right, however, Stûv fell flat on the alleged infringement by Barbas. On a close comparison of the products, the Court concluded that Barbas' fireplaces created a different overall impression on the user. The Barbas models appeared more robust, busier, often had visible opening or ventilation mechanisms and lacked the specific sleek lines of the Stûv stove.

The copyright infringement claim was also dismissed. Although the Court held that the Stûv 16in did constitute a copyrighted work due to the designer's free and creative choices, it noted that the additions and modifications Barbas made took precedence over any borrowed elements, rendering them unrecognizable. For another model, the Court even ruled that merely the concept of placing a stove on a pedestal was an unprotected “idea” and not an expression of creativity. Consequently, there was also no unfair or parasitic competition.

Legal analysis and interpretation

This statement offers a nice synthesis of the assessment criteria on design right and copyright, applied to utilitarian objects (“applied arts”).

According to European design law (Regulation 6/2002), a design is protected if it is new and has “individual character.” The assessment of this individual character is done through a set four-step test, looking at the product, the “informed user,” the creator's design freedom and the visual comparison. The Court clarifies that the informed user is neither a mere layman nor a technical expert, but someone with special vigilance and knowledge of the industry. The more limited the creator's freedom is (for example, due to the technical limitations of a built-in fireplace), the faster small differences between two models will lead to a different overall impression.

As for copyright, the Court reiterates the strict criteria of the Court of Justice of the European Union (e.g., the Cofemel- and Mio and Konektra-ruling). An object is a “work” only when it reflects the author's personality through free and creative choices. Choices dictated solely by technical or functional requirements do not enjoy copyright protection. What is important in this case is how the courts rule on infringement: even if a product possesses copyright protection, if the counterfeit is constructed in such a way that the few creative choices are suppressed by the counterfeiter's robust additions, infringement ceases.

What this specifically means

The Court's decision has important strategic implications for both original design producers and competitors:

• For the trademark owner/designer: An intellectual property right is not an absolute monopoly on a type of product. You are protected against exact or very strong copies, but you cannot prevent a competitor from adopting the functional elements of your product (such as the principle of a built-in fireplace or shadow joint) and giving it a substantially unique design twist.
• For the competitor: You may take inspiration from market trends and your competitors' products, as long as you do not slavishly copy the external design. Make sure that your variation on a functional object leaves a significantly different overall impression on the target audience by, for example, creating visible deviations in dimensions, finishes or added elements.
• The idea versus the elaboration: Protection always rests on the elaboration of a creation, never on the idea (for example, the idea of presenting a stove on a pedestal). Ideas are free to be used by anyone in the marketplace.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Who is the ‘informed user’ in design law?
The informed user is a fictional reference person used to judge whether two products are too similar. This person is more observant than the average consumer and has some knowledge of what is available in a specific market (such as wood stoves) without having to be a technical expert.

Does copyright also protect the concept or functionality of my product?
No. Copyright protects only the concrete, external design in which a creator has put his personal, creative stamp. Technical functionalities, pure concepts or general ideas (such as “a square stove”) cannot be monopolized by copyright.

What do I need to prove in a claim for unfair competition by counterfeiting?
You have to prove not only that the competing product is similar, but also that the competitor is guilty of so-called ‘parasitic behavior. This means that you must prove that the competitor is systematically copying the fruits of your work and investment without any creative efforts of its own.

Conclusion

The protection of product design through design rights and copyright is powerful, but has strict limits in Belgium as soon as the product in question is affected by technical and functional characteristics. A competitor who distances himself sufficiently from your design and creates a different overall impression is generally acting lawfully.