Is your fashion design protected if it is based on trends or catalogs?

Many entrepreneurs in the fashion and retail sector wonder whether designs that are composed of standard components or that rely heavily on fashion trends are eligible for legal protection. In the Deity Shoes ruling (C-323/24) of 18 December 2025, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) provides clarity: model protection does not require “intellectual creation” or artistic effort. As long as the end result is new and has its own character, it is protected, regardless of whether it is composed from a catalog.

The facts: standard components and fashion trends

The case takes place in Spain between Deity Shoes, S.L. and two competitors, Mundorama Confort and Stay Design. Deity Shoes holds various community designs for shoes. However, these designs were not drawn from scratch by a designer. Instead, Deity Shoes selected components (such as soles, buckles, and laces) from catalogs of Chinese suppliers and combined them into a final product.

The competitors sought the annulment of these designs. Their argument was based on two pillars:

• Lack of creativity: There would be no “real design activity” or innovation, because Deity Shoes merely combined existing components from a catalog.
• Dictates of fashion: The designs merely followed general fashion trends. Because trends would limit the designer's freedom, minor differences would not suffice to create a unique character.

The Spanish court asked the CJEU whether design protection requires a certain intellectual effort and what influence fashion trends have on the assessment of individual character.

The decision: objective criteria

The Court of Justice rejects the arguments of competitors and confirms low-threshold access to design protection.

1. No requirement for creative activity The Court rules that Regulation No. 6/2002 only imposes two conditions for protection: the design must be new and have individual character. The legislator has not required that the design must be the result of a “minimum of creative activity” or intellectual effort.

"In order to enjoy the protection conferred on a Community design, the owner or designer of that design does not have to demonstrate, in addition to the existence of the conditions of novelty and individual character, that that design is the result of a minimum degree of creation."

This means that the fact that a model is composed of predetermined parts from a catalog (ad hoc modifications) does not in itself preclude protection.

2. Fashion trends do not limit design freedom The Court is also clear with regard to fashion trends: fashion trends are not technical or legal restrictions. A trend is fleeting and not inevitable; a designer voluntarily chooses to follow a trend or deviate from it.. Therefore, trends do not legally limit the “degree of freedom of the designer".

Legal analysis and interpretation

This ruling confirms the fundamental distinction between copyright and design right.

• Copyright: Requires that a work be “original” and bear the “personal stamp of the creator” (subjective creativity).
• Design right: Focuses on protecting investments in the production of utility items. The criterion is simply whether the overall impression on the informed user differs from existing design heritage (objective comparison).

This fundamental difference becomes painfully clear in the discussion surrounding Artificial Intelligence. Where copyright struggles with the question of whether an AI creation has a ‘human creator’ and ‘creative choices’, this is irrelevant for design rights. Whether a design is created by a human, an algorithm, or through a mix-and-match in a catalog: as long as the end result is new and has its own character, it is protected.

The role of the “informed user” When assessing distinctive character (Article 6 of Regulation 6/2002), the perception of the informed user is central. This is a user who is not merely average, but highly attentive and familiar with the sector.

The Court emphasizes that elements that are ‘in fashion’ are no less important in the assessment. A judge (or the informed user) may not simply disregard or ignore these trendy elements. They count fully in the overall impression. The consequence is twofold: on the one hand, trends do not limit your design freedom (you choose to follow them yourself), but on the other hand, this means that you must distinguish yourself sufficiently, precisely because you are free to do so. Anyone who merely follows a trend with minimal variations will therefore come up empty-handed.

What this specifically means

This ruling has important consequences for various players in the market:

• For designers and buyers (Retail): You don't have to be an “artist” to protect your products. Even if you assemble products using white label catalogs or suppliers‘ mix-and-match systems, you can obtain valid design rights, provided that the final combination creates a different overall impression than existing designs.
• For competitors: The argument “it's just a copy from a catalog” is not legally sufficient to have a design declared invalid. You will have to demonstrate that the design as a whole does not differ from previous designs (novelty/individual character).
• Strategic advice: Following fashion trends is commercially smart, but legally risky if you want to rely on minor variations. Because trends do not limit your design freedom, you must distinguish yourself sufficiently from other trend followers in order to claim “individual character”.

FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)

Do I have to prove that I designed my product myself for design protection?
No. Unlike copyright, design rights do not require creative effort. The only thing that matters is whether the design is new and has its own character compared to existing designs.

Can I register a design that is composed of standard parts from a supplier?
Yes, that is possible. The fact that parts are predetermined in a catalog does not preclude protection. It is about the unique combination that must create a different overall impression on the user.

Can I copy a competitor's design because it's “just the fashion”?
No, that is risky. Fashion trends are not considered a technical limitation that justifies similarities. If your product creates the same overall impression as a registered design, you are infringing, even if those features are “in fashion”.

Conclusion

The Deity Shoes ruling is a victory for pragmatic designers and the retail sector. It confirms that design rights in Belgium exist to protect investments, not just creative masterpieces. At the same time, the Court warns that the excuse of “fashion trends” cannot be used to mask a lack of distinctiveness.