The facts and context<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
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 \u201cBistro Table Dennis\u201d and \u201cChair Jared.\u201d In December 2024, Gommaire noted that Zoco was offering furniture through its website that bore strong similarities to the Gommaire collection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Zoco defended itself by arguing that the furniture was merely variations on general styles (such as \u201cIndonesian style\u201d or \u201cboho\u201d), that the shapes were technically necessary, or that the market was \u201cflooded\u201d with similar designs. Zoco promised to take the furniture offline \u201csubject to all rights,\u201d but Gommaire pressed ahead with the proceedings to obtain a lasting cease-and-desist order and transparency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court's decision<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
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<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The key points of the decision are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n For two models (the \u201cKayu Lounge Chair\u201d and \u201cFern desk\u201d), the claim was dismissed because the judge ruled that the creative core was not adopted recognizably enough or that the differences were too great.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/a><\/em>, Brompton<\/a><\/em> and the recent Mio<\/em>-jurisprudence<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The President explicitly refers to the Court of Justice's Mio ruling of December 4, 2025. There is no longer a \u201crule-exception relationship\u201d between design protection and copyright. Older Belgian case law sometimes required that a design piece had to have a clear \u201cartistic character\u201d beyond the banal. The court now clearly states: the same originality requirements apply to utilitarian objects as to literature or music.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cDennis\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201ccreative core\u201d (the composition and proportions) was identical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/image-4.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.ictrechtswijzer.be\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/image-6.png\")
<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\nLegal analysis and interpretation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
1. The concept of work in Union law<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
2. Technology versus creativity<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
3. The infringement test<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
What this specifically means<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
For designers and furniture companies<\/h3>\n\n\n\n