Two pieces of furniture: A sleek table in Sweden and a modular furniture system in Germany, became the focus of two significant legal disputes. In the joined Mio and Konektra cases, the CJEU was asked to determine whether such designs could qualify as works of art.
The ruling confirmed that originality in applied art deserves copyright protection, setting a new standard for how functional objects are treated under European law.
Introduction
On 4 December 2025, the Court of Justice of the EU delivered its long-awaited decision in the joined cases Mio/Konektra (C-580/23 & C795/23). At heart of the dispute lies the following main question: Can everyday objects, in this case, Konektra’s modular furniture system and Mio’s designer table, qualify as copyright-protected works?
The Court’s ruling reshapes the boundaries between functional design and artistic creation.
Context of the case
Applied art has long occupied a grey zone in European copyright law. While pure artistic works are clearly protected, the status of objects has been contested. Previous case law such as Cofemel (C-683/17) and Brompton Bicycle (C-833/18) tried to hint at broader protection. However, uncertainty remained. Now, Mio/Konektra provides more clarity. This is crucial for businesses where design is both aesthetic and utilitarian.
Key legal developments
Recognition of applied art: the CJEU confirms that furniture and modular systems can be protected if they reflect free and creative choices by the author
Originality standard: protection requires originality, meaning that the design must express the author’s personality rather than being dictated solely by technical function
Harmonization across the EU: the ruling aligns national approaches, which reduces fragmentation in the way applied art is treated
Impact on infringement tests: courts must assess whether similarities between products reflect copying of creative choices, not just functional overlap
Implications for businesses
Design & furniture industry: stronger protection for innovative designs, but also higher litigation risks for competitors
Fashion & luxury industry: accessories and functional design industries may now enjoy broader copyright coverage
Manufacturing & retail: companies must carefully audit product lines to avoid infringing protected designs
Startups & tech: modular systems and user-centric designs could be shielded, encouraging investment in creativity
Practical Guidance
Audit portfolios: identify which designs meet originality standards
Contractual safeguards: update licensing and distribution agreements to reflect new risks
Compliance strategy: monitor EU case law and national implementation to stay ahead
Innovation incentives: use the ruling as leverage to protect R&D investments in design-intensive industries
Conclusion
The Mio/Konektra judgment is a turning point for copyright in applied art. By affirming that functional objects can embody creative expression, the CJEU has expanded the scope of protection available to designers and businesses. For companies in the sector, December 2025 marks the beginning of a new era in design law.