The EU Court of Justice’s Mio/Konektra ruling and the future of copyright in the applied arts

Two pieces of furniture—an elegant table from Sweden and a modular furniture system from Germany—have been at the center of two major legal disputes. In the joined cases of Mio and Konektra, the Court of Justice of the European Union was asked to determine whether these designs could be considered works of art.

The ruling confirmed that originality in applied art is eligible for copyright protection, thereby establishing a new standard for the treatment of functional objects under European law.

Introduction

On December 4, 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued its long-awaited judgment in the joined cases of Mio v. Konektra (C-580/23 and C-795/23). At the heart of the dispute is the following key question: Can everyday objects—in this case, Konektra’s modular furniture system and Mio’s designer table—be considered works protected by copyright?

The Court’s ruling redefines the boundaries between functional design and artistic creation.

Case Background

Applied art has long occupied a gray area in European copyright law. While purely artistic works are clearly protected, the status of such objects has been disputed. Previous case law, such as Cofemel (C-683/17) and Brompton Bicycle (C-833/18), has sought to suggest broader protection. However, uncertainty remained. Now, Mio/Konektra provides greater clarity. This is crucial for companies where design serves both aesthetic and utilitarian purposes.

Key Legal Developments

 Recognition of applied art: the CJEU confirms that furniture and modular systems can be protected if they reflect the author’s free and creative choices.

 Originality requirement: Protection requires originality, which means that the design must reflect the creator’s individuality rather than being dictated solely by technical function.

 EU-wide harmonization: The ruling brings national approaches into line, reducing fragmentation in the treatment of the applied arts.

 Impact on infringement cases: courts must assess whether the similarities between the products reflect the copying of creative choices, not merely a functional overlap.

Implications for businesses

 Design and furniture sector: greater protection for innovative designs, but also a higher risk of litigation for competitors.

 Fashion and luxury sector: the accessories and functional design sectors could now benefit from broader copyright protection.

 Manufacturing and retail: Companies must carefully monitor their product lines to avoid infringing on protected designs.

 Startups and technology: Modular systems and user-centered designs could be protected, thereby encouraging investment in creativity.

Practical guidelines

 Portfolio review: identifying which designs meet the standards of originality.

 Contractual safeguards: Update licensing and distribution agreements to reflect the new risks.

 Compliance strategy: Monitor EU case law and national implementation to stay ahead of the curve.

 Incentives for innovation: use the ruling as a lever to protect investments in research and development in design-intensive sectors.

Conclusion

The Mio/Konektra ruling marks a turning point for copyright in the field of applied art. By holding 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.