The Court of Justice of the EU affirms its jurisprudence with

regard to the interpretation of the criterion of originality

Judgments MIO (C-580/23) and Konektra (C-795/23).

We can say without a doubt that we are beholding the most eagerly awaited industrial/intellectual property rulings of 2025.

Following the line of previous decisions such as Cofemel and Brompton, the High Court defines the scope of copyright protection for so-called applied works of art in these judgments. The main conclusions of the judgments are:

1.- Originality

In line with its previous jurisprudence, it is confirmed that, for the purpose of determining copyright protection for applied artworks, a higher threshold of originality does not apply than that which already exists for any other type of work. Ultimately, the only requirement is that the work in question reflects the author’s free and creative decisions.

2.- Independence between copyright and design

Copyright protection and design protection may coexist, but the two regimes are autonomous. Thus, the requirements for one of them do not necessarily imply the concurrence of those requirements for the other.

3.- Limitations arising from technical function

When the work in question is determined by technical or functional requirements that leave no room for any degree of creative freedom, the existence of originality is excluded. Applying the same principle, such originality exists in those cases where, despite technical considerations or limitations, it can be concluded that certain creative freedom exists. 

4.-Copyright infringement test

In order to determine if copyright infringement has occurred, it is necessary to confirm whether the creative elements of the protected work have been recognizably reproduced in the allegedly infringing work. This being the case, the fact that two works may create the same visual impression is irrelevant (this would be the test in the field of design, not copyright).

Link to the resolution: click here

December 17, 2025