Joined Cases C-580/23 and C-795/23, Mio and Others: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 December 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen and Bundesgerichtshof – Sweden, Germany) – Mio AB, Mio e-handel AB, Mio Försäljning AB (C-580/23), USM U. Schärer Söhne AG (C-795/23) v Galleri Mikael & Thomas Asplund Aktiebolag (C-580/23), konektra GmbH, LN (C-795/23) (References for a preliminary ruling – Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society – Directive 2001/29/EC – Articles 2 to 4 – Reproduction right – Concept of work – Copyright protection of works of applied art – Assessment of the originality of subject matter of applied art – Concept of free and creative choices – Criteria for the assessment of those choices – Assessment of the infringement of exclusive rights)
Date: 2025-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: approximation of laws, artistic creation, copyright, designs and models, furniture industry, information society, work of art








C_202600603EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2026/603


9.2.2026






Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 December 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen and Bundesgerichtshof – Sweden, Germany) – Mio AB, Mio e-handel AB, Mio Försäljning AB (C-580/23), USM U. Schärer Söhne AG (C-795/23) v Galleri Mikael & Thomas Asplund Aktiebolag (C-580/23), konektra GmbH, LN (C-795/23)


(Joined Cases C-580/23 and C-795/23,
                (1)
Mio and Others)

(References for a preliminary ruling - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Articles 2 to 4 - Reproduction right - Concept of ‘work’ - Copyright protection of works of applied art - Assessment of the originality of subject matter of applied art - Concept of ‘free and creative choices’ - Criteria for the assessment of those choices - Assessment of the infringement of exclusive rights)
(C/2026/603)
Languages of the case: German and Swedish

Referring courts

Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen, Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants: Mio AB, Mio e-handel AB, Mio Försäljning AB (C-580/23), USM U. Schärer Söhne AG (C-795/23)

Defendants: Galleri Mikael & Thomas Asplund Aktiebolag (C-580/23), konektra GmbH, LN (C-795/23)

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society
must be interpreted as meaning that there is no relationship of rule and exception between design protection and copyright protection, such that, when assessing the originality of subject matter of applied art, it is necessary to apply stricter requirements than are laid down for other types of works.










2.


Article 2(a), Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29
must be interpreted as meaning that subject matter which reflects the personality of its author as an expression of his or her free and creative choices constitutes a work, for the purposes of those provisions. Choices dictated by various constraints, particularly technical, which bound that author during the creation of that subject matter are not free and creative, and nor are choices which, while free, do not bear the imprint of the author’s personality by giving that subject matter a unique appearance. Circumstances such as the author’s intentions during the creative process, his or her sources of inspiration and the use of shapes that are already available, the likelihood of a similar independent creation or the recognition of that subject matter in professional circles may be taken into account where appropriate, but are not, in any event, necessary or decisive for the purpose of establishing the originality of the subject matter for which protection is claimed.










3.


Article 2(a), Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29
must be interpreted as meaning that in order to establish a copyright infringement, it is necessary to determine whether creative elements of the protected work have been reproduced in a recognisable manner in the allegedly infringing subject matter. The same overall visual impression created by the subject matter in conflict and the degree of originality of the work concerned are irrelevant. The possibility of a similar creation cannot justify a refusal to grant protection.






(1)  OJ C, C/2023/964.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2026/603/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)