France: Originality and beauty are not the same

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

France: Originality and beauty are not the same

Sponsored by

beau-de-lomenie.png

European regulations provide the possibility for works of applied art to benefit from both design right protection and copyright protection (for artistic work). Each form of protection is subject to its own specific rules. The scope and conditions of protection by copyright are subject to national rules.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has clarified the conditions for protection by copyright.

The litigation involved a designer. He complained that several of his clothing designs had been copied and he claimed copyright protection for these designs as original intellectual creations, as they were works producing an aesthetic effect. The first and second instance courts in Portugal ruled that "copyright benefits applied art works, industrial design and design works as long as they present an original character, namely they result from an intellectual personal creation from their author, without requiring a certain aesthetic or artistic value", deciding that the relevant clothes designs indeed benefit from such protection.

The CJEU was then asked to rule on whether a design could qualify as a work of art under copyright law,on the sole condition that the design produces, beyond its utilitarian purpose, an aesthetic effect.

The court first underlined that the notion of work is an autonomous concept of the European Union that must be given a uniform interpretation throughout the union, and needs two cumulative elements:

  • An original object – this object must reflect the author's own personality, expressing his original and personal choices. An object only realised under technical considerations that do not allow any creative freedom cannot be qualified as original

  • An object that can be identifiedobjectively and precisely enough, so it may be clearly known. The object cannot be identified on the basis of sensations, which are inherently subjective

The court then ruled that the aesthetic effect that might result from a design derives from the subjective sensation of beauty felt by any person who looks at it and is not objective and precise. Hence, even if these aesthetic considerations contribute to the creation, the fact that an aesthetic effect results from the design per se is not sufficient to determine whether the design is a work of art (decision of September 12 2019 (C-683-17), on a preliminary question of the Portugal Supreme Court).

For the full version of this article, please click here: http://bit.ly/IPNewsBDL1019

marie.jpg

Aurélia Marie

Cabinet Beau de Loménie

158, rue de l’Université

F - 75340 Paris Cedex 07 France

Tel: +33 1 44 18 89 00

Fax: +33 1 44 18 04 23

contact@bdl-ip.com

www.bdl-ip.com

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

In Iconix v Dream Pairs, the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was wrong to interfere with an earlier ruling, prompting questions about the appeal court’s remit
Chris Moore at HGF reflects on the ‘spirit of collegiality’ that led to an important ruling in G1/24, a case concerning how European patent claims should be interpreted
The court ruled against the owner of the ‘Umbro’ mark, despite noting that post-sale confusion can be a legitimate ground for infringement
Shem Otanga discusses the importance of curiosity and passion, and why he would have loved to have been a professional recording artist
Practitioners say the Bombay High Court shouldn’t have refused well-known trademark recognition for TikTok simply because the app is banned in India
In-house counsel explain why firms should provide risk management advice that helps them achieve their goals
Attorneys at four firms explain the AI trends they expect in the future, including a potential shift in who plaintiffs sue for copyright infringement
The dispute at the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court pits Dryrobe against D-Robe and will include a ‘genericide’ element
Novo Nordisk losing patent rights covering Ozempic in Canada and a US Supreme Court decision favouring Ed Sheeran were also among the top talking points
The court will hand down its ruling in Iconix v Dream Pairs on Tuesday, June 24, in a case that concerns post-sale confusion
Gift this article