Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

France: Originality and beauty are not the same

Sponsored by


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:


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

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

12th annual awards announces winners
Sources say parties in trademark cases could tussle over the meaning of source identifier and whether surveys are fair, following the US Supreme Court ruling
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
In-house sources say the UPC’s determinations on validity, injunctions, and damages could dictate whether companies leave their patents in or out
Business is quiet so far but the UPC has everything it needs to attract patentees, panellists at Managing IP’s IP & Innovation Summit argued yesterday, June 7
Reviewing the list of automatically qualifying degrees every three years is a great idea and should bring more tech-savvy people to the bar
A Foss Patents blog post revealed that Mr Justice Marcus Smith handed down his judgment in Optis v Apple on May 10
Witnesses during a committee hearing criticised proposals to increase some fees by as much as 400%
Sources say they are likely to hire external counsel that can create a lasting first impression but might turn their backs on lawyers who have nothing new to offer
Varuni Paranavitane, of counsel at Finnegan, examines recent decisions by US and UK courts to demonstrate the proof of infringement that was required