In a highly anticipated judgment delivered on 18 December 20251, the Court of Justice of the European Union provides significant clarifications on the conditions for protection of Community designs, particularly in sectors characterised by strong visual standardisation and the pervasive influence of fashion trends. The decision forms part of the continuity of established case law, while offering important guidance for stakeholders in the ready-to-wear, footwear and, more broadly, the design industries.
To access the full text of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s decision, please click on the link below.
The case arose from a dispute between the Spanish company Deity Shoes, holder of several registered and unregistered Community designs relating to shoe models, and two competing companies, Mundorama Comfort and Stay Design. The latter challenged the validity of the asserted rights, arguing that the contested designs lacked both novelty and individual character within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.
A key factual element identified by the referring court concerned the manner in which the designs had been developed. They were largely created on the basis of Chinese suppliers’ catalogues, offering standardised models with predefined customisation options (soles, laces, buckles, colours and materials). The adaptations made by Deity Shoes were presented as limited, driven by cost considerations and prevailing fashion trends.
Against that background, the Spanish court referred several questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 4 to 6 and 14 of Regulation No 6/2002, in particular as to whether the protection of a Community design requires proof of a minimum creative effort.
The Court firmly recalls a fundamental principle: the system of protection for designs is distinct from copyright law. Unlike the concept of a “work” within the meaning of Directive 2001/29, the protection of a Community design does not require any minimum threshold of creativity or subjective originality.
Accordingly, to benefit from protection, a design must merely satisfy the two conditions expressly laid down by the Regulation, namely novelty and individual character, assessed by reference to the overall impression produced on the informed user. The Court expressly excludes any additional requirement that the designer demonstrate a specific intellectual or creative effort.
This clarification is of particular importance for industrial sectors in which creation frequently results from assemblies, adaptations or variations of pre-existing forms.
As regards individual character, the Court reiterates that its assessment is closely linked to the degree of freedom of the designer. The more that freedom is constrained, by technical, regulatory or functional requirements, the more minor visual differences may suffice to produce a different overall impression on the informed user.
The Court emphasises that the assessment must be global and cannot be based on an isolated examination of individual features. The informed user is neither an average consumer nor a technical expert, but a user with detailed knowledge of the relevant sector and a relatively high level of attention.
One of the most significant contributions of the judgment concerns the role of fashion trends. The Court holds that such trends cannot, as such, be regarded as constraints comparable to technical or regulatory limitations capable of restricting the designer’s freedom. On the contrary, the very nature of fashion, evolving, non-permanent and driven by visual innovation, presupposes a continuous freedom of reinterpretation.
As a result, the fact that a design follows a widely adopted fashion trend does not, in itself, preclude the recognition of individual character. Features derived from fashion trends should not automatically be considered of lesser importance in the assessment of the overall impression.
The Court also provides a clear answer to the sensitive issue of designs developed from pre-existing models offered by suppliers. The mere fact that a design incorporates predetermined visual characteristics taken from a supplier’s catalogue is not, in itself, sufficient to exclude protection.
On the one hand, “ad hoc” modifications made by the designer do not necessarily deprive the design of individual character. On the other hand, ownership of the Community design right, within the meaning of Article 14 of the Regulation, does not require that the designer have created ex nihilo each individual component of the product.
This judgment is of considerable practical importance for companies operating in the fashion, design and consumer goods sectors, whose creative processes are often embedded in constrained industrial and commercial environments. It reinforces the protection of designs developed within standardised frameworks, while recalling that the assessment of individual character remains a concrete and contextual exercise, ultimately falling within the jurisdiction of national courts.
The Deity Shoes decision thus confirms the balance sought by EU design law: safeguarding visual innovation without imposing an artistic creativity threshold, in line with a legal regime fundamentally oriented towards industry and the market.
1 CJEU, Second Chamber, 18 December 2025, Case C-323/24, Deity Shoes
