A work of the mind is eligible for copyright protection provided it is “original”, that is to say, bears the imprint of its author’s personality. This criterion remains difficult for trial judges to define, and the Court of Cassation is providing guidance here by applying criteria derived from European law and recently reiterated by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
How can one assess the originality of a work of applied art (in this case, display stands)? It’s a timeless question, fraught with subjectivity!
The facts are as follows.
After losing a tender, Someva, a company specialising in the design and manufacture of display units for large retail chains, sued Evema for copyright infringement in relation to its designs for display units entitled “Fruit and Vegetable Concept”, “Aisle Display” and “Organic Wall Display”, as well as for unfair competition. The Rennes Court of Appeal first recognised the originality of these designs and found Evema guilty of infringement.
However, the Court of Cassation does not see things that way. It has partially quashed the judgment and, for the first time, has explicitly referred to the judgments handed down very recently by the CJEU (Mio and USM, 4 December 2025, C-580/23 and C-795/23).
➡️ It thus states that works of applied art are utilitarian objects whose creation may have been guided by technical, ergonomic or safety constraints, or may result from industry standards. The requirement of originality may be met where these technical considerations have not prevented the creator from reflecting their personality in the work, by making free …
