IECL Seminar Series

Jialin Li

Medical Dispute Resolution Mechanism from the Perspective of Comparative Law

Marc Huckschlag

Diverging Approaches to Copyright and Design Cumulation under the EU Notion of Originality

While literature, visual arts, and music traditionally fall within the scope of copyright, the status of applied arts, interior design, and architecture is more complex. A common view holds that everyday objects “belong” to design law, whereas copyright should remain reserved for the “finer things.” Seeking to break away from this perception, design law has evolved conceptually—from a complementary form of protection to an independent sui generis regime rooted in its own “design approach.” Yet, tensions persist, as the close relationship between copyright and design law continues to generate frictions.

Both regimes protect similar subject matter and apply comparable criteria, leading to substantial overlap. On the same token, they differ significantly in legal consequences, scope, and limitations, creating conflicts in purpose and effectiveness. Design law, with its registration requirement and shorter duration, is often perceived as inferior to copyright, which arises informally and provides a far longer term of protection. This imbalance risks marginalizing design law in favor of copyright.

Indeed, one may wonder why identical creative processes and outcomes fall under distinct legal regimes in the first place. This very question has led various jurisdictions to limit the overlap or mitigate its effects. Over time, different solutions have emerged, culminating most recently in the CJEU’s Cofemel ruling—by some, considered the least successful attempt. Rather than providing a coherent solution, Cofemel imposed its unitary notion of originality, without further guidance on how to limit cumulation or to what extent established practices might fill this gap. The result has been lingering legal uncertainty, ultimately prompting two further referrals in Mio and Konektra.

Against this backdrop, this presentation explores potential solutions and proposes practical mechanisms to reconcile both legal frameworks in line with CJEU case law. It examines various national approaches within and beyond the EU, assessing their potential to create a coherent system that ensures legal certainty, preserves the effectiveness of both regimes, and keeps essential design elements freely available.