Deity Shoes Judgment: CJEU Clarifies Individual Character in Design Law

CJEU, 18 December 2025, Deity Shoes, ECLI:EU:C:2025:983

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has handed down an important judgment clarifying the scope of protection for Community designs under Regulation (EC) No 6/2002.

Background on the Deity Shoes Judgement

Deity Shoes owns several registered and unregistered Community designs relating to shoes. In December 2021, it brought infringement proceedings before the Commercial Court in Alicante against Mundorama Confort and Stay Design.

In response, the defendants filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that Deity Shoes’ designs were invalid. Their argument focused on how the designs were created. According to the Court, Deity Shoes’ shoes were based largely on catalogues provided by Chinese trading undertakings. Those catalogues allowed Deity Shoes to select from pre-existing shoe models and customise certain elements such as soles, laces, buckles or rivets from predetermined lists.

The Alicante court questioned whether such designs genuinely deserved protection under EU design law, particularly where:

• the overall design followed existing fashion trends;
• the creative choices were limited; and
• the business model focused on large-scale, low-cost production rather than innovation.

Faced with these doubts, the court stayed proceedings and referred four questions to the CJEU.

The Questions Referred

In essence, the national court asked whether:

1. Protection under the Community design regime requires a minimum level of creative or intellectual effort by the designer.
2. Designs assembled from catalogue components, with only ad hoc modifications, can still have individual character under Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.
3. A person who merely customises an existing catalogue design can be regarded as the designer under Article 14 of the Regulation.
4. Fashion trends either reduce the designer’s freedom (so that even minor differences create a new overall impression), or undermine individual character because trend-driven features should be given less weight.

The CJEU’s Ruling

The Court grouped the questions and gave two key answers.

No Minimum Creativity Requirement

Addressing the first and third questions, the CJEU held that:

A Community design does not need to be the result of a minimum degree of creative or intellectual effort in order to be protected.

As long as the design meets the statutory requirements of novelty (Article 5) and individual character (Article 6), protection is available. The Court made clear that neither Regulation No 6/2002 nor Article 14 (on authorship) requires proof of creative originality or a “genuine design activity” beyond those criteria.

In other words, EU design law does not operate like copyright law. There is no creativity threshold to cross.

Catalogue-Based Designs and Fashion Trends

Turning to the second and fourth questions, the Court clarified the assessment of individual character.

First, the fact that a design:

• is based on a supplier’s catalogue,
• has visual features that are largely predetermined, and
• involves only limited or ad hoc modifications using available components,

does not, by itself, prevent the design from having individual character under Article 6.

Secondly, the Court rejected the idea that fashion trends automatically weaken protection. Fashion trends:

• do not necessarily restrict the designer’s freedom so much that minor differences will always create a different overall impression; and
• do not mean that trend-driven features should be given less weight when assessing the overall impression on the informed user.

Why This Matters: Understanding “Individual Character”

The heart of the judgment lies in the Court’s approach to individual character, a core requirement for design protection.

Under Recital 14 and Article 6 of the Regulation, a design has individual character if the overall impression it produces on the informed user differs from that produced by earlier designs. In assessing this, courts must take into account:

• the nature of the product;
• the industrial sector concerned; and
• the degree of freedom available to the designer.

Importantly, the CJEU reiterated earlier case law (including Ferrari, C‑123/20) confirming that:

• individual character must be assessed against individual prior designs, not by assembling features from multiple earlier designs; and
• a protected design may legitimately combine elements from existing designs, provided the overall impression is different.

The Regulation deliberately focuses on what the informed user perceives, not on how much effort or creativity went into the design process.

Practical Implications of the Deity Shoes Judgement

The Deity Shoes judgment provides welcome clarity for businesses operating in fast-moving, trend-driven industries:

• No creativity hurdle: Designers and brand owners do not need to prove creative originality beyond novelty and individual character.
• Catalogue customisation is not fatal: Selecting and modifying designs from supplier catalogues can still result in valid Community designs.
• Fashion trends do not undermine protection: Trend-driven features remain relevant to the overall impression and are not automatically discounted.
• Lower barriers to protection: The decision reinforces the accessibility of EU design protection, particularly for SMEs and mass-market producers.

Conclusion

The CJEU has confirmed that Community design protection is deliberately pragmatic. It protects market-facing design outcomes rather than rewarding creative effort as such. For sectors where catalogue-based customisation and fashion trends are the norm, Deity Shoes provides reassurance that EU design law remains a viable and robust form of protection.

If you wish to discuss this topic with our team, reach out to Piers Strickland.