Beyond creativity: can “Catalog Customization” be eligible for protection as a registered design?
27 Mar 2026
Court of Justice of the European Union, 18 December 2025
Is personalizing components of pre-existing models sufficient to obtain “Community design” protection under Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002, or is it necessary to demonstrate a creative contribution of the designer? With its recent judgment in Case C-323/24, the Court of Justice of the European Union has provided definitive clarity on this point.
The company Deity Shoes had registered designs for footwear created by personalizing components (colors, buckles) of pre-existing models from suppliers’ catalogs according to predetermined lists. Competitors Mundorama Confort and Stay Design challenged the validity of these registered designs, arguing that the mere combination of pre-existing elements did not represent a genuine “creative effort” worthy of protection.
The Court of Justice ruled that no creative activity is required from the author of a design for it to be protected under the aforementioned Regulation. Unlike copyright law, design protection relies exclusively on two objective requirements: novelty and individual character.
Therefore, combining predetermined features from a catalog does not prevent the recognition of individual character. The decisive factor is that the overall impression produced on the so-called “informed user” must be different from that produced by any pre-existing model.
Furthermore, regarding fashion trends, the European judges ruled out that current “trends” do not constitute a limitation on the author’s freedom, such that small differences between several models may be sufficient to generate a different overall impression. Nor could fashion trends influence the informed user making him less attentive to elements common to that “trend”; according to the Court, these trends may impact the consumer’s aesthetic perception or the product’s commercial success, but not the overall impression the design produces on the informed user. This decision appears to mark a clear departure from Italian case law (see, e.g., Court of Milan, May 15, 2018 and Court of Genoa, July 18, 2006), which in the past had considered fashion trends, sector crowding and market demands as factors limiting the designer’s creative freedom.
Elena Salmi
