Sole searching: How Deity Shoes found protection without breaking new ground

On 18 December 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union ('The Court') published its judgment on the Deity Shoes v Mundorama Confort and Stay Design case, which concerns the alleged infringement of community designs for shoes.

The preliminary ruling centred around the interpretation of Articles 4 to 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community Designs ('Community Designs Regulation').  

We explore what the judgment means for EU Community design protection and why brands using catalogue-based design processes may have more legal coverage than they think.

Background

The case originates in Alicante, Spain, where the appellant, Deity Shoes brought an action against two competitors, Mundorama Confort and Stay Design in 2021 for copying their designs for several models of shoes. The proceedings concerned both registered and unregistered Community designs for several models of shoes owned by Deity Shoes. 

Deity Shoes creates its shoes by choosing options from Chinese suppliers’ catalogues, where they pick colours, materials, buckles, laces and more from predetermined lists. 

In April 2022, the competitors filed a counterclaim for a declaration of invalidity of those designs, arguing that selecting and tweaking components from suppliers’ catalogues does not amount to the kind of novelty and individual character required for protection under Article 5 and 6 of the Regulation.  

The Spanish court referred questions to the CJEU for guidance. First, whether Articles 4 to 6 of the Community Designs Regulation required a design to reflect a minimum degree of creative originality beyond satisfying the conditions of novelty and individual character; and second, whether features linked to fashion trends should be disregarded or given less weight when assessing individual character and the degree of designer freedom. 

Legal framework: Community Designs Regulation

• Article 4: Requirements for Protection - a design qualifies for Community protection to the extent it is new and has individual character. 
• Article 5: Novelty - a design is considered new if no identical design has been made available to the public before the relevant date - the filing or priority date for registered designs, or the date of first disclosure for unregistered designs. Designs are treated as identical where their features differ only in immaterial details.  
• Article 6: Individual Character - a design is considered to have individual character if the overall impression it produces on the ‘informed user’ differs from the overall impression produced on that user by any design previously made available to the public. The 'informed user' is someone who, without being a designer or technical expert, is familiar with existing designs in the sector and pays a relatively high level of attention to them. The degree of freedom the designer had in developing the design shall be taken into account in this regard. 

1. Does a designer need to show genuine creativity to be protected? 

The Court ruled that to obtain design protection under the Regulation, a designer need only satisfy two conditions: novelty under Article 5 and individual character under Article 6. There is no additional requirement to demonstrate a minimum degree of creative originality beyond these. 

The Court stressed the fact that even if a design used pre-determined components from a catalogue, and modifications are only minor, then it does not prevent a design from being protected. A design can be made up of various existing elements, as long as the overall result produces a different overall impression on an 'informed user', compared to any single previous design.  

2. What about following fashion trends? 

The Court ruled that fashion trends do not limit designer freedom in a way that would make minor differences between designs count as unique. The Court noted that features linked to fashion trends differ from those linked to technical function or legal requirements. It is of the very essence of fashion not to last, and to evolve according to both visual and technological innovation. 

Moreover, the fact that certain features are linked to fashion trends does not diminish their relevance to the overall impression assessed by the informed user. 

Key takeaways

• Design protection is about appearance, not creative process: EU law protects how a product looks, irrespective of how much effort went into designing it.
• Novelty and individual character are sufficient: There is no requirement to prove additional creativity beyond these two requirements.
• Catalogue customisation is legitimate: Using suppliers' components and catalogues cannot, in itself, prevent a design from qualifying for protection – though the conditions of novelty and individual character must still be met.
• Fashion trends do not lower the bar: Trendy features carry equal weight in the overall impression assessment, and prevailing trends do not restrict designer freedom.
• The informed user is key: A design must create a different overall impression on someone with knowledge of the relevant sector, not just an average consumer.
• The outcome remains to be decided: The Court clarified the law but did not determine whether Deity Shoes’ designs are actually protected. That factual assessment has been remitted to the Spanish national court. 

Conclusion

The Deity Shoes judgment clarifies that EU design law focuses on product output, not what happens in the design studio. Under the Community Design Regulation, appearance is the decisive factor – and whether you are sketching original concepts or selecting from a supplier’s catalogue – you do not need to demonstrate a minimum degree of creation on top of novelty and individual character in order to qualify for protection.

For the footwear industry specifically, this means that brands using catalogue-based design approaches can compete on equal legal footing with traditional designers – but only if they create designs that truly stand out in the marketplace. 

Now that the Court has clarified the legal framework, it is back to the Spanish court to carry out its factual assessment.

NB: The Community Designs Regulation has since been amended by Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 of 23 October 2024, though this case was decided under the original version given the dates of the relevant facts.