Design today is no longer limited to objects: it creates spaces, identities and experiences. It is precisely this evolution — from product to concept — that is reshaping the boundaries of intellectual property protection. This transformation cuts across fashion, furniture, retail and hospitality, reflecting a deeper shift in the way value is created in contemporary markets. Design no longer lies solely in the shape of an industrial product, but increasingly in the ability to create coherent environments, integrated visual languages and immersive experiences. Commercial spaces, window displays, contract projects, branded buildings, hotels and residences are therefore becoming natural extensions of a brand’s design identity and, progressively, valuable intellectual property assets. This evolution has inevitably changed the way the law approaches design protection. For many years, protection focused primarily on the industrial object itself — a chair, a lamp, a furnishing accessory — identified through its shape and protected by registered design rights or, where applicable, copyright law. Today, however, the value of design increasingly lies in the ability to organise space and coordinate different elements — products, surfaces, materials, lighting, layouts, colours and architectural components — within a unified creative project. Design therefore loses its merely “object-based” dimension and acquires a systemic function. Protection no longer concerns only the individual element, but rather the relationship between elements. The focus shifts from isolated form to an overall design language. This phenomenon is particularly evident in the extension of design from fashion into furniture and, subsequently, into the development of commercial spaces and immersive environments. Window displays and flagship stores no longer serve merely an exhibition function; they become instruments for constructing brand identity. At the same time, the growth of contract projects and branded buildings has expanded the role of design to include hotels, residences and hospitality environments, where competitive value lies less in the individual product and increasingly in the overall spatial experience. It is precisely at this stage that the main legal complexities emerge. Concept protection cannot be reduced to a single intellectual property right. The system necessarily operates on multiple levels, through a combination of registered designs, unregistered designs, copyright, trademarks and unfair competition law. Registered design protection naturally continues to play a central role in safeguarding the shape of individual products, ensuring legal certainty and procedural efficiency. However, when value shifts to the overall identity of a space or to the coordinated organization of elements, other forms of protection become increasingly relevant. Copyright law, in particular, plays a key role where the overall project displays creativity and originality. Italian case law has progressively consolidated the possibility of granting copyright protection to interior design projects and commercial spaces, focusing on the unitary design of the environment rather than on the individual items composing it. A landmark example is the well-known litigation before the Court of Milan (R.G. 80674/2013, judgment no. 11416/2015, Presiding Judge Tavassi, Reporting Judge Marangoni), later confirmed by the Milan Court of Appeal (R.G. 3945/2015, judgment no. 1543/2018 of 26 March 2018) and ultimately by the Italian Supreme Court (RG 17223/2018, judgment no. 8433/2020 of 6 February 2020). The Supreme Court established a principle of systemic importance for the protection of spatial design, holding that “under copyright law, an interior design project or work characterised by a unitary design scheme, visually identifiable and displaying a clear stylistic key through organised and coordinated components capable of creating a functional and harmonious environment — namely the personal imprint of the author — may qualify as an architectural work under Article 2(5) of the Italian Copyright Act.” Significantly, the Court clarified that protection does not require the inseparable incorporation of furnishing elements into the building itself. Nor does it matter whether the individual furnishing elements are simple, common or already known in the interior design sector, provided that their combination produces an original result not dictated by technical-functional constraints. Already in its 2015 decision, the Court of Milan had recognised the concept as an autonomous and protectable creative elaboration, emphasising the coordinated combination of elements characterising the retail space. The judgment described a minimalist stylistic context featuring symmetrical lines, large backlit graphics, inclined display structures, curved central islands, integrated screens, coordinated colour schemes and lighting effects. What was protected, therefore, was not the individual furnishing element, but the overall spatial organisation as an expression of a unitary creative project. The importance of this approach emerges even more clearly in recent litigation. Particularly noteworthy is the preliminary injunction proceeding before the Court of Rome in WYCON v. MIA Cosmetics (RG no. 8011/2025-1, decree no. 818/2025 of 19 March 2025 and order of 9 April 2025), which confirms the growing judicial attention devoted to the protection of retail concepts and the overall visual identity of commercial spaces. The core significance of these decisions lies in the shift from product protection to experience protection. Legal protection no longer requires an identical reproduction of a specific element; it may extend to the substantial similarity of the overall concept whenever such similarity results in the misappropriation of creative value or unfair competitive advantage. This case law development is further complemented by the new European regulatory framework introduced by Regulation (EU) 2024/2822 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2024, which amends Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs. The reform updates the notion of “product” for design protection purposes, expanding its scope in light of the increasing digitalization of creative processes and aesthetic experiences. In particular, the new legal framework encompasses non-physical representations and allows for the protection of dynamic design features, including movements, transitions and animations of product characteristics, as well as configurations affecting the visual perception of the object or space. This development forms part of the broader process of adaptation of EU law to contemporary design practices, where design increasingly manifests through immersive experiences and non-static visual configurations. This evolution is consistent with broader market dynamics. Consumers no longer simply purchase products; they engage with designed environments, coordinated atmospheres and recognisable spatial identities. In flagship stores, concept retail and luxury hospitality, architecture, interior design and branding increasingly converge and overlap. It is therefore unsurprising that imitation practices have progressively shifted from products to spaces. Competitive risk increasingly derives not from counterfeiting a single product, but from reproducing the atmosphere, design language or visual identity of an environment. This inevitably makes enforcement more complex, as the boundary between legitimate inspiration, aesthetic trends and unlawful appropriation becomes increasingly subtle. At the same time, the digitalization of design opens further scenarios. Today, concepts no longer exist solely in physical spaces, but circulate through images, renderings, digital platforms and virtual environments. Designed space becomes communicative content even before becoming a physical experience. Consequently, intellectual property law must adapt to a reality in which the value of design increasingly manifests itself through its digital representation and dissemination. Intellectual property protection for design is therefore undergoing a profound transformation. The object of protection no longer coincides exclusively with the traditional industrial product, but with complex aesthetic systems in which product, space, architecture and visual identity are increasingly integrated. In this context, the real legal challenge is no longer simply protecting individual creative elements, but governing and safeguarding the overall value generated by the concept itself.
2026 - Morri Rossetti
