In its ruling on the copyright of USM Haller designer furniture, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) clarified the protection requirements for design objects as works of applied art.
Among other things, it ruled that the same copyright originality requirements apply to all types of works and specified these requirements for design objects. It also clarified the conditions for copyright infringement in cases of plagiarism of designer furniture (ECJ, judgment of 4 December 2025, C-580/23 and C-795/23).
Course of proceedings
The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) and a Swedish court had referred questions to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 2 to 4 of the Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC (Article 276 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; TFEU). The questions mainly concerned the specification of the criterion of originality of copyright-protected works.
The Swiss company SM U. Schärer Söhne AG (USM), manufacturer of the USM Haller furniture system, has been offering its luxury furniture and design system for many years. The German company Konektra GmbH began offering a similar furniture system, spare parts and an assembly service, as well as assembly instructions.
USM took legal action against this, claiming copyright infringement of the USM Haller furniture system as a work of applied art in accordance with §2 (2) Number 4 of the German Copyright and Related Rights Act; UrhG.
USM defended itself in all instances with the help of copyright injunctive relief and claims for damages. In addition, USM asserted claims under unfair competition law.
The Regional Court of Düsseldorf (LG Düsseldorf) initially upheld the copyright injunction claim (judgment of 14 July 2020, 14c O 57/19).
However, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (OLG Düsseldorf) rejected this argument and awarded USM only claims under unfair competition law. The USM Haller system was not a protected work of applied art within the meaning of §2 (1) Number 4, (2) UrhG, as it lacked the originality required for an „own intellectual creation“ (judgment of 2 July 2022, 20 U 259/20).
The parties appealed this decision to the Federal Court of Justice (BGH). The BGH referred questions on the interpretation of European copyright law to the ECJ.
Based on the decision, the First Civil Senate of the BGH will now have to decide on the appeal proceedings (as of 10 December 2025).
The Swedish question referred on copyright of the Palais Royal luxury table
A Swedish court previously referred a number of questions to the ECJ on the copyright protection of design objects.
The Swedish luxury brand Galleri Mikael & Thomas Asplund Aktiebolag (Asplund) took action against the company Mio, which offered a table similar to Asplund's Palais Royal design table. Asplund claimed copyright infringement.
It was linked to the German proceedings concerning copyright in the USM Haller luxury system for a joint decision by the ECJ.
Special features of the USM-Haller furniture system as a design object
In the case of functional objects that are design objects, such as the USM Haller furniture system, the outstanding design quality and craftsmanship of the objects play a fundamental role. Not only are they culturally and architecturally significant, they also constitute the central value-adding character of the object.
USM Haller is a world-renowned and iconic furniture construction system from the Swiss family-owned company USM. Its origins date back to 1885.
The USM Haller system was developed based on architectural considerations and consists of high-quality chrome tubes and precisely manufactured ball joints. These are the heart of the luxury system. Each module can be individually combined and expanded, allowing the system to be flexibly adapted to any room and use.
To this day, almost every part of the production process in Münsingen is carried out to the highest quality standards. For example, every hinge in the USM Haller furniture series is closed and opened up to 40.000 times to ensure that it is noise-free.
This unique combination of masterful craftsmanship, timeless and sustainable elegance, and functionality makes USM-Haller a design icon. The USM Haller system has been recognised as such by being included in the permanent architecture and design collection of the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York.
USM-Managing Director Alex Schärer said: "It's a classic. I would compare it to other products in MoMA, such as Le Corbusier's chairs. The special thing about classics is that they touch everyone, so the less you change the original, the better it is preserved."
Legal background: Copyright in design objects and works of applied art
When it comes to copyright protection for design objects such as the USM Haller furniture system, the intended use and the aesthetic and artistic design of the objects directly coincide.
On the one hand, it is necessary to prevent purely everyday forms from being monopolised by copyright law. On the other hand, design objects such as the USM Haller system must be protected and recognised for their aesthetic and artistic design and their combination with functionality.
Copyright law is partially harmonised under EU law. The Copyright Directive 2001/29/EC (InfoSoc Directive) and the specific EU case law are decisive.
Case law has established that the design object must be an original in the sense that „it represents the author's own intellectual creation.“ To this end, the design object must reflect the personality of the author by expressing his or her free and creative decisions (judgment of 12 September 2019, Cofemel, C‑683/17).
While the criterion of originality applies throughout the EU, the specific classification of a design object as a work remains the responsibility of the Member States. In the past, this has led to legal uncertainty for designers, manufacturers and distributors of design objects and luxury furniture circulating in the internal market.
Since the BGH's birthday train decision, German copyright law has applied the same requirements (in particular with regard to the level of creativity) to all types of works, including design objects such as the USM Haller luxury system, as works of applied art pursuant to §2 (1) Number 4 UrhG.
A design object is protected by copyright if it represents an individual, creative achievement, which in turn requires originality. This must involve a free, creative decision and must not be based solely on functionality (see: Federal Court of Justice ruling on copyright protection for Birkenstock sandals).
How did the ECJ specifically answer the questions about copyright in the USM Haller design system?
With its ruling, the ECJ has clarified its previous case law and made copyright protection for design objects more uniform.
What guidelines did the ECJ set out regarding the requirements for works of applied art and other types of works?
One question referred to the originality requirement and the relationship between copyright and design law. Specifically, the question was whether there is a rule-exception relationship and "whether higher requirements should be imposed when assessing the originality of applied art objects than for other types of works.“
The ECJ ruled that design objects can, in principle, enjoy cumulative protection under design and copyright law.
Both are independent forms of protection, but they have different legal requirements and purposes of protection. A stricter originality test for works of applied art would violate the uniformity of copyright law.
It replied that „there is no rule-exception relationship between design law and copyright law in the sense that higher requirements would have to be imposed on the examination of the originality of applied art objects than on other types of works.“
What guidelines did the ECJ provide on the criteria for originality in design objects like USM Haller?
The ECJ also answered a question on the assessment of the criterion of originality of objects of applied art. Specifically, the referring courts wanted to know „whether the originality of a utility object such as the pieces of furniture for which copyright protection is claimed in the present case must be assessed taking into account, inter alia, the intentions of the author during the creative process.“
In this regard, the ECJ confirmed the originality criteria of the Cofemel case law and stated that „in copyright law, in order to prove the originality of a work, the court seised must assess whether the object for which protection is claimed is the expression of free and creative decisions that reflect the personality of its author.“
The subjective intentions of the author in the creative process, his sources of inspiration and the use of existing forms, the likelihood of an independent similar creation or the recognition of the object in professional circles are not necessary or decisive for the assessment of originality.
In copyright law, a work is „an object that reflects the personality of its creator by expressing his or her free and creative decisions.“ The latter criterion is to be excluded by circumstances that are not free, such as technical constraints and circumstances that are not an expression of the creator's personality.
What specific details did the ECJ provide regarding copyright infringement in design objects like USM Haller?
The last question referred for a preliminary ruling concerned the specific requirements for copyright infringement in design objects such as USM Haller luxury furniture and the Palais Royal design table.
The ECJ ruled that, in order to determine whether copyright has been infringed, the overall impression created when comparing the objects and the level of creativity of the work are irrelevant. Copyright protection may not be denied on the grounds that a similar work can be easily created.
Rather, in order to establish copyright infringement, it must be determined „whether creative elements of the protected work have been recognisably incorporated into the object alleged to be infringing.“
Résumé
With its ruling, the ECJ strengthens the protection of design objects and luxury products such as the USM Haller furniture system and the Palais Royal table under European copyright law. It makes it clear that works of applied art are subject to the same originality requirements as other types of works and specifies these requirements. In doing so, the ECJ is following a similar line of jurisprudence to that of the BGH in the Birthday Train ruling.
"With the help of this decision by the ECJ, national courts can better recognise the excellent craftsmanship and creative mastery of design objects under copyright law. At the same time, it creates more legal certainty for designers, manufacturers and retailers in the internal market." Says dtb-lawyer and founding partner and expert in art and luxury brand law Dr. Pascal Decker.
Status 10.12.2025