Imagine that you have created a cabinet. It is minimalistic, consisting of chrome tubes, metal ball connectors, and vibrant panels. It is so successful that it is exhibited in museums of modern art, and you have been selling it for decades. And then another company starts producing exact replica parts from which an identical shelving system can be assembled.

You go to court with a copyright infringement lawsuit, only to hear in response: “Wait, but these are just furniture. What copyright are you talking about?”

This exact legal drama is unfolding between the Swiss manufacturer of iconic modular furniture, USM Haller, and the German company Konektra.

The Conflict: From Spare Parts to Full Clones

The USM Haller system is an icon of industrial design. Thanks to its patented ball connector, it allows for the assembly of sideboards, shelving units, and desks of any configuration.

For a long time, Konektra sold only spare parts and extension elements for USM Haller furniture. The original manufacturer turned a blind eye to this. However, around 2017–2018, Konektra went further and began offering a complete set of components allowing buyers to assemble the exact same furniture from scratch.

USM Haller filed a lawsuit, accusing its competitor of copyright infringement and unfair competition.

A Judicial Marathon: From Düsseldorf to the EU Court of Justice

The legal proceedings turned into a real legal thriller:

• The Düsseldorf Regional Court supported USM Haller and recognized copyright infringement.

• The Higher Regional Court overturned this decision. In the judges’ opinion, furniture is primarily a utilitarian item; therefore, copyright protection does not apply to it (although it did recognize a violation of unfair competition law).

• The Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH) stayed the proceedings and referred a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to clarify where the line is drawn between ordinary industrial design and a work of art.

Having received the CJEU’s response in the Mio and Others case, the German Federal Court of Justice vacated the decision of the lower instance and remanded the case for a rehearing, criticizing the lower court’s logic.

Four Key Questions: When Does Furniture Become Art?

The Federal Court of Justice of Germany clearly outlined the mistakes made by the lower court judges in assessing the design:

1. Are “stricter” standards required for furniture?

No. The CJEU and the German Federal Court of Justice emphasized that the criteria of originality for utilitarian items (works of applied art) are exactly the same as for paintings, music, or literature. The subject matter must reflect the author’s personality through their free and creative choices. If a design is entirely dictated by technical function (for instance, simply to keep the structure from collapsing), there is no creative freedom. However, if there was room for an artistic decision, it can be a work of art.

2. Museum status and expert recognition

Is recognition in artistic circles proof of originality?

The Federal Court noted that the fact that furniture is exhibited in museums (such as New York’s MoMA) or receives prestigious awards can be an indicator of the presence of an author’s concept. However, this is not a decisive argument: if a museum recognized an item solely for its technical innovation or convenience, that alone does not make it a copyright-protected work.

3. The subjective intent of the author is irrelevant

The lower court attempted to evaluate what the designer himself was thinking during the creation of the system. The judges of the higher instance reminded that originality is assessed objectively, not based on whether the author considered himself an artist or merely an engineer.

4. Aesthetic effect as an expression of creativity

The lower court believed that aesthetic impression in itself does not confer entitlement to protection. The Federal Court clarified that if the aesthetic appearance is precisely the result of the author’s free artistic choices, it directly testifies to the existence of a work of art.

How to Evaluate Plagiarism in Design?

The most interesting part of the ruling concerns how to compare the original and the copy.

The CJEU stated that to establish an infringement, the creative elements of the original work must be recognizable in the disputed product.

German judges added an important practical observation:

If a work possesses a high level of originality and vividly expresses the author’s individuality, its elements will be easily recognizable even in a new design. However, if the furniture design was largely constrained by its functional purpose, the level of originality will be low. In such a case, copyright will protect only against virtually identical copying.

Why Is This Case Important for the Industry?

The Federal Court of Justice of Germany has not yet given a final answer as to whether the USM Haller system is a work of art — this decision must now be made again by the Higher Regional Court in light of the new guidance.

However, this case sets a precedent for the entire design and furniture market in Europe. It demonstrates how thin the line is between a functional everyday object and a copyright subject matter, and how difficult it is for courts to assess “creative freedom” under strict engineering constraints.

Founder of Research & Patent group Intectica, author of patent algorithms for solving problems in the pharmaceutical industry, patent attorney certified in all intellectual property objects (Patents, Design, TM), with education in chemistry and law, chief expert of the patent institution of Ukraine UKRPATENT (1997-2004). Member of international organizations, including ECTA, PTMG, UAM, lecturer and blogger.