European Court of Justice rules on copyright protection for non-EU works of applied art

In a significant ruling the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Kwantum Nederland and another v Vitra Collections AG (Case C-227/23) EU:C:2024:914 has confirmed that works of applied art that satisfy the criteria for a “work” under Directive 2001/29/EC (the “Infosoc Directive”) qualify for copyright protection under EU law even if the work originates from a non-EU third country or the author is a third country national.  The ECJ’s ruling expands the scope of EU copyright protection and will make it easier for rightsholders outside the EU to enforce copyright to prevent the marketing and sale of imitation products within the EU.

The request for a preliminary ruling was made by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) in the context of domestic copyright infringement proceedings relating to the sale of a chair by Kwantum that Vitra alleged to be an imitation of the “DSW Chair”. Vitra manufactures designer furniture, such as the DSW Chair, which was designed by acclaimed American designers Charles and Ray Eames for a furniture design competition organised by the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1948.  Kwantum is a chain of shops operating in The Netherlands and Belgium selling interior design articles and home furniture, including the “Paris Chair”, which Vitra alleged to infringe copyright in the DSW Chair.

In this case the ECJ was required to consider the scope of copyright protection for applied art under the Infosoc Directive and the interplay between harmonised EU copyright law and the provisions of the Berne Convention. Works of applied art are essentially artistic works embodied in products that serve utilitarian or functional purposes, in this case a chair. The protection of applied art has proven challenging because the subject matter can straddle the boundaries of several intellectual property rights, including copyright, design rights and patents, which has often resulted in works of applied art not benefitting from copyright protection internationally and domestically.

On the protection of applied art under EU law, the ECJ confirmed that the qualifying criteria for copyright protection under the Infosoc Directive are not determined by or connected to geographic factors, such as the country where the work originated or the nationality of the author. The key is whether the applied art in question qualifies as a “work” and the ECJ confirmed that if it does the work can benefit from copyright protection under the Infosoc Directive.

The ECJ went on to decide that Member States cannot rely on a specific reciprocity exception under the Berne Convention to deny the protection afforded to works of applied art under EU law.  Consequently, where a work of applied art qualifies for protection under EU law, Member States must recognise that protection regardless of whether the work would have been protected under the Member States’ national laws or the laws of the country from which the applied artwork originated. 

The ECJ’s decision is significant as it clarifies and confirms the protection of applied art under EU law. The ECJ’s ruling also demonstrates the broad reach of EU copyright law under the Infosoc Directive. The ruling considerably strengthens the protection for rightsholders based outside the EU and will make it more straightforward to rely on copyright as a tool to stop imitation products being sold and marketed within the EU. 

From a purely UK perspective, the ECJ’s decision is not binding on English courts post-Brexit and therefore does not settle the protection of works of applied art under English law.  Even so, the ECJ’s decision confirms that those works can be protected throughout the EU and rightsholders will still benefit from EU protection even if the English courts adopt a different approach to that taken by the ECJ.