Why interior and furniture designers should rely on contracts

Copyright disputes relating to exhibition booth design – New decision of the Supreme Court (4 Ob 4/24b)

Just in time for the art fair in Vienna, the Supreme Court dealt with the question of whether the design of an exhibition booth can be protected by copyright. The plaintiff had designed the concept for the trade fair booth of an eyewear manufacturer and was of the opinion that the eyewear manufacturer was not allowed to change or reuse his design without his permission. All three levels of appeal denied this, which is why designers will have to rely more heavily on contractual provisions in future to protect their intellectual property.

The Case

The defendant, a manufacturer of eyewear, regularly participates in international trade fairs and commissioned the plaintiff to design a new trade fair booth, whereby existing design features of its old trade fair presentations, such as flowing lines and a minimalist design, were to be retained. The plaintiff then designed a concept that was implemented by a third party booth builder.

In the following years, the defendant used the plaintiff’s design as the basis for adapting and redesigning the booth. The plaintiff complained that these changes had been made without his consent and sued for injunction. In addition, his design was also used for a virtual trade fair booth in 2021, which in his opinion constituted a further infringement.

The legal judgment of the courts

The primary court dismissed the action and found that the plaintiff’s trade fair booth did enjoy partial copyright protection, but only for a certain construction of lamellas that resembled eyes. The rest of the booth, however, was composed of standard design elements and therefore not eligible for protection.

The Court of Appeal also confirmed this view and went on to state that the exhibition booth as a whole did not enjoy copyright protection. Even if individual parts could be granted protection, the changes made were justified by § 21 para. 1 sentence 2 of the Copyright Act (UrhG). In addition, the request for an injunction violates § 83 para. 3 UrhG, according to which the author cannot prohibit changes to works of architecture.

The Supreme Court also stated that no clearly defined, copyright-protected overall work of the applied arts could be derived from the argument. The “design” was not specified in more detail by the plaintiff and only selective impressions and technical-functional design elements such as showcases, sideboards, standing desks, pictures, high tables, bar-like stools and the like, which are usual for an exhibition booth, can be derived from the illustrations. The idea of incorporating the shape of the eyeglass frames into the design of the shelves and walls is not eligible for protection as such; wall shelves and shelving are also common elements for wall decoration, room division and object presentation.

CONCLUSION FOR THE INTERIOR AND FURNITURE DESIGN SECTOR

The Supreme Court’s decision once again makes it clear that the hurdles for copyright protection are set high, especially for designs that are strongly characterized by technical requirements or functionalities. Copyright protection only applies under certain conditions and functional and common design elements in particular, which may even be technical in nature, are generally not protected.

For designers of such (functional) objects who nevertheless wish to protect their work from unauthorized processing, it is therefore important to make clear contractual arrangements regarding usage and processing rights and not to rely solely on copyright law.

_{Disclaimer: This article is merely general information and not legal advice from ATTYS 05 Rechtsanwälte GmbH; it cannot and is not intended to replace individual legal advice. ATTYS 05 Rechtsanwälte GmbH assumes no liability whatsoever for the content and accuracy of the blog post.}