On the 24th October 2024, the Court of Justice of the EU handed down its Judgement in the Kwantum case (C-227/23), concerning the protection of works of applied art whose country of origin is outside the EU.
Vitra is a Swiss company that produces designer furniture, among which is the Dining Sidechair Wood (DSW chair), designed by the late Charles and Ray Eames, both USA nationals. In 2014, Vitra, as owner of the exploitation rights to the DSW chair, sued Kwantum, a company that marketed the ‘Paris’ chair in the Netherlands, which, according to Vitra, infringed the copyrights of the DSW chair.
While it is true that the protection of works of applied art by copyright does not raise much discussion as long as they are sufficiently original, the problem in this case originates from Art.2.7 of the Berne Convention, which contains a material reciprocity clause that constitutes an exception to the principle of national treatment that governs the Berne Convention. By virtue of the material reciprocity clause, works of applied art which in their country of origin can only be protected as designs cannot claim copyright protection in addition to design protection in third countries.
Thus, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands referred several jurisdictional questions to the CJEU regarding the protection of copyright works of art under Directive 2001/29, the Berne Convention and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Firstly, the CJEU recalls that the sole requirement for copyright protection of an object under Directive 2001/29 is that it must be original, without any additional requirement relating to its country of origin or the nationality of its author.
As regards the material reciprocity clause in the Berne Convention, the CJEU considers that allowing its application by each Member State would undermine the objective of harmonisation of copyright in the internal market of Directive 2001/29, as this could lead to differences in treatment depending on the Member State.
It should also be borne in mind that this clause would be a limitation on copyright, as it would prevent its exercise in certain Member States. In this sense, copyright is protected by the EU Fundamental Rights Charter (Art.17), so that it can only be limited by law (Art.52.1), respecting in any case its essential content, being the European legislator the only one legitimised to do so.
Therefore, the CJEU understands that, by adopting Directive 2001/29, the EU has replaced the Member States in its scope of application, so that the Member States are no longer competent to apply the relevant provisions of the Berne Convention. And, therefore, the EU having decided not to establish a material reciprocity clause for works of applied art, they will be protected by copyright as long as they are original, regardless of the country of origin of the author’s work.
Jorge Díaz Rodríguez
Lawyer
