On 2 July 2026 Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (BGH) handed down USM Haller II, the ruling in which it applies the CJEU’s Mio/konektra test to copyright works of applied art. The court did not decide whether the USM Haller modular furniture system is protected, but it set aside the appeal ruling that had denied protection and sent the case back with an objective method. For furniture, lighting and product designers selling in the EU, it confirms that copyright can sit alongside a registered design, judged by the same originality standard as any other work.
Key takeaways
- Works of applied art face no higher originality threshold than paintings, texts or software.
- Originality is assessed objectively, from the object itself; the designer’s intentions or awareness are not decisive.
- Museum exhibitions and recognition by experts can be indicators, but only if the object was chosen for its creative expression.
- Infringement turns on whether the creative elements are recognisable in the copy, not on a comparison of overall impressions.
- For functional objects, protection may in practice be narrow, sometimes limited to (almost) identical copies.
What did the BGH decide in USM Haller II?
The claimant makes the USM Haller system: chrome-plated tubes joined by spherical connectors, with metal panels set flush inside the frame. The defendant moved from selling spare parts to offering online every component needed to build complete USM-style units. The case history, as set out in the BGH judgment I ZR 96/22, is short:
| Date | Court | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 14 July 2020 | Düsseldorf Regional Court | Copyright claims granted |
| 2 June 2022 | Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court | Copyright denied; claims granted under unfair competition law |
| 21 December 2023 | BGH (USM Haller I) | Questions referred to the CJEU |
| 4 December 2025 | CJEU, joined cases C-580/23 and C-795/23 (Mio and Others) | EU originality test for applied art clarified, together with a Swedish reference |
| 2 July 2026 | BGH (USM Haller II) | Copyright ruling set aside and remitted; misleading advertising finding upheld |
The BGH could not rule on protection itself because further findings of fact are needed. It did uphold the finding that advertising “Sondereditionen für USM Haller” was misleading. The IPKat reported the full reasons on 23 July 2026.
How are copyright works of applied art assessed after Mio/konektra?
A work, under EU law, is an object that reflects its author’s personality by expressing free and creative choices. Choices dictated by technical, ergonomic or other constraints do not count, nor do free choices that give the object no unique aspect. The BGH used that test to correct the appeal court on four points:
| Issue | Appeal court (2022) | BGH after Mio/konektra (2026) |
|---|---|---|
| Threshold for applied art | Copyright should remain the exception compared with design protection | No rule-exception relationship; same requirements as other works |
| Point of view | Subjective: what the creators thought they were free to do | Objective, based on the object as presented |
| Museums and expert recognition | Doubtful relevance | Possible indicators, if linked to creative expression rather than novelty or utility |
| Aesthetic effect | Not enough on its own | Not enough on its own, but relevant if it results from free and creative choices |
On infringement, the BGH dropped its earlier requirement to compare the overall impression of the two objects, a criterion that belongs to design law. The question is whether the protected creative elements remain recognisable, looking at the new product as a whole. Even a small part can be enough if it expresses the author’s own creation.
Copyright or registered design: why not both?
Because the concept of a work is an autonomous notion of EU law, the same test applies in Spanish courts. Spanish law already allows both rights to be combined: copyright is “compatible and cumulative” with industrial property rights (Spanish Copyright Act, art. 3), and the Industrial Design Act (Law 20/2003, tenth additional provision) accepts cumulation where the design has the creativity and originality required for an artistic work.
- Registered design: protects novelty and individual character, judged by the overall impression on the informed user; in Spain it lasts five years, renewable up to 25 (Law 20/2003, art. 43).
- Copyright: arises without registration if the object is original; economic rights last for the author’s life plus 70 years (Spanish Copyright Act, art. 26).
What this means for your business
- Keep registering designs: they remain the predictable right.
- Identify, product by product, which features are free creative choices and which are dictated by function or industry standards.
- Keep evidence that speaks to the object itself: development files, rejected alternatives, and exhibitions or awards granted for its design.
- Check who owns the rights: in-house designers, freelancers and studios need clear assignments in each country.
- Prepare enforcement on several grounds, as USM did, combining copyright, design and unfair competition claims.
If your catalogue includes design classics, our copyright protection for works of applied art team can review which pieces are candidates, alongside your industrial design registrations.
Where companies get this wrong
- Relying on copyright instead of registering designs. Protection still depends on proving originality in court, and it may be narrow for functional products.
- Arguing from the designer’s intentions. After Mio/konektra, what counts is what the object shows, not what its creator meant.
- Leaving ownership loose. A copyright claim fails if the company cannot show it holds the rights from the designer.
Frequently asked questions
Did the BGH say the USM Haller system is protected by copyright?
No. The BGH set aside the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court’s ruling denying protection because it applied the wrong standards, and sent the case back for new findings. The appeal court must now decide, objectively and under the Mio/konektra test, whether the system’s features reflect free and creative choices, and then whether the defendant’s products reproduce them recognisably.
Is the threshold higher for furniture than for other works?
No. Following the CJEU’s judgment of 4 December 2025, the BGH confirmed that there is no rule-exception relationship between design and copyright protection. Works of applied art must meet the same originality requirement as other works. In practice, functional constraints leave less room for creative choices, so fewer objects qualify and protection may be narrower.
Does this ruling apply in Spain?
The judgment binds the German courts, but the test it applies comes from the CJEU’s interpretation of EU copyright law, which national courts across the Union must follow. Spanish law already allows copyright and design protection to be combined when a design is original enough to be an artistic work.
Can IP Global Guard assess whether our designs qualify for copyright?
Yes. We review your product portfolio, separate functional features from creative choices, check ownership and registered designs, and recommend where copyright adds value. For enforcement in other countries we coordinate qualified local counsel, so you keep a single point of contact for the whole portfolio.
How IP Global Guard protects product design
USM Haller II shows that strong product design can be protected on more than one ground, provided each right is built correctly. IP Global Guard, the intellectual property services line of META Channel Corporation Limited, coordinates designs, copyright and enforcement across more than 25 jurisdictions in Europe, Latin America and Africa.
Send us your key products and the markets where you sell them. We will tell you which rights each piece can rely on and how we would coordinate them. Talk to our team about your designs.
This article is general information, not legal advice, and does not replace an assessment of your specific situation.
Sources
- Bundesgerichtshof, judgment of 2 July 2026, I ZR 96/22, USM Haller II (including the CJEU ruling of 4 December 2025 in joined cases C-580/23 and C-795/23)
- The IPKat, USM Haller II, 23 July 2026
- BOE, Spanish Copyright Act (Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996), arts. 3 and 26
- BOE, Law 20/2003 on the Legal Protection of Industrial Design, art. 43 and tenth additional provision
