USM Haller Copyright Case: BGH Ruling (July 2026)

Modular design, plenty of chrome, and a timeless look: for decades, the USM Haller shelving system has stood as a design classic. The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) was called upon to decide whether a competing online shop may sell compatible replacement parts and offer its own assembly service. Put another way, the question was whether stricter requirements should apply when assessing the copyright protection of works of applied art compared to other types of works.

On July 2, 2026, the BGH issued its ruling and awarded the furniture manufacturer USM an important partial victory (judgment of July 2, 2026, case no. I ZR 96/22).

For companies that develop their own product designs, or that supply accessories or compatible parts for existing systems, this decision carries immediate practical significance.

The Facts of the Case

The Swiss company USM sued the operator of the online shop “konektra,” based in Nuremberg, for copyright infringement. Initially, Konektra had limited itself to selling individual replacement parts, a practice USM tolerated at the time. This changed when the online shop fundamentally repositioned itself in 2017 and 2018. From that point on, it no longer offered only individual replacement parts. Still, every component required to assemble a complete USM Haller shelving unit or sideboard is paired with an assembly service that would build the furniture on-site for the customer.

For USM, this crossed a line. The company no longer viewed this as simple parts trading, but rather as the manufacture and distribution of a separate furniture system identical to the original. USM sought, among other things, an injunction and a declaration of liability for damages before the courts, relying primarily on copyright law and, in the alternative, on competition law protection for commercial achievements.

The Legal Question: Functionality or Art?

USM takes the position that its shelving system constitutes a copyright-protected work of applied art within the meaning of Section 2(1) No. 4 UrhG. Konektra, in turn, argues that the system’s characteristic features, namely the tubes, ball joints, and panel fronts, are essentially dictated by technical function and leave no real room for creative expression.

At its core, the case raises the following question: Can a utilitarian object, meaning something that primarily serves a practical purpose, such as a piece of furniture, also be a copyright-protected work of art at the same time?

In principle, yes. Section 2(1) No. 4 UrhG expressly protects works of so-called applied art, meaning designs that combine aesthetics with function. What matters is whether the creator made use of genuine artistic freedom beyond the object’s purely functional purpose.

A piece of furniture whose form is dictated solely by technical or structural necessity would not qualify as a protectable work under this standard. One based on deliberate aesthetic choices could qualify. This was precisely the point of contention between the parties.

Importantly, under settled case law, aesthetic appeal alone is not sufficient to establish copyright protection: a piece of furniture being visually pleasing does not automatically make it a protected work. The BGH expressly confirmed this assessment, which had originally been made by the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, OLG Düsseldorf). The real point of dispute, then, was not whether aesthetics alone suffice, but what standard should apply in determining whether the designer had genuinely made a free creative decision.

The Referral to the CJEU

Before the BGH could examine the matter further, it first referred the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The BGH had stayed proceedings in December 2023 and submitted questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling, including whether works of applied art should be subject to stricter requirements regarding the creator’s free creative choices than other types of works.

The CJEU held that they should not. The same requirements apply to utilitarian objects as to any other copyright-protected work. What merits protection is whatever reflects the free and creative choices of the author, regardless of whether the work also serves a practical function. A copyright infringement exists where creative elements of the original are recognizably reproduced in the contested product.

The BGH’s Decision of July 2, 2026

The First Civil Senate of the BGH set aside the appellate judgment of the OLG Düsseldorf to the extent that it had denied a copyright infringement against USM. The OLG had previously granted the company only claims under competition law, while rejecting independent copyright protection for the furniture system. In the BGH’s view, this reasoning does not withstand legal scrutiny.

In its ruling, the BGH reaffirmed the CJEU’s guidance: works of applied art must not be subject to stricter requirements regarding the author’s free and creative design choices than other types of works. The assessment of copyright protectability must be carried out uniformly and objectively for all types of works, based on the specific work at hand. According to the Senate, the creator’s subjective perspective, such as a deliberate creative intention or an awareness of making a free creative choice, is not decisive. What matters is solely what is objectively reflected in the work itself.

Because the OLG Düsseldorf had not sufficiently applied these standards, the BGH referred the case back for a new hearing and decision. Konektra’s appeal, which sought full dismissal of the claim, was unsuccessful.

The OLG must now specifically determine which design features of the USM Haller system, such as the chrome-plated tubular rods, the spherical connectors, or the colored front panels, are based on free artistic choices and which are dictated purely by technical function. Only then can it be conclusively determined whether the Nuremberg-based competitor actually infringed on USM’s copyright. Under the BGH’s guidance, such an infringement requires that specific creative elements characteristic of the original be adopted and be recognizable in the contested product. A comparison of the overall impressions created by the two competing furniture systems is not decisive: it is not enough to place the two systems side by side in general terms and conclude that they produce a similar overall impression. Instead, the assessment must specifically examine whether the individual elements that establish the USM system’s originality were actually adopted.

Implications: What Could This Ruling Mean for Your Business?

Two distinct consequences can be drawn from this ruling, depending on which side of such a dispute your business might find itself on:

If you develop your own products or designs:

This ruling meaningfully lowers the bar for copyright protection. Even a purely utilitarian object, such as a piece of furniture, a tool, or a technical product, can be protected by copyright if its design is based on a free creative decision. It makes no difference whether you consciously viewed yourself as an “artist” during the design process, nor how aesthetically pleasing the result is. What matters is solely whether the design reflects freedom of choice beyond purely technical necessity. This gives manufacturers of furniture, product designs, or technical utilitarian objects additional means of taking action against imitators.

If you supply accessories, replacement parts, or compatible products for third-party systems:

Pure replacement parts trading, as Konektra initially engaged in, remains generally unproblematic. Matters become critical once a replacement parts business effectively turns into the distribution of a separate, complete system modeled on the original. Anyone who adopts the defining design features that establish a third-party product’s originality takes on risk, regardless of whether their own parts are technically compatible and less expensive. Businesses operating this kind of model would benefit from an early legal assessment of where the line lies between a permissible accessories business and impermissible imitation.

Conclusion: A Ruling with Signal Effect

The USM Haller case is not an isolated one. It exemplifies a question that concerns many companies in the design industry: how much protection does copyright law grant to designed products, and where does that protection end once form follows function?

The CJEU’s decision had already shown that copyright protection is possible without utilitarian objects, such as furniture, needing to attain the status of paintings or sculptures. With the July 2, 2026 ruling, this clarification has now also been reflected in German law: works of applied art must not be assessed more strictly than other creative works, and the assessment is carried out on a purely objective basis, independent of the designer’s subjective intent. At the same time, the BGH made clear that the aesthetic effect of a design alone remains insufficient, and that in an infringement case, what matters is not the overall impression but the specific adoption of individual elements that establish originality. Protection has therefore become easier to achieve, while remaining subject to strict evidentiary requirements in any infringement case.

Whether the USM Haller system will ultimately be granted copyright protection will be decided only after the OLG Düsseldorf has reheard the case in accordance with the BGH’s guidance. Nevertheless, the case remains a landmark for the design industry, since it lowers the overall bar for copyright protection of designed utilitarian objects without lowering the standard applied in infringement cases.

Schlun & Elseven: Legal Support in Copyright Law

Whether the matter concerns design protection, copyright infringement, or the enforcement of creative achievements against imitators, copyright disputes require not only legal expertise but also a strategic approach.

Schlun & Elseven provides comprehensive advice to businesses on copyright law, from an initial legal assessment through out-of-court enforcement to representation before German and European courts. Anyone seeking to protect their design or business achievements is well advised to seek legal support at an early stage.

Are you unsure whether your product or design is copyright-protected, or whether your own business model might touch on third-party protected rights? Contact us for an initial legal assessment of your individual situation.