Current Developments in German Copyright Law: The USM Haller Case

Modular, with its signature chrome finish and an unmistakably timeless look — anyone who knows the USM Haller furniture system recognizes it immediately. For decades, it has been considered a design classic. But can a competing online retailer sell compatible spare parts and even offer an assembly service that assembles them into a finished piece of furniture? That is the question now before Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) — and the answer could reshape copyright protection for designed products across Europe.

Case Background: USM vs. Konektra

The Swiss company USM has sued the operator of the German online shop “konektra,” based in Nuremberg, for copyright infringement. Initially, “konektra” had only sold spare parts — something USM had tolerated at the time. That changed when the shop was fundamentally restructured in 2017/2018: since then, it has offered not merely individual components but everything required to assemble a complete USM Haller shelf or sideboard, along with an on-site assembly service. The parts match the original components in shape and, for the most part, in color, too.

For USM, this crossed a line. The company no longer views this as simple parts trading, but as the manufacture and distribution of a furniture system identical to its own. USM is seeking, among other remedies, an injunction and a declaration of liability in damages — primarily on copyright grounds, with a secondary claim under unfair competition law (case reference I ZR 96/22). The BGH heard oral argument on April 23, 2026; judgment is expected on July 2.

The Legal Question: Functionality or Art?

USM takes the position that its furniture system qualifies as a copyright-protected work of applied art within the meaning of Section 2(1)(4) of the German Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz, UrhG). “Konektra” argues that the defining features of the USM Haller system — its tubes, spheres, and panels — are essentially dictated by technical and functional requirements, leaving no genuine scope for creative expression.

The core question is therefore: can an everyday object that serves a practical purpose — such as a piece of furniture primarily — also qualify as a copyright-protected work of art under German copyright law?

In principle: yes. Section 2(1)(4) UrhG expressly protects works of applied art — that is, designs that combine aesthetic and functional qualities. What matters, however, is whether the creator exercised genuine artistic freedom beyond the purely functional purpose.

A piece of furniture whose form is determined solely by technical or structural necessity — one governed purely by function — would not qualify as a protectable work. One that reflects deliberate aesthetic choices could.

That is precisely the point in dispute. “Konektra” argues that the defining features of the USM Haller system are essentially the product of functional requirements and leave no room for genuine creative choice. USM, naturally, takes the opposite view.

Via Luxembourg: The Case Before the CJEU

Before the BGH could examine the question in depth, the matter was first referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The BGH had stayed the proceedings in December 2023 and referred a number of questions for a preliminary ruling, including whether works of applied art face a higher bar for copyright protection than other categories of work.

The CJEU’s answer: no. The same requirements apply to everyday objects as to any other copyright-protected work. Protection extends to whatever reflects the author’s free and creative choices — regardless of whether the work also has a practical utility. And a copyright infringement arises where creative elements of the original are recognizably reproduced in the contested product.

What the BGH Has Signaled — and What It Means for German Copyright Law

The presiding judge, Thomas Koch, left little doubt at the oral hearing that the appellate judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, OLG Düsseldorf) — which had denied copyright protection — is unlikely to survive BGH scrutiny. The likeliest outcome: the BGH refers the matter back to the OLG Düsseldorf for a fresh hearing, this time applying the CJEU’s standards.

The OLG would then need to examine specifically which design decisions in the USM Haller system were genuine creative choices — and which simply followed technical or functional constraints. Whether USM will ultimately prevail remains to be seen. But the threshold is now lower than it was.

Copyright Protection for Design: A Ruling with Wider Implications?

The USM Haller case is not an isolated one. It reflects a broader question facing many design companies: how much protection does copyright law afford to designed products – and where does that protection end, given that form simply follows function?

The CJEU ruling has made clear that German copyright law — and by extension, copyright law across the EU – extends to everyday objects without requiring them to achieve the status of paintings or sculptures. That is a welcome clarification – and one long overdue. Whether it will directly benefit the USM Haller system will become clear on July 2. The design industry will be watching closely.

German Copyright Law Advice from Schlun & Elseven

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

Schlun & Elseven advises companies, creative professionals, and individuals across the full range of copyright law: from initial legal assessment through out-of-court enforcement to representation before German and European courts. Those seeking to protect their creative or commercial rights should seek legal support at an early stage — before an avoidable dispute becomes years of litigation.