On 24 October 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued an important ruling in Kwantum v Vitra. This ruling addresses the intersection of EU copyright law and the reciprocity test of Article 2(7) of the Berne Convention (BC Reciprocity Test). The decision could fundamentally alter copyright protection in the EU, particularly for works from third countries that do not offer domestic protection. As a result, works of applied art from non-EU countries, including the United States, may now receive full copyright recognition within the EU. The ruling also underscores the CJEU's continued push for harmonisation of copyright across EU member states.

Background

The case centred on the iconic Dining Sidechair Wood (DSW chair), designed by well-known American designers Charles and Ray Eames. Vitra Collections AG (Vitra) is a Swiss company that holds the intellectual property rights for the DSW chair and is the exclusive distributor of the chair in the EU. Vitra alleged that Kwantum Nederland B.V. and Kwantum België B.V. (Kwantum) had infringed its copyright by selling the "Paris chair", which resembles the DSW chair, within the EU without authorisation. In 2015, Vitra started legal proceedings against Kwantum in the Netherlands.

The District Court of The Hague initially ruled in favour of Kwantum, but the Court of Appeal of The Hague overturned this decision, ruling that Kwantum had infringed Vitra's copyright. On further appeal, the Dutch Supreme Court referred the case to the CJEU, asking it to clarify whether the Netherlands could apply the BC Reciprocity Test to works originating from third countries, specifically in the context of EU copyright law. The BC Reciprocity Test provides that works protected as designs and models in their country of origin should only receive the same level of protection in another country as is granted to designs and models in that country.

CJEU answers preliminary questions

Material scope of EU law

The CJEU first confirmed that the dispute fell within the material scope of EU law, as it concerned a party seeking copyright protection for a work of applied art marketed within an EU member state. The CJEU emphasised that, for a work to be eligible for copyright protection under EU law, it must qualify as a "work" within the meaning of the InfoSoc Directive.

EU copyright law

The CJEU further concluded that EU law precludes member states from applying the BC Reciprocity Test to works of applied art originating from third countries. It clarified that the matter of copyright protection under EU law falls exclusively within the competence of the EU legislature, not the individual member states. The court pointed out that the InfoSoc Directive, particularly Articles 2(a) and 4(1), imposes no requirements regarding the origin of the work or the nationality of the author. The CJEU emphasised that the legislative intent behind the InfoSoc Directive is to ensure protection for all works within the EU, irrespective of their origin or the nationality of their creators. This approach aligns with the overarching goal of the InfoSoc Directive to harmonise copyright protection across the internal market.

Derogation from EU law for reciprocity under Berne Convention?

Finally, the CJEU addressed whether Article 351 TFEU allows EU member states to derogate from EU law in order to apply the BC Reciprocity Test. The CJEU rejected this argument, clarifying that while Article 351(1) TFEU preserves rights and obligations under agreements concluded between EU Member States and third countries before 1958, this preservation only applies where those agreements do not conflict with EU law.

In this context, the CJEU established that the wording of Article 2(7) of the Berne Convention does not prohibit a state party from granting copyright protection to a work of applied art that, in the country of origin, is protected solely as a design under a special regime. The CJEU emphasised that such a prohibition would contradict the fundamental objectives of the Berne Convention, particularly the principles of "national treatment" and the minimum protection standards, which aim to ensure that authors receive protection outside their country of origin. Moreover, the CJEU pointed out that Article 19 of the Berne Convention expressly allows states to grant more extensive protection than what is required by the Berne Convention itself.

Implications of CJEU ruling

The CJEU's ruling highlights the broad scope of EU copyright law, affirming that works, regardless of their origin or domestic protection, are entitled to uniform protection across all EU member states. This decision reinforces the harmonisation goals of the InfoSoc Directive.