In 2021, an internationally active shoe manufacturer issued a warning to a competitor for sandal models produced by the latter. He considered the models to be an infringement of his copyrights. However, the manufacturer in question refused to issue a cease-and-desist declaration, so the matter was taken further in summary proceedings before the Regional Court of Cologne. The regional court granted the application of the company issuing the warning letter.
Shoe models as personal intellectual creations
In the opinion of the Chamber, the applicant shoe manufacturer has demonstrated and substantiated the existence of the factual requirements for injunctive relief pursuant to Section 97 UrhG. This is because the shoe models in dispute are personal intellectual creations within the meaning of Section 2 para. 2 UrhG. Accordingly, works of fine art, including works of architecture and applied art, as well as designs of such works, are protected by copyright, provided that they are personal intellectual creations within the meaning of Section 2 para. 2 UrhG. Accordingly, two cumulative requirements must be met for an object to be classified as a work. Firstly, the object in question must be an original in the sense that it represents its author’s own intellectual creation. Secondly, classification as a work is reserved for those elements that express such a creation.
The actual creative process of the work is decisive
However, the existence of a creation of individuality and originality cannot be derived solely from the objective characteristics of the work in question, the Cologne judges emphasized in their ruling of 3 March 2022 (case no.: 14 O 366/21). Rather, these characteristics must be considered on the basis of their relationship to the specific creative process. The work-creator relationship cannot be adequately captured by a one-sided view of the author’s person or by analyzing their work alone. The rules according to which the author of a particular work has worked are decisive, whereby it is not important whether he was aware of these rules. If existing rules dictate to the creator of a product in a certain area how he has to produce it, for example on the basis of learned processing techniques and design rules, there is no longer any creative leeway. As a result, the development of individuality is no longer possible in this case.
If, on the other hand, it can be ruled out – as in the opinion of the court in the present case – that a designer has worked exclusively according to predetermined rules, it must be assumed that he has made his own design decisions, at least to a certain extent. In this case, there is a presumption that he has actually used the given scope for design to create his intellectual product.
As a result, the shoe models in question are also protected by copyright. Due to the corresponding transfer of rights from the designer to the shoe manufacturer, the latter is also entitled to assert the claim for injunctive relief, among other things.