The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has issued an important ruling on copyright protection for designer furniture in the dispute between USM Haller and the retailer Konektra. The judges in Karlsruhe did not definitively rule that the well-known furniture system is protected. However, they made it clear that the requirements for utilitarian objects must not be stricter than those for other works of art. The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf must now reexamine the case.

Controversy Over the USM Haller Design Classic

The modular USM Haller furniture system is known for its chrome-plated tubes, spherical connectors, and colored metal surfaces. USM accuses the Nuremberg-based company Konektra of not only offering replacement and expansion parts, but also providing all the components needed to build complete shelving units and sideboards. In addition, customers could book an assembly service. USM therefore sought, among other things, an injunction and damages.

The Düsseldorf Regional Court held that the furniture system was protected by copyright. The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, however, denied that it was protected as a work of applied art and ruled in USM’s favor only in part, based solely on competition law. The Federal Court of Justice overturned this decision to that extent and remanded the case to the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (Federal Court of Justice, judgment of July 2, 2026, Case No.: I ZR 96/22).

Furniture, too, can be art

Copyright law does not protect only paintings, music, or literature. According to Section 2 of the Copyright Act, everyday objects can also be considered works of applied art. The prerequisite is that they be the result of personal intellectual creation. The design must demonstrate free and creative decision-making and must not be determined exclusively by technical or functional requirements.

The Federal Court of Justice emphasized that no stricter standard may be applied to furniture than to other types of works. What is decisive is an objective assessment of the specific design. Whether the designer himself intentionally sought to create a work of art is not a decisive factor. Subsequent circumstances, such as exhibition in museums or recognition within professional circles, may also be taken into account as indicators of originality. However, an appealing appearance alone is not sufficient.

When does copyright infringement occur?

Even if the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf affirms copyright protection, this does not automatically mean that Konektra has infringed the copyright. To determine that, it must be examined whether the specific creative elements that give the original its distinctive character under copyright law were copied.

A general similarity between the pieces of furniture or the same overall impression is not, in and of itself, sufficient. The protected creative elements must be recognizable in the product in question. Technically necessary features, on the other hand, cannot, as a general rule, be monopolized under copyright law.

Implications for Designers and Manufacturers

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruling strengthens the position of designers and manufacturers of high-quality, well-designed everyday products. Furniture, lighting fixtures, and other everyday items may be protected by copyright even without a registered design right. However, this protection remains contingent on demonstrable creative design decisions. For manufacturers of similar products, this means that not every instance of similarity is prohibited; however, the adoption of distinctive creative elements may give rise to claims for injunctive relief and damages. You can read more about the protection of creative works in our section on copyright law.

What remains of the decision

The dispute over the USM Haller furniture system is not yet over. However, the ruling removes the excessively high barriers that the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court had imposed when reviewing applied art. The appellate court must now once again determine whether the furniture system is sufficiently original and whether Konektra has copied protected design elements.