Citation: Kwantum Nederland BV & Kwantum België BV v Vitra Collections AG, C‑227/23.
Overview
The CJEU has confirmed that member states of the EU cannot treat claimants differently based on their nationality. Recent EU case law (such as Cofemel) has made it easier to sue for copyright infringement in Europe. This case makes it clear that claimants based outside the EU, such as UK or US companies, can still sue and benefit from the wide interpretation of rights afforded by the EU copyright regime.
Last week the CJEU handed down its much-awaited judgment in Kwantum v Vitra. The ruling clarified whether EU Member States relying on the Berne Convention can set their own reciprocity rules for copyright protection. What that means in practice is: is copyright law the same for all claimants, or can EU courts grant more limited rights to parties based outside the EU?
The case concerned Vitra, a Swiss designer who claimed that Kwantum, a EU based retailer, infringed copyright in its US designed (and iconic) Dining Sidechair Wood. Kwantum sought to rely on the Berne Convention’s material reciprocity clause (Article 2(7)) which limits copyright protection for works of applied art originating from non-EU countries to the level of protection those works receive in their country of origin.
Article 2(7) of the Berne Convention affords works of applied art protection in another member state if they meet the copyright protection criteria in both the country of origin and the country where the rights are asserted. This requirement poses significant challenges for works in jurisdictions which either do not provide copyright protection for applied art or have particularly stringent thresholds for protection (such as the USA on the facts of this case).
The CJEU ruled that the Berne Convention’s material reciprocity clause cannot be used to limit EU law, in particular, Directive 2001/29 which harmonises EU copyright law gives copyright protection to original works regardless of their country of origin. The EU copyright regime has always offered limited discretion to Member States; so the CJEU’s ruling here is unsurprising.
At the moment, EU law is permissive: judgments following Cofemel have meant that copyright protection covers works of applied art that would not historically have been considered protectable in the UK. The impact of this is being worked out in various cases, including the appeal in AGA Rangemaster v UK Innovations. Until we know what approach the UK courts will take, some claimants may prefer to sue in the EU; and this case shows that it is a possibility.
Key contact
Alice Elliott-Foster
Associate
alice.elliottfoster@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)330 045 2211
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
Breaking the glass ceiling: Empowering female leadership in the food and drink sector
Legal Update
IP insights: October 2024
Legal Update
CJEU confirms that copyright law is the same for all claimants
Legal Update
Court of Appeal declares that Panasonic’s refusal to grant an interim licence is not FRAND
Legal Update
EasyGroup proceedings defeated by jurisdictional challenge
Legal Update
Insurability by design: Increased transparency for vehicle manufacturers and insurers
Training
Register your interest to join our next Home Delivery Academy
Opinion
Forced labour goods: a landmark decision
Legal Update
ASA bans “misleading” Huel and ZOE ads endorsed by Dragon’s Den Star
Guide
Guidance for manufacturers of EVs and HEVs in the UK: ASA's non-exhaustive electric vehicle advertising guidance
Opinion
New hope for the manufacturing sector?
Guide
EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act: Guide for your business
Legal Update
(Deep)fake it till you make it? The ASA's role in regulating false celebrity endorsements
Press Release
Jeanne Kelly recognised in the list of Top 100 people in Irish Tech by the Business Post
Press Release
New resource will support university innovation
Legal Update
A reflection of FIMA Connect 2024
Press Release
Browne Jacobson wins UK Impact Case of the Year at the Managing IP EMEA Awards 2024
Legal Update
Forest Risk Commodities regulations: Steps food businesses should take
Legal Update
Cyber-attacks in UK universities: Why failing to prepare is no longer an option
Press Release
Browne Jacobson Ireland LLP rank across Dispute Resolution, Intellectual Property and Technology in the Legal 500 EMEA 2024
Legal Update
Artificial intelligence – shaping a sustainable future
Legal Update
ASA ruling on Calvin Klein FKA Twigs advertisement
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s intellectual property lawyers ranked in World Trademark Review 2024
Legal Update
Veganism and manufacturing: IP protection
Legal Update
Veganism and manufacturing: Advertising pitfalls
Legal Update
The rise of AI in construction
Legal Update
An update on the independent review of university spin-out companies
On-Demand
Copyright issues with AI webinar
Published Article
The reasons for asset-based lending’s growing acceptance as a preferred funding source
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s patent litigation team praised for being “dynamic” and a “major player” in IAM Patent 1000 guide
Legal Update
Harnessing the potential of knowledge exchange, research and innovation
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advise on international sale of entertainment company Music For Pets
Opinion
Practical points from High Court ruling that Tesco has infringed Lidl’s IP rights in its famous yellow circle logo
Legal Update
Knowledge exchange and intellectual property
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s intellectual property lawyers ranked experts in World Trademark Review guide 2023
Press Release
Court of Appeal makes plea for legally enforceable arbitration for FRAND disputes
In the ongoing complex litigation between Optis Cellular Technology LLC and Apple Inc., the Court of Appeal ([2022] EWCA Civ 1411) has upheld the High Court’s findings that implementers of standard-essential patents (SEPs) cannot refuse to accept a FRAND license and continue activities in the meantime which constitute infringement: that party must commit to accept a court-determined license if it wishes to avoid an injunction.
Published Article
AI generated designs on retail products
Every AI will have its own terms of use. DALL·E 2’s Terms of Use dated 3 November 2022 specify that as between a user and Open AI, a user owns their prompts and uploads. Open AI also assigns to the user all rights in any images generated by DALL·E 2 for that user (subject to the user complying with those Terms of Use, and to a licence to use inputs and output to develop and improve the services).
Published Article
Bruce Willis AI and the problem with deepfakes
A deepfake of Bruce Willis is advertising Russian mobile phones. Many great artistic and metaphysical questions are raised by this performance. However, this article is going to look at the intellectual property law implications, from a UK perspective.