La Corte di Cassazione tedesca sulla protezione del design, dopo la sentenza europea Cofemel

Interessante sentenza del Bundesgerighthof 15.12.2022, n° I ZR 173/21 (citata da post linkedin di Richard Dissmann ove anche link al testo originale e in traduzione inglese)

Riporto i passaggi rilevanti:

“13  b) Pursuant to Section 2 subs. 1 No. 4 UrhG, works of visual art, including works of architecture and applied art, as well as designs of such works, are among the works protected by copyright, provided they are personal intellectual creations pursuant to Section 2 subs. 2 UrhG. A personal intellectual creation is a creation of individual character whose aesthetic content has reached such a degree that, in the opinion of circles receptive to art and reasonably familiar with art appreciation, one can speak of an “artistic” achievement. In this context, the aesthetic effect of the design can only justify copyright protection to the extent that it is based on and expresses an artistic achievement (BGH, judgment of 7 April 2022 – I ZR 222/20, GRUR 2022, 899 [juris, marginal no. 28] = WRP 2022, 729 – Porsche 911, mwN).
14  b) In substance, these standards correspond to the EU law concept of a work protected by copyright within the meaning of Directive 2001/29/EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (BGH, GRUR 2022, 899 [juris para. 29] – Porsche 911, mwN). This is an autonomous concept of EU law which must be interpreted and applied uniformly throughout the EU (CJEU, Judgment of 13 November 2018 – C-310/17, GRUR 2019, 73 [juris para. 33] = WRP 2019, 55 – Levola Hengelo; Judgment of 12 September 2019 – C-683/17, GRUR 2019, 1185 [juris para. 29] = WRP 2019, 1449 -Cofemel). For an object to be classified as a work, two cumulative conditions must be fulfilled. First, the object in question must be original in the sense that it
constitutes its author’s own intellectual creation (CJEU, GRUR 2019, 73 [juris para. 36] – Levola Hengelo; GRUR 2019, 1185 [juris para. 29] – Cofemel; ECJ, Judgment of 11 June 2020 – C-833/18, GRUR 2020, 736 [juris para. 22] = WRP 2020, 1006 – Brompton Bicycle). An object is an original if it reflects the personality of its author by expressing his free creative choices. This cannot be assumed if the creation of an object was determined by technical considerations, by rules or by other constraints which left no room for the exercise of artistic freedom (CJEU, GRUR 2019, 1185 [juris para. 30 f.] – Cofemel; GRUR 2020, 736 [juris para. 23 f.] – Brompton Bicycle). On the other hand, classification as a work is reserved for elements expressing such creation (CJEU, GRUR 2019, 73 [juris para. 36 f.] – Levola Hengelo; GRUR 2019, 1185 [juris para. 29] – Cofemel; GRUR 2020, 736 [juris para. 22] – Brompton Bicycle).
15   This is in line with the assumption that works of applied art do not have higher requirements as to their level of originality than works of art without a specific purpose (BGH, judgment of 13 November 2013 I ZR 143/12, BGHZ 199, 52 [juris, marginal no. 26] – Geburtstagszug). In the case of objects of everyday use which have design features determined by the purpose of use, the scope for artistic design is only often limited. For this reason, the question arises in particular whether they are artistically designed beyond the form dictated by their function and whether this design reaches a level of originality that justifies copyright protection.
A design level that justifies copyright protection but is nevertheless low leads to a correspondingly narrow scope of protection of the work in question (BGHZ 199, 52 [juris, marginal no. 41] – Geburtstagszug, mwN)”

DA noi però il design industriale deve presentare anche “valore artistico” (art. 2 sub 10, legge aut.)