The Court of Justice has received questions from the Swedish court about copyright on a table (see photo). A work of applied art to be exact.

Should additional requirements of originality apply to this type of work in order to qualify for copyright protection (given that it is only a utilitarian object), and also: how does this relate to the infringement question? In other words, if there is copyright protection, should a more limited scope of protection apply to utilitarian objects? This is what the Court of Justice will now consider.

In the Netherlands, compared to other (European) countries, there is a fairly low threshold for granting copyright protection. Even blue and white striped wallpaper can count on protection (I am not talking about the scope of protection of this wallpaper right now). In the Netherlands, we agree that the copyright concept of work is harmonized and the courts always refer to European case law in this area (see Cofemel, C-683/17; Brompton Bicycle, C-833/18; C-476/17; C-342/97; Infopaq International, C-5/08; C-145/10), but it is (traditionally) more complicated in other EU member states. In some of the EU member states, a higher threshold is still applied, making copyright protection less likely to be assumed. Hence the Swedish court's questions. Hopefully the Court will follow the Cofemel ruling and in principle no additional requirements will be allowed for works of applied art. Wait and see! 

Moïra Truijens