Musical chairs: pan-European injunction on copyright

PMP has produced the two-button wingback chair, Janis (shown on the left), since 2013. Competitor Easysofa brought a strikingly similar wingback chair onto the market: the Beto, in various models with one, two, or four buttons. PMP requested a preliminary injunction on the basis of copyright and unregistered Community Design Law. However, according to Easysofa, PMP did not come up with (the design) for the Janis themselves (either). It is primarily based on a chair from the 1950s by designer Theo Ruth. Furthermore, the Janis belongs to an already-existing style so clearly, it could not be protected. 

The District Court of The Hague took a different approach: creative choices can still be made within an existing style and can lead to work protected by copyright. Furthermore, there are a sufficient number of copyright-protected elements, i.e. the bulges at the arms and backrest. The armrests also have a unique shape when compared to the pointed finishing touches of the Ruth chair from the 1950s. Therefore, the Janis is deemed a copyright-protected work, though one with a fairly small scope of protection as there are already so many wingback chairs on the market and the Janis resembles them quite a bit.

What about the number of buttons on the chairs? Is that a copyright-protected trait or a trivial component (and thus, not a protected, defining trait)? According to the judge, it can be a defining trait. Conclusion: the two-button wingback chair was in violation of copyright, but the other versions with multiple buttons made an entirely different impression and therefore, fell outside of the Janis’ limited scope of protection.

The judge has ordered a pan-European preliminary injunction. The reasoning: the concept of ‘work’ is deemed to be harmonized since Infopaq. This is why the preliminary relief judge assumes authority to extend the applicability of the injunction beyond Dutch borders. For the time being, PMP is seated comfortably.

Daan van Eek