Ku , Anne e
A icle — Published Ve sion
F om “Local P i ilege” o “Global S anda d”: Facili a ing
Design and Copy igh P o ec ion o Non-EU P oduc
Shapes
IIC - In e na ional Re iew o In ellec ual P ope y and Compe i ion Law
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Sp inge Na u e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Ku , Anne e (2025) : F om “Local P i ilege” o “Global S anda d”: Facili a ing
Design and Copy igh P o ec ion o Non-EU P oduc Shapes, IIC - In e na ional Re iew o
In ellec ual P ope y and Compe i ion Law, ISSN 2195-0237, Sp inge , Be lin, Heidelbe g, Vol. 56,
Iss. 5, pp. 970-983,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s40319-025-01606-4
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/323684
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
ARTICLE
F om ‘‘Local P i ilege’’ o ‘‘Global S anda d’’:
Facili a ing Design and Copy igh P o ec ion o Non-
EU P oduc Shapes
Anne e Ku
Accep ed: 14 Ap il 2025 / Published online: 30 Ap il 2025
The Au ho (s) 2025
Abs ac I is well known ha EU law ends o o e a he gene ous p o ec ion o
p oduc shapes, no leas unde indus ial design and copy igh law. Un il ecen ly,
howe e , he s a emen had o be quali ied wi h ega d o wo ks o designs no
o igina ing in he EU (o he EEA). Fo designs, his esul ed om he ac ha ,
pu suan o he majo i y opinion, designs i s published ou side he EU we e no
en i led o bene i om Un egis e ed Communi y Design p o ec ion unde A . 11 o
he Communi y Design Regula ion. Conce ning copy igh , A . 2(7) o he Be ne
Con en ion was assumed o ba access o p o ec ion o wo ks ha in hei coun y
o o igin a e only amenable o p o ec ion unde indus ial design law. In bo h
aspec s, ecen de elopmen s in EU law ha e le elled he ba s, u ning ‘‘EU-s yle’’
p o ec ion in o a ‘‘global s anda d’’.
Keywo ds Design law e o m Un egis e ed Communi y designs Supplemen a y
un egis e ed design Wo ks o applied a Recip oci y Law applying o aliens
1 In oduc ion
Compa ed o o he legal sys ems, p o ec ion o p oduc appea ances in he EU ends
o be a he gene ous. This conce ns p o ec ion o shape ma ks, which is
complemen ed in a numbe o Membe S a es by speci ic, as ye non-ha monised
ules on un egis e ed ade ma k p o ec ion o p o ec ion unde un ai compe i ion
law. In addi ion, EU law g an s low- h eshold access o indus ial design
A. Ku (&)
P o . D . D . h.c.; A ilia ed Resea ch Fellow, Max Planck Ins i u e o Inno a ion and Compe i ion,
Munich, Ge many
e-mail: [email p o ec ed]
123
IIC (2025) 56:970–983
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s40319-025-01606-4
p o ec ion,
1
and, due o CJEU case law, he p e equisi es o p o ec ion unde
copy igh a e con ined o he wo k being an au ho ’s own in ellec ual c ea ion.
2
Howe e , un il ecen ly, he gene ous ableau conce ning indus ial design and
copy igh law had o be quali ied wi h ega d o wo ks no o igina ing in he EU.
Rega ding indus ial design p o ec ion, he special ins umen o he Un egis e ed
Communi y Design (UCD) was held o apply only o designs ha we e i s
published wi hin he e i o y o he EU, he eby p ac ically wi hholding ha op ion
om designe s loca ed ou side he EU.
3
In copy igh , A . 2(7) second sen ence o
he Be ne Con en ion es ablishes an obs acle o p o ec ion o wo ks which, in hei
coun y o o igin, can only p o i om design p o ec ion.
4
In i s ecen Kwan um
decision,
5
he CJEU has decla ed ha , lacking an exp ess ese a ion o ha e ec
in he In oSoc Di ec i e, A . 2(7) Be ne Con en ion canno be in oked is-a
`- is
non-EU wo ks. And conce ning UCDs, he ecen design law e o m consciously
emo ed wo ding om he p e ious law which had been quo ed by he
majo i y opinion in suppo o i s es ic i e app oach.
This a icle ecoun s and commen s on he de elopmen s. Fi s , i add esses he
backg ound and p esumable easons o he change in design legisla ion (Sec . 2).
The Kwan um decision is hen pu in con ex , including a e e ence o he p eceding
RAAP judgmen (Sec . 3). Finally, he ques ion is posed as o he consequences, and
whe he measu es a e called o o sa egua d jus i ied in e es s o igh holde s o he
public wi hin he EU (Sec . 4).
2 Design Legisla ion
2.1 Regula ion No. 6/2002
As a unique ea u e among uni a y EU igh s c ea ed so a , A . 11(1) o he
Communi y Design Regula ion No. 6/2002 (CDR) es ablished a igh ha comes
in o exis ence wi hou egis a ion. Pu suan o he p o ision, designs ul illing he
subs an i e equi emen s o p o ec ion (i.e. which a e no el and ha e indi idual
cha ac e ) ‘‘shall be p o ec ed by an un egis e ed Communi y design o a pe iod o
h ee yea s as om he da e on which he design was i s made a ailable o he
1
The EU indus ial design sys em was es ablished by Di ec i e 98/71/EC o he Eu opean Pa liamen
and o he Council o 13 Oc obe 1998 on he legal p o ec ion o designs (DD) and Council Regula ion
(EC) No 6/2002 o 12 Decembe 2001 on Communi y designs (CDR). The DD was eplaced in 2024 by
Di ec i e (EU) 2024/2823 o he Eu opean Pa liamen and o he Council o 23 Oc obe 2024 on he legal
p o ec ion o designs; he CDR was amended by Regula ion (EU) 2024/2822 o he Eu opean Pa liamen
and o he Council o 23 Oc obe 2024 (EUDR).
2
See Sec . 3.2.
3
See Sec . 2.1.
4
‘‘Wo ks p o ec ed in he coun y o o igin solely as designs and models shall be en i led in ano he
coun y o he Union only o such special p o ec ion as is g an ed in ha coun y o designs and models;
howe e , i no such special p o ec ion is g an ed in ha coun y, such wo ks shall be p o ec ed as a is ic
wo ks’’.
5
Case C-227/23 Kwan um . Vi a Collec ions [2024] ECLI:EU:C:2024:914.
123
F om ‘‘Local P i ilege’’ o ‘‘Global S anda d’’: Facili a ing Design…971
public wi hin he Communi y’’. The wo ding does no clea ly s a e whe he he
e i o ial elemen (‘‘wi hin he Communi y’’) ela es o he place o publica ion o o
he loca ion o he a ge public. A icle 11(2) CDR o e s a somewha close de ini ion:
Fo he pu pose o pa ag aph 1, a design shall be deemed o ha e been made
a ailable o he public wi hin he Communi y i i has been published …in
such a way ha , in he no mal cou se o business, hese e en s could
easonably ha e become known o he ci cles specialised in he sec o
conce ned, ope a ing wi hin he Communi y.
While ha ph ase as well is no unambiguous, i in i es d awing a pa allel o A .
7(1) second hal -sen ence CDR, which s ipula es, in nea ly iden ical wo ding, ha a
p e-published design is no deemed o ha e been made a ailable o he public
‘‘whe e hese e en s could no easonably ha e become known in he no mal cou se
o business o he ci cles specialised in he sec o conce ned, ope a ing wi hin he
Communi y’’. As was cla i ied by he CJEU in Gau zsch, A . 7(1) second hal -
sen ence CDR applies i espec i e o whe e he place o publica ion was loca ed.
6
Does his mean ha A . 11(1) CDR mus be in e p e ed acco dingly?
The ques ion was denied by he Ge man Fede al Sup eme Cou in i s Geba
¨ckp esse
(bake y p ess) decision, mainly based on he conside a ion ha A . 7(1) CDR e e s o
‘‘making a ailable o he public’’, while A . 11(1) CDR adds‘‘wi hin he Communi y’’.
7
On he o he hand, he ac emains ha he legal de ini ion o ha ph ase in A . 11(2)
CDR uses exac ly he same wo ds as A . 7(1) second hal -sen ence CDR. Acco ding o
es ablished p inciples o in e p e a ion, his indica es ha bo h mus be in e p e ed
conco dan ly, meaning ha i is no he place o publica ion, bu only he loca ion o he
a ge public which is o ele ance. Un il ecen ly, howe e , such conside a ions
appea ed o be moo in iew o a p o ision inse ed in he cou se o he EU enla gemen
in 2004. A icle 110a CDR, which egula es he consequences o ex ending he
Communi y design egime o he new Membe S a es, add esses UCDs in pa ag aph 5
second sen ence, s ipula ing ha ‘‘(p)u suan o A icle 11, a design which has no been
made public wi hin he e i o y o he Communi y shall no enjoy p o ec ion as an
un egis e ed Communi y design’’. This seemed o dispe se he linge ing doub s.
Poin ing o ha sen ence, he Fede al Sup eme Cou conside ed he issue o be an ‘‘ac e
clai ’’, which does no call o a e e al o he CJEU.
In BHTB . PMS,
8
he High Cou o England and Wales (Hacon J.) sided wi h
he Ge man Fede al Sup eme Cou ega ding he ele ance o A . 110a(5) CDR.
Howe e , being mo e cau ious, he cou decided o e e he ques ion, among
o he s, o he CJEU.
9
A e he dispu e was se led be ween he pa ies, he case was
wi hd awn, lea ing he ma e open o now.
6
Case C-479/12 Gau zsch . Duma [2014] ECLI:EU:C:2014:75, pa a. 33.
7
Ge man Fede al Sup eme Cou (Bundesge ich sho , BGH), I ZR 126/06, GRUR 2009, 79 –
Geba
¨ckp esse.
8
High Cou , 17 Sep embe 2019, Be e ly Hills Teddy Bea Company . PMS In e na ional G oup Plc
(Hacon J.) [2019] EWHC 2419 (IPEC).
9
Case C-728/19 Be e ly Hill Teddy Bea Co. . PMS, emo ed om he egis e by O de [2020]
ECLI:EU:C:2020:114.
123
972 A. Ku
2.2 Changes Unde Regula ion No. 2024/2822
Wi h he amendmen o he CDR by Regula ion No. 2024/2822, he si ua ion has
changed. While A . 11 CDR has emained he same, A . 110a(5) second sen ence
CDR has been dele ed. The change was only announced in he e y las e sion o
he p oposal. Somewha su p isingly, i was no p eceded by any (documen ed)
discussion in he legisla i e bodies, no does i ind any explana ion in he p eamble
o he explana o y memo andum. The easons o al e ing he ex a e he e o e no
qui e clea . The only sou ce known so a o shed ligh on he ma e is he s a emen
by a Commission o ice ha A . 110a CDR in i s en i e y, including pa ag aph 5
second sen ence, was limi ed o applica ion in he con ex o EU enla gemen , and
should ne e ha e been employed as a ool o in e p e ing A . 11 CDR.
10
In o he
wo ds, A . 110a(5) second sen ence CDR was in ended o cla i y ha designs
p e iously published in he acceding Membe S a es only enjoy UCD p o ec ion i
hey ul il he necessa y equi emen s, i.e. i hey could ha e become known in he
o dina y cou se o business o he specialised ci cles ope a ing in he ‘‘old’’ Membe
S a es.
11
Consequen ly, he Commission o ice con ended ha emo al o A .
110a(5) second sen ence CDR was a di ec eac ion o decisions like Geba
¨ck-
p esse,
12
which in he Commission’s opinion e oneously employed he p o ision
beyond i s inhe en limi s.
13
The e is no need o discuss he e whe he he Commission’s a gumen s a e
con incing. The ac emains ha , a e emo al o A . 110a(5) second sen ence
CDR, i is no longe possible o ely on he p o ision o a gue ha e e ing he issue
o he CJEU is unnecessa y.
3 The Kwan um Judgmen
3.1 The Con lic
In Kwan um, he holde o he copy igh o u ni u e design by he amous designe
couple Ray and Cha les Eames iled an in ingemen claim in he Ne he lands
agains a i m ep oducing he ‘‘Dinne Wood Side (DWS) chai ’’. Fo wo ks o
applied a such as u ni u e, A . 2(7) second sen ence o he Be ne Con en ion
p o ides an excep ion om he p inciple o na ional ea men , eplacing i wi h a
sys em o ecip oci y. I he wo k is only amenable o design p o ec ion in he
coun y o o igin, he same applies in o he Membe S a es, i espec i e o he
na ional s anda ds o he wise applying. The issue was o ele ance because he DWS
10
S a emen by Toma
´s Eichenbe g (EU Commission) a he ‘‘GRUR Mee s B ussels’’ con e ence, 11
June 2022, epo ed by Ku (2023). P io o publica ion he a icle was submi ed o M . Eichenbe g o
con i ma ion, which was kindly gi en. I mus be no ed ha a he occasion, M . Eichenbe g did no speak
unde he ese a ion o s a ing his pe sonal opinion, bu ac ed as a ep esen a i e o he Commission.
11
Tha in e p e a ion was endo sed e en p io o he change in Howe e al. (2022), chap e 2, ma ginal
no e 2-121.
12
Sup a no e 7.
13
S a emen by Toma
´s Eichenbe g, epo ed by Ku (2023).
123
F om ‘‘Local P i ilege’’ o ‘‘Global S anda d’’: Facili a ing Design…973
chai o igina es om he USA, whe e copy igh p o ec ion is no a alid op ion o
a icles ha a e cha ac e ised by a conscious (and a ul) me ge o unc ional and
aes he ic elemen s.
14
The Du ch Sup eme Cou he e o e e e ed o he CJEU a
numbe o ques ions, in e alia whe he his was a ma e o EU copy igh o decide
and, i so, whe he i would ha e been necessa y o explici ly p o ide o a
ese a ion in he ele an EU legisla ion.
3.2 Uni o m and Au onomous No ion o ‘‘a Wo k’’
Since i s In opaq decision,
15
he CJEU endo sed he posi ion ha by ha monising
he no ion o ep oduc ion in he In oSoc Di ec i e (29/2001), he EU legisla o s
also ha monised he no ion o a wo k. Li le did i ma e ha such a - eaching
ha monisa ion was no in ended when he In oSoc Di ec i e was passed;
16
he CJEU
con inued o a i m and complemen i s ju isp udence in a line o subsequen
decisions.
17
Pu suan o ha case law, a wo k mus sa is y wo cumula i e
condi ions, namely, i mus be o iginal in he sense ha i is he au ho ’s own
in ellec ual c ea ion, and second, he subjec ma e o be p o ec ed by copy igh
mus be exp essed in a manne ha makes i iden i iable wi h su icien p ecision
and objec i i y.
18
In Co emel
19
and B omp on,
20
he same c i e ia we e decla ed o
apply o wo ks o applied a . The issue had been con en ious be o e, due o he ac
ha A . 17 o he Design Di ec i e (1998/71) and A . 96 CDR (6/2002), while
obliging Membe S a es o accep cumula ion o copy igh and indus ial design as a
ma e o p inciple, explici ly le i o he Membe S a es o de e mine he
condi ions and ex en o copy igh p o ec ion, including he equi ed le el o
o iginali y. Wi hou e en add essing ha ese a ion o he doub s esul ing
he e om, he CJEU con ended ha he p o isions emain una ec ed by he
ha monisa ion o copy igh allegedly occu ing h ough he In oSoc Di ec i e.
21
Somewha mo e explici ly, he Ad oca e Gene al poin ed ou ha he de e ence o
he Membe S a es was mo i a ed by he di e si y o na ional sys ems a he
ele an ime, and had become obsole e when ha monisa ion was achie ed.
22
14
So-called ‘‘doc ine o sepa abili y’’. Fo de ails, see Ginsbu g (2018), pp. 297–340.
15
Case C-5/08 In opaq . DDF [2009] ECR I-06569, pa a. 37.
16
As con i med in Commission s a documen , SEC(2004) 995, 19 July 2004.
17
Case C-145/10 Paine . S anda d [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:798, pa a. 87; Joined Cases C-403/08 and
C-429/08 Foo ball Associa ion P emie League . Mu phy [2011] ECLI:EU:C:2011:631, pa a. 97; Case
C-393/09 BSA . Minis e s o kul u y [2010] ECLI:EU:C:2010:816, pa a. 45; Case C-604/10 Foo ball
Da aco . Yahoo! [2012] ECLI:EU:C:2012:115, pa a. 38.
18
Case C-310/17 Le ola Hengelo . Smilde Foods [2018] ECLI:EU:C:2018:899, pa as. 36–40.
19
Case C-683/17 Co emel . G-S a [2019] ECLI:EU:C:2019:721.
20
Case C-833/18 B omp on Bicycle . Ge 2Ge [2020] ECLI:EU:C:2020:461.
21
Case C-683/17 Co emel . G-S a [2019] ECLI:EU:C:2019:721, pa as. 44–47.
22
Opinion by Ad oca e Gene al Szpuna , Case 638/16 Co emel . G-S a ECLI:EU:C:2019:363, pa as.
37, 38. Tha easoning is somewha p eca ious, as he In oSoc Di ec i e – on which he CJEU’s
assump ion o ull ha monisa ion o he no ion o a wo k is g ounded – wen in o o ce se e al mon hs
ea lie han he CDR. The Ad oca e Gene al conside ed and disca ded ha a gumen as well, poin ing ou
ha he espec i e legisla i e p ocesses an mo e o less pa allel, and ha , i he legisla u e had ac ually
123
974 A. Ku
In a numbe o na ional ju isdic ions, wo ks o applied a had indeed been
subjec o dis inc s anda ds di e ing om o he wo k ca ego ies, and a ying
be ween Membe S a es.
23
Agains ha backg ound, he CJEU’s con en ion o ull
ha monisa ion ha ing been achie ed wi hou any legisla i e measu es add essing
he poin (apa om ce ain special a eas
24
) was bound o c ea e p oblems. The
unease caused he eby is enhanced by unce ain ies su ounding he dis inc ion
be ween copy igh and design p o ec ion: while he CJEU insis s ha o e laps
be ween bo h ields mus be limi ed o ‘‘ce ain cases’’, he c i e ia o e ed o
dis inguishing be ween he wo ields a e heo e ical and abs ac a he han
p o iding conc e e guidelines o p ac ice.
25
This may lead o a si ua ion whe e he
bo de lines be ween design and copy igh law, hough being upheld in heo y, a e
g adually e oded, so ha o al cumula ion becomes he ule a he han he
excep ion. In ha scena io, applying A . 2(7) Be ne Con en ion would make a eal
di e ence o wo ks o igina ing om Be ne Membe S a es applying a much highe
h eshold o copy igh p o ec ion.
3.3 Ex ension o ‘‘F emden ech ’’?
3.3.1 Rele ance o he Ques ion
Despi e he c i icism aised agains he CJEU’s obus p o-ha monisa ion agenda, i
is an accep ed ac in p ac ice ha he no ion o a wo k, including wo ks o applied
a , mus be in e p e ed uni o mly and au onomously, ollowing he c i e ia spelled
ou in he pe inen case law. Wi hou doub ing he alidi y o ha s a ing poin , he
ques ion posed by he e e ing cou in Kwan um conce ned an addi ional elemen ,
namely whe he ha monisa ion o subs an i e law also includes he law applying o
aliens (in Ge man: F emden ech ). Di e en om p i a e in e na ional law
de e mining he law applicable o a gi en issue,
26
he body o ules o ming he
law applying o aliens de e mines whe he na ional law can be elied on by pe sons
o wi h ega d o subjec -ma e which do no sa is y ce ain ( e i o ial)
equi emen s. In in ellec ual p ope y, hose ules can be aced back o imes
when exclusi e igh s we e p i ileges g an ed by he so e eign, o which aliens
could only bene i , i a all, unde he condi ion o ecip oci y. Whe eas much o his
Foo no e 22 con inued
in ended o exemp he ield o applied a om he ha monising e ec o he In oSoc Di ec i e, his
would ha e been spelled ou mo e clea ly; ibid., pa as. 41, 42.
23
See he de ailed o e iew gi en in De claye (2018), on he his o y and cu en si ua ion in F ance, he
Ne he lands, G eece, he No dic coun ies, Ge many and he UK (plus Aus alia, Japan, and he USA).
24
See A . 1(3) o he So wa e Di ec i e (91/250; now: 2009/24); A . 3(1) Da abase Di ec i e (96/6);
A . 6 Te m Di ec i e (93/98; now: 2006/116), conce ning pho og aphs.
25
Fo commen s (in English) on Co emel and/o B omp on highligh ing ha poin , see Inguanez (2020),
pp. 797–822; End ich-Laimbo
¨ck (2020), pp. 264–269; Fhima (2020), pp. 761–767; Ku (2020),
pp. 290–300; Scho sbo (2020); o an o e iew on pos -Co emel cou p ac ice, see De claye (2024),
pp. 121–138. Cla i ica ion o he c i e ia o p o ec ion is cu en ly sough in pending Cases C-580/23 Mio
. Asplund and C-795/23 konek a . USM.
26
In his case: Du ch and Belgian law as he law o he coun ies o which p o ec ion is sough in he
unde lying dispu e, see A . 8(1) Rome II Regula ion (864/2007).
123
F om ‘‘Local P i ilege’’ o ‘‘Global S anda d’’: Facili a ing Design…975
has become obsole e due o he nea ly global co e age o he Pa is Con en ion,
Be ne Con en ion and TRIPS wi h hei p inciple o na ional ea men , hose ules
s ill play a ole o copy igh and ela ed igh s, i s ly, because he la e a e no so
ex ensi ely co e ed by in e na ional ag eemen s ensu ing na ional ea men , and
secondly, because he Be ne Con en ion i sel e e s o ecip oci y in a couple o
ins ances, such as A . 2(7).
27
3.3.2 The RAAP Judgmen
The ques ion whe he subs an i e ha monisa ion also ex ends o he law applying o
aliens was i s add essed in he RAAP judgmen .
28
The con lic conce ned he igh
o pe o me s and p oduce s o phonog ams o claim emune a ion o he
seconda y use o hei achie emen s. While his is a manda o y ea u e unde A .
8(2) o he Ren al and Lending Di ec i e (2006/15), he in e na ional law p o ision
on which i is based, A . 15 o he WPPT,
29
allows WPPT membe s o deposi a
ese a ion wi h he WIPO. The op ion had been used by I eland (bu no he EU).
The ques ion he e o e a ose whe he he exe cise o he ese a ion is-a
`- is
pe o me s who we e no esiden s in he EU o he EEA, o whose pe o mances
had no aken place he e, was compa ible wi h he obliga ions unde he Ren al and
Lending Di ec i e. The CJEU denied he ques ion. As he Di ec i e does no g an
any de e ence ega ding he condi ions unde which emune a ion is paid by he
Membe S a es, in oking he ese a ion was held o dis up he en isaged
ha monisa ion.
30
The CJEU added ha i is pe missible in p inciple, and migh e en
be commendable, o g an such claims only unde he condi ion o ecip oci y.
31
Howe e , in iew o he ac ha his would amoun o a limi a ion o igh s which,
in p inciple, a e en i led o p o ec ion unde A . 17(2) o he Cha e o
Fundamen al Righ s (CFR), he CJEU conside ed i necessa y unde A . 52 CFR
o ancho a ele an p o ision in he w i en law.
32
3.3.3 Applica ion in Kwan um
The Kwan um decision
33
uns la gely along he same lines as RAAP. A i s glance,
his is no su p ise, as he issues a e indeed pa allel o some ex en . Howe e , a close
examina ion shows ce ain di e ences, o which a leas he ollowing is qui e
subs an ial. Unlike RAAP,Kwan um did no conce n one pa icula ype o
emune a ion claim, bu he mo e undamen al ques ion o whe he copy igh can be
27
O he examples a e A . 7(8) conce ning he e m o p o ec ion and A . 14
e
(3) Be ne Con en ion
conce ning he esale igh .
28
Case C-265/19 RAAP . PPI [2020] ECLI:EU:C:2020:677.
29
WIPO Pe o mances and Phonog ams T ea y (1996).
30
Case C-265/19 RAAP . PPI [2020] ECLI:EU:C:2020:677, pa a. 68.
31
Case C-265/19 RAAP . PPI [2020] ECLI:EU:C:2020:677, pa a. 84.
32
Case C-265/19, RAAP . PPI [2020] ECLI:EU:C:2020:677, pa as. 85, 86.
33
CJEU C-227/23 Kwan um . Vi a Collec ions [2024] ECLI:EU:C:2024:914.
123
976 A. Ku
in oked a all.
34
The a gumen used by he CJEU and he Ad oca e Gene al, ha
denying copy igh in he DWS chai clashes wi h he wo ding and he gene al ules
go e ning he in e p e a ion o A s. 2 and 4 o he In oSoc Di ec i e,
35
is he e o e
beside he poin . This is abou whe he hose p o isions apply in he p esen case,
and no abou how hey mus be in e p e ed. The CJEU’s negligence o he ac ha
hese a e di e en ca ego ies o legal ules is igh ully c i icised in he li e a u e.
36
This does no necessa ily mean, howe e , ha he decision ‘‘ es s on ee o
clay’’.
37
While i is ue ha subs an i e ha monisa ion mus be dis inguished om
ha monisa ion o he ules go e ning applica ion o he law is-a
`- is aliens, he
CJEU is no hinde ed om conside ing he consequences o i s uling wi hin he
con ex o he en isaged ha monisa ion
38
and, mo e gene ally, in he ligh o he
p ima y law-based p inciple o ee mo emen o goods. Lea ing i o na ional law
o apply A . 2(7) Be ne Con en ion is liable o c ea e obs acles o he ee
mo emen o goods be ween Membe S a es ha do g an ull p o ec ion and hose
ha do no . A guing ha , while such e ec s may be undesi able, hey a e a na u al
consequence o lacking ha monisa ion
39
igno es ha he ques ion o be decided he e
is exac ly whe he ha monisa ion has in ac occu ed; he a gumen amoun s o a
pe i io p incipii a he han disp o ing he CJEU’s eliance on he ac ual
connec ion- and p ima y law-based logic o synch onisa ion be ween he le els o
subs an i e law and he ules go e ning i s applica ion o aliens.
I is ue ha , ins ead o o eclosing he op ion o indi idual Membe S a es o
in oke A . 2(7) Be ne Con en ion, a uni o m solu ion would also esul om
ea ing he p o ision as pa o he ‘‘common acquis’’, as sugges ed in an opinion
by he Eu opean Copy igh Socie y (ECS).
40
Howe e , simila o wha was held in
RAAP, he CJEU pe cei es a p oblem o undamen al law. As wo ks o applied a
a e p o ec ed in p inciple by A . 17(2) CFR, limi ing he igh in any way needs a
basis in w i en EU law, as pos ula ed in A . 52(1) CFR. I is ue ha a his s age
o he p oceedings he ques ion whe he he i em sa is ies he c i e ia o copy igh
p o ec ion is a hypo he ical one: i A . 2(7) Be ne Con en ion applies, he
34
Fu he aspec s a e lis ed in he Opinion issued by he Eu opean Copy igh Socie y (ESC), see an
Eechoud e al. (2024), pp. 1316, 1323: RAAP conce ned an obliga ion unde he WPPT o which he EU is
a membe , whe eas i is only indi ec ly bound o he Be ne Con en ion; unlike in RAAP, ha monisa ion o
he no ion o a wo k did no occu by explici legisla ion, bu was ‘‘cons uc ed’’ by he CJEU; while A .
15(3) WPPT only o e s an op ion, A . 2(7) Be ne Con en ion is o mula ed as a ule. Howe e , hose
poin s do no make much di e ence: he ac ha he Be ne Con en ion only applies ia o he ag eemen s
does no change i s binding na u e; u he mo e, i could ha dly be expec ed ha he CJEU ecognises a
di e ence be ween ‘‘explici ’’ and me ely ‘‘judge-made’’ ha monisa ion; and las ly, he ule-like wo ding
o A . 2(7) Be ne Con en ion does no a ec he possibili y o g an ing ull p o ec ion; see also Case
C-277/13 Kwan um . Vi a Collec ions [2024] ECLI:EU:C:2024:914, pa a. 87 (on A . 351 TFEU).
35
Case C-227/23 Kwan um . Vi a Collec ions [2024] ECLI:EU:C:2024:914, pa a. 68; Opinion o
Ad oca e Gene al Szpuna , 5 Sep embe 2024, ECLI:EU:C:2024:698, pa a. 53.
36
Huckschlag (2025); Hugenhol z (2024a) (conce ning he Ad oca e Gene al’s Opinion).
37
Thus: Huckschlag (2025).
38
Case C-227/23 Kwan um . Vi a Collec ions [2024] ECLI:EU:C:2024:914, pa a. 63, poin ing o
Reci al 6 o he Ren al and Lending Di ec i e.
39
Thus: Hugenhol z (2024b).
40
an Eechoud, Me zge , Quin ais and Rogns ad (2024), pp. 1316, 1325.
123
F om ‘‘Local P i ilege’’ o ‘‘Global S anda d’’: Facili a ing Design…977
