Facts
The plaintiff C., a sculptor and steel sculptor, produced so-called "fire rings". The defendant A. constructed the first so-called "grill ring" in 2014 and distributed it through his company B. GmbH. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants for infringement of his copyright on the "fire rings". The Commercial Court partially upheld the claim and prohibited the defendants from manufacturing and distributing certain grill device models. Both the plaintiff and the defendants appealed against this judgment to the Federal Supreme Court.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that for the copyright protection of works of applied art pursuant to Art. 2 para. 1 and 2 lit. f CopA, it is decisive whether the work represents an individual intellectual creation. The originality or author's individuality is not relevant, but rather whether the individual character is expressed in the work itself. The requirements for individuality depend on the scope of discretion available for individual design. In the case of utility objects, this scope is limited by the purpose of use, which is why higher requirements for individuality tend to be placed here. However, this does not mean that different protection requirements would apply to different categories of…