Commentary on Judgment No. 11413 of 2024: Plagiarism in Industrial Design
The judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 11413 of April 29, 2024, offers an important reflection on the protection of industrial design works and the concept of plagiarism in this field. In particular, the Court confirmed the rejection of a previous decision that accused a lamp named "1954" of plagiarism with respect to a work conceived by the renowned architects A. and P. G. Castiglioni.
Context of the Judgment
The central issue concerned the possibility of considering the "1954" lamp as plagiarism of the original work, in a context where industrial design is characterized by serial production and functionality. The Court clarified that the artistic value of a design work cannot be excluded by its serial production. Indeed, as established by Law No. 633 of 1941, the creative character of a design work is not subject to a purely quantitative interpretation and must be assessed through objective indicators.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - SUBJECTS OF LAW - PROTECTED WORKS - CREATIVE CHARACTER "Industrial design" works - Protection under art. 2, paragraph 1, no. 10, of Law No. 633 of 1941, as amended by Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2001 - Conditions - Case law. The artistic value required for the protectability of "industrial design" works cannot be excluded by the serial production of the conceived articles, which is a characteristic of all works of this nature, but must be derived from objective indicators, not necessarily concurrent, such as recognition by cultural and institutional circles regarding the existence of aesthetic and artistic qualities, exhibition in shows or museums, publication in specialized magazines, award attribution, acquisition of a market value so high as to transcend that linked solely to its functionality, or creation by a renowned artist. (In this case, the Supreme Court confirmed the appealed judgment which had excluded that a lamp named "1954" constituted plagiarism of the industrial design work, born from the idea of architects A. and P. G. Castiglioni, on the grounds that the artistic conception and related protection did not concern the lighting body in itself, but rather its use as a tool for constructing the overall and predominantly scenographic setting presented during the X Milan Triennale of 1954).
Legal Foundations of the Judgment
The Court referred to Article 2, paragraph 1, no. 10 of Law No. 633 of 1941, highlighting that industrial design can be protected if it possesses a creative character. Furthermore, it emphasized the importance of various factors, such as recognition in cultural and institutional spheres, which can influence the consideration of a work as protected. Among the criteria used are:
- Recognition by cultural bodies
- Exhibitions in shows and museums
- Publications in specialized magazines
- Award attributions
- High market value
The judgment thus clarifies that creativity is measured not only in terms of uniqueness but also through the context in which the work is created and appreciated.
Conclusions
In conclusion, judgment No. 11413 of 2024 represents a significant step forward in understanding the protection of industrial design works in Italy. It emphasizes that serial production does not preclude the recognition of artistic value and that the protection of works must take into account multiple factors, not just functionality. It is crucial for designers and companies to understand these principles to navigate the legal landscape of intellectual property correctly.
