The Supreme Court recently dealt with an elaborately designed Christmas lighting display for a major shopping street. The central question was not so much whether the design concept was protected by copyright, but rather whether the plaintiff actually possessed the necessary rights.
For several years, a distinctive Christmas light display gave a prominent shopping street its characteristic appearance during Advent. When the aging lighting was finally due for replacement, the plaintiff, the company previously associated with the concept, was not awarded the contract. Instead, another company was commissioned to manufacture the new lighting. The plaintiff considered this an infringement of its rights. It accused the defendants of appropriating essential elements of the original design concept and based its claims on both copyright and unfair competition law. The defendants specifically challenged the plaintiff's standing to sue, arguing that the plaintiff lacked exclusive rights.
The Supreme Court (OGH) ultimately did not even have to make a final decision on whether the specific Christmas lights met the required quality standards for copyright protection. Even assuming that the design concept could be considered a copyrighted work, the plaintiff lacked a sufficient basis for enforcing the claims derived from it. The decisive factor was the chain of rights. The relevant design concept had been developed by a designer within the scope of their professional activities or a contractual relationship. A comprehensive transfer of the rights of use to the employer was stipulated for the resulting work products. Therefore, the plaintiff could not prove that they themselves possessed the necessary exclusive rights. However, the mere fact that copyright protection may exist is not enough: anyone wishing to enforce such a claim in court must also be able to prove that they hold the corresponding rights. The additional allegation of unfair imitation was also unsuccessful. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, the plaintiff failed to sufficiently demonstrate that their own products or their own legally protected work results had been copied.
The ruling clearly demonstrates that copyright protection is not the only decisive factor when it comes to creative work. Equally important is determining who actually holds the rights to a protected design concept. For companies, agencies, and public sector clients, this means that when developing and commissioning designs, lighting concepts, drafts, or similar creative work, the transfer of usage and exploitation rights should be clearly defined and documented from the outset.
Supreme Court 19 May 2026, 4 Ob 149/25b