Copyright Protection for Industrial Design Works: The Cassina v. Rai Case
Introduction
The Court of Rome, Specialized Section on Enterprise Matters, recently ruled on a particularly significant dispute concerning copyright protection for industrial design works, providing interesting interpretative principles regarding the protection of such creations.
The Dispute
The procedural matter stems from legal action brought in April 2022 by Cassina S.p.A. against Rai – Radiotelevisione Italiana S.p.A. for the unlawful reproduction, distribution and use of unauthorized copies of the famous armchair and sofa LC2 "Fauteuil Grand Confort, petit modèle" (and the LC4 Chaise Longue) within various television formats. These works, conceived by architect Le Corbusier in collaboration with Pierre Jeanneret and Charlotte Perriand, represent authentic icons of 20th century industrial design, whose exclusive economic exploitation rights Cassina holds by virtue of a license agreement entered into with the Fondation Le Corbusier and the heirs of the co-authors.
The plaintiff contested the unauthorized use of furnishing elements constituting counterfeit reproductions of the works of which it holds exclusive rights within television broadcasts, identifying in such conduct a violation of the exclusive rights of economic exploitation protected by copyright legislation.
The defendant entered an appearance and raised, as a preliminary matter, the lack of requirements necessary for access to copyright protection, denying that the furnishings (LC2 armchairs) possessed the creative character and artistic value required by law; on the merits, it argued that the use of the furnishing elements did not constitute economic exploitation of the works, being merely functional use aimed at ensuring seating for guests and actors.
During the merit proceedings, a new episode of unlawful use occurring during a sports broadcast induced Cassina to initiate interim proceedings in the course of the case, concluded with the issuance of an injunctive order - confirmed after the appeal brought by RAI - prohibiting the use and distribution of copy-products of the LC2 with the application of a substantial penalty for each new case of infringement.
The Court's Decision
By judgment dated 12 September - 7 October 2025, the Court of Rome upheld the plaintiff's claims, consolidating the jurisprudential orientation on the protection of industrial design works and ordering the consequent injunctive and compensatory measures.
The Court preliminarily addressed the question of whether the LC2 armchair could be classified among works susceptible to protection under Article 2 no. 10 of the Copyright Law. Recalling the consolidated orientation of merit jurisprudence, the Court recognized the alleged artistic character in the design object, considering the widespread recognition it has received from experts, who have placed the work among the masterpieces of applied art of the 20th century. This assessment was corroborated by the work's exhibition in the most celebrated contemporary art museums worldwide and its celebration in numerous sector publications. The work thus satisfied all the parameters used in doctrine and jurisprudence to attribute artistic value to the work, given the international fame of the designer, the innovativeness and distinctiveness of the forms, the presence in museums and contemporary art exhibitions, recognition in specialized publications, and lasting affirmation within the cultural community and the public.
Through comparative analysis of broadcast frames with images of the original work, the Court established the counterfeit nature of the furnishings and qualified the defendant's conduct as unlawful. The use of copy products constituted unauthorized economic exploitation in violation of Article 12 of the Copyright Law, while television broadcasting entailed further violation of Article 16 of the same legislation. The Court noted that, although the use of the seating also served functional needs, it could not be denied that the placement of the furniture as principal (if not sole) furnishing elements of the scenic space had elevated the armchairs in question to the role of true and proper scenography of the programs.
The ruling finally clarified that it was not decisively relevant to the contrary that the copies of the armchair had not been displayed in the context of the programs for public contemplation, but had been used to seat guests, such mode of use being inherent to the specific function of the work. The Court also excluded that the use of copies could constitute lawful quotation in accordance with good practices, as no justifiable reason could be identified for which the quotation of the work in the described context should be deemed warranted.
Conclusions
The Rome Court's ruling precisely delineates the parameters of copyright protection for industrial design works, consolidating objective criteria for recognizing artistic value and clarifying that scenographic use of counterfeit elements constitutes violation of exclusive rights even when serving functional needs. The decision thus reinforces the jurisprudential trend on protection of iconic design works, confirming the breadth of protection accorded by the legal system to creations of recognized historical and cultural value.
Article published in today's Lexology Newsletter, written by our partner Barbara La Tella and our counsel Maddalena Deagostino.