ECJ's FEIA decision on commissioned designs

The ECJ has decided the FEIA case C-32/08, and remarkably quickly by their own lights. The case concerned ownership of commissioned designs.
The designs in question (of cuckoo clocks) were part of a project started by FEIA (Fundación Española para la Innovación de la Artesanía, or Spanish Foundation for the Innovation of Craftsmanship) and organised by AC&G SA, who then made an oral contract with Cul de Sac Espacio Creativo SL, the employers of the designs in question. FEIA claimed ownership in the Spanish courts. Spanish law, like that of the UK, vests rights in the commissioner rather than the designer. They won at first instance but on appeal the Court referred the issue to the ECJ.
We reported the AG's Opinion here, back in April. As usual, the Court agrees with the broad thrust of the Opinion.

The headline issue couldn't be clearer:
"the arguments of the FEIA and the United Kingdom Government that the terms ‘employer’ and ‘employee’, in particular, in Article 14(3) must be interpreted broadly in order to apply also to commissioned designs, must be rejected."

These are questions of Community, not national, law:
"Thus, it follows from the need for uniform application of Community law and from the principle of equality that the terms of a provision of Community law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the Community, having regard to the context of the provision and the objective pursued by the legislation in question (see, inter alia, Case 327/82 Ekro [1984] ECR 107, paragraph 11; Case C‑287/98 Linster [2000] ECR I-6917, paragraph 43; and Case C‑316/05 Nokia [2006] ECR I-12083, paragraph 21). That is the case for the terms ‘designer’ and ‘successor in title’ in Article 14 of the regulation."

In paras 79 to 82 they deal with the effects of assignments:
"79 It follows from the above that the possibility of assigning by way of contract the right to the Community design from the designer to his successor in title within the meaning of Article 14(1) of the regulation is consistent with both the wording of that article and the aims of the regulation.
80 It is, however, for the national court to ascertain the contents of such a contract and in that regard to determine whether the right to the unregistered Community design has in fact been transferred from the designer to his successor in title.
81 The above considerations clearly do not preclude the national court, in the context of that assessment, from applying the law on contracts in order to determine who owns the right to the unregistered Community design, in accordance with Article 14(1) of the regulation.
82 In the light of all the above considerations, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the answer to part (a) of the third question is that Article 14(1) of the regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the right to the Community design vests in the designer, unless it has been assigned by way of contract to his successor in title."

All clear enough. It does highlight the need to ensure that outsourced designs are clearly covered by contract - the default rule of UK or Spanish law should not be relied on for Community rights.