Does the Porsche engineer’s daughter still have a chance of big money? – Economy

When asked whether a car can be art, you will certainly get different answers from carphile frequent drivers than from the cargo bike fraction. However, the greatest aesthetic consensus is likely to be achieved with the legendary 911, the iconic Porsche model with the elegant side profile. And because the car sold very well, Ingrid Steineck, daughter of Porsche engineer Erwin Komenda, has been suing for years. She demands a share of the proceeds – because her father was the one who designed the car. It failed in two instances, most recently at the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has now overturned the judgment and referred it back to the OLG. This opens up a new opportunity for her. Albeit a fairly small one.

According to the so-called bestseller paragraph, the author is entitled to a fairness compensation if his work sells so well that it would seem inappropriate to refer him to the wages. There can be a lot of money at stake. Steineck demands 0.25 percent of the proceeds, calculated from 2007. By 2017 alone, according to their calculations, 260,000 vehicles would have to be sold.

Erwin Komenda, who died in 1966, designed the predecessor of the 911, the Porsche 356, which was launched in 1950. At least that is certain. The Porsche company itself had repeatedly named Komenda as the designer of the body, for example on a display board in the museum in Stuttgart-Zuffenhausen and in a historical advertising brochure. The car looks more baroque than the slim successor, but you can guess the relationship. But nothing more. The Higher Regional Court found that the similarity was not sufficient to extend the 356 author’s right to the successor model. The BGH confirmed the judgment on this point.

The Porsche version is: The designs come from the family

This all led to the question of whether Komenda – as claimed by the daughter – was also the creator of the Porsche 911. The Porsche version is: The designs come from the family. In fact, alongside the bodywork department headed by Komenda, the company had installed a new design department headed by Ferdinand Alexander Porsche, the eldest son of CEO Ferry Porsche. Both departments worked in parallel on various models, from which the 911 should emerge – T7, T8, T9, these were the internal abbreviations. But it was no longer clear whether it was Porsche junior who had the decisive creative flash of inspiration – or Komenda, Ferry Porsche’s long-time confidant. Various witnesses did not bring clarity. And the gap in evidence fell back on the plaintiff.

Open detailed view

However, the OLG made a mistake. Ingrid Steineck named her husband as a witness. Erwin Komenda is said to have told him during a visit to the company that the Porsche 911 was “his car, his design”. But the Higher Regional Court did not hear the witness, although according to the Federal Court of Justice such a statement would have been “at least an indication of the authorship of the father”. It is not clear whether the Higher Regional Court really had to summon the man, and the offer of evidence may have come too late. But it should have at least formally decided on it. The court must now make up for this.

What does this mean for Ingrid Steineck? What weight would the testimony of a witness who would benefit from the windfall be? One thing is clear: the Higher Regional Court does not have to believe the husband if other indications speak against it. And even if Komenda were to be awarded authorship, the court would have to decide another auto-aesthetic issue. Is today’s Porsche 911 from the 991 series similar enough to the original Porsche to be considered Komenda’s creation? The claim of the plaintiff is aimed at the sale of the current models. And their backside, if I may say so, turned out to be a bit heavier.