How It Began

PANArt introduced the Hang® in 2001 developed by Felix Rohner and Sabina Schärer. By 2008, the Hang had inspired many other makers to develop their own variations. These became known as handpans. PANArt on the other hand stopped selling the Hang at some point. For the many years that followed, makers therefore freely built their instruments, evolving their craft in workshops across the world, setting the start for the global handpan scene and community as we know it today. That freedom came under serious threat in 2020.

PANArt’s legal move in 2020

By 2020, the European Court of Justice had issued two decisions on copyright law called “Cofemel” and “Brompton”. These two decisions were misunderstood by some scholars and national courts as lowering the threshold for copyright protection. PANArt, too, jumped on that momentum, now arguing that their “Hang” was a work of art protected by copyright. They chose Germany as a suitable venue for their test cases, because in Germany there is the possibility of obtaining preliminary injuctions without involving the other side and these injunctions can be granted rather quickly.

PANArt thus sued a new German reseller of handpans called „Handpan.world“. They argued that the Hang was protected by copyright and was not primarily an instrument but rather a sound sculpture. They were claiming a copyright on the following four elements:

1. The lenticular or lens-shaped form of the instrument
2. The central dome (the “Ding”)
3. The central port on the underside (the “Gu”)
4. Tonefields arranged in a circular pattern around the dome

PANArt had hired a top-tier Swiss law firm, while Handpan.world was not equally well represented and had little support from the wider handpan community. Professional and renowned handpan player David Kuckhermann was asked, the evening before the hearing, to testify as a witness. The imbalance was obvious. The Court then issued a judgement in PANArt’s favor. There was an option to appeal this decision, however the circumstances were not optimal for various procedural and other reasons.

Many phone calls were going around until some players and makers got together in a group which later became the Handpan Community United (HCU). The case created widespread fear in the community. Makers realized that if PANArt succeeded, the four elements could be locked down, threatening the future of handpan building itself. It was at this moment that Handpan Community United (HCU) was born.

Attempts at Dialogue

Before taking defensive action, Ralf van den Bor, founder of Ayasa Instruments, reached out directly to PANArt. In two emails Ralf had told PANArt that he feared for losing the best thing in his life, which is making instruments together with family and friends. He wanted to talk to them about the situation as there was a big fear within the community and suggested visiting them in their workshop in Berne / Switzerland, and he also invited them to visit him in the Netherlands. He also expressed his enormous respect for what they have done in the past. The response hereto was rather cold. PANArt’s replied with an email that said no more than that he will receive a letter from their lawyers about the legal situation. 

And PANArt indeed followed up with a letter from their lawyers: They sent a warning letter to Ralf, requesting him to render a cease and desist declaration and demanding  that instruments with the four claimed elements would no longer be built. Ralf van den Bor of Ayasa Instruments was invited to Zürich, to the lawyers’ offices, for out-of-court settlements. The written position of PANArt going into the meeting was blunt and clear: They thought the Hang was protected by copyright and they did not want to make concessions, but rather enforce their alleged rights. Dialogue proved impossible, despite Ralf’s peaceful and friendly approach.

Meanwhile, HCU had already begun working with Bird & Bird, an international law firm, as more cease-and-desist letters arrived in workshops and at retailers across Europe. Because PANArt is located in Switzerland, it became clear that the makers that had received a warning letter by PANArt could join forced in one common defense if they brought the dispute to their home court in Berne. The HCU was willing to organize and fund that defense, which was critical to put a stop to the pan-European legal strategy that PANArt had in the works.

Since 2020, Ralf van den Bor has reached out at many stages in the proceedings to try and find a solution. Every request for a personal meeting, (video) call or even a meeting with a mediator or an independent copyright expert was turned down.

The Proceedings

The first defensive action in Switzerland brought together 15 parties: Ayasa, Yataoshop, Soma Sound Sculptures, World of Handpans, Terre, Thomann, Hage (Sela), and other, smaller Swiss shops and an additional Swiss maker. They had all received warning letters by PANArt. The Claimants sought the Berne Court to declare that there was no copyright on the Hang, and if there was one, that the scope of protection of the Hang was narrow. This would leave room for building handpans that could be distinguished from the Hang.

The proceedings started with a first oral hearing, in which settlement talks were rejected by PANArt. They were not willing to negotiate and were not interested in a license fee. The then presiding judge at the Commercial Court in Berne then suggested splitting the proceedings in two steps: First, the Court would only decide on the question of whether the Hang was protected by copyright. Then, and only if a copyright was granted, the question of infringement of that copyright by handpans was going to be heard. The proceedings then developed as follows:

• Written submissions were made on the question of the existence of copyright
• A second oral hearing took place. Witnesses were heard (Reto Weber, Ralf van der Bor, Daniel Bernasconi, Sabina Schärer and Felix Rohner). At one point, the judge asked a suggestive question to Sabina Schärer, whether the presented Ayasa instrument could really not be distinguished from a Hang®. She did not outright deny that, but rather confirmed that they look different. 
• Settlement talks and private conversations followed (after the hearing and also after the first instance decision). All in all, PANArt refused to accept any settlement proposal if that did not include dropping the four features – lense shape, dome (irrespective of its place on the instrument), port and circular tone fields – for any handpan. It became clear that they would not accept any visual changes if they did not negatively impact the quality of the instruments

While the Swiss proceedings were ongoing, PANArt also extended the dispute to the Netherlands. On April 28th, 2021, PANArt obtained the seizure of many instruments and shells from Ayasa Instruments in the Netherlands. PANArt initiated, together with the seizure, a lawsuit against Ayasa Instruments in the Netherlands. Hiring another top tier law firm, their goal was not only damages but the destruction of the seized instruments by a third party at the expense of Ayasa Instruments themselves. After a reply from Ayasa Instruments represented by Bird & Bird Netherlands, the Dutch court decided to pause the proceedings in the Netherlands until a final decision from the proceedings in Switzerland would be made.

The Court’s First Decision

In 2024, after several submissions and oral hearings, the Commercial Court of Berne ruled in PANArt’s favor in the first part of the proceedings. The judgment recognized the Hang as a work of applied art, granting copyright protection to its essential features.

The plaintiffs in the proceedings appealed the decision to the Federal Supreme Court immediately. The appeal was denied by the Federal Supreme Court on procedural grounds: The Federal Supreme Court wants to address the issue of copyright only after the second phase (the infringement question) has been addressed by the Commercial Court of Berne.

Hence, the decision on copyright of the Hang is, to this day, not final.

PANArt Increases Pressure

After the first instance decision on the question of copyright, PANArt escalated the dispute further. They asked the parties in the Berne proceedings for financial damage payments (although they explicitly claimed that they would not pursue financial compensation before). They also asked the plaintiffs not to build and/or sell any instruments with any outward (apex) domes. None of the plaintiffs agreed on these terms. 

PANArt then also sent out emails to makers and shops all over Europe urging them to stop the sale of handpans, citing the verdict in Berne. In our opinion this was not a fair assessment of the legal situation, since there was no ruling on any infringement yet. As to this day, no handpan has been declared a copyright infringement in the Berne proceedings. In Germany, makers faced further intimidation: a police raid with a criminal law search order was carried out at a reseller’s home and store under criminal charges, adding to the atmosphere of fear and intimidation.

Despite the ongoing Federal appeal at the time, PANArt also escalated its actions towards Ayasa Instruments. On October 30th, 2024, they were granted seized funds from Ayasa Instruments’ bank and savings accounts. The amount granted by the Dutch courts was up to a maximum of €1.23 million. The amount on the bank accounts was significantly lower than that, however still a significant final amount was seized. 

We personally think this escalatory strategy is born out of a deep frustration that PANArt has, after 5 years and several hundreds of thousands of legal fees, not achieved anything yet and knowing that their chances are very slim to be able to enforce their (non-confirmed) copyright. Even if the copyright would stand in the future, the scope of protection should most likely be very narrow.

Developments in European Copyright Law

Meanwhile, and on time before the infringement question is going to be heard in the Commercial Court of Berne, European case law has been changing in the copyright sphere. Where back in 2020 two decisions of the CJEU were (wrongfully) perceived as lowering the threshold for copyright protection, now I 2025 two new decisions are strongly in favour of refusing copyright protection for everyday products (if these do not have an artistic value). The German Federal Court of Justice refused copyright protection for the “Birkenstock”-sandal and explicitly stressed that the design of an object falls within the scope of design law, and copyright can only be granted next to that if there is a real artistic value in the creation. This threshold was approved by an Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union later on in the “Mio/Konektra”-case.

We think that these two judgements may be decisive as they clearly push towards a more restrictive application of copyright for functional objects.

Second phase of the Berne proceedings

In the meantime, the second phase of the proceedings in Berne have started with our submission on the question of copyright infringement due in September 2025. In that submission, we stressed that and why the instruments in the proceedings did not fall in the scope of protection of an alleged copyright of the Hang. We also stressed that the Court wrongfully accepted copyright in the first place and analysed the Court’s decision in the light of the recent developments. Given that its decision on copyright is not final, the Commercial Court of Berne would have the ability to revisit its first instance judgment regarding the copyright in the second phase of the proceedings.

An oral hearing is summoned for January 2026.

Fundraising within the Community

Throughout the proceedings, HCU had accumulated an important amount in legal debts. HCU hoped to share costs equally among members, but some companies declined to contribute and pursued their own legal strategies by hiring a different law firm, deciding not to be represented in a united form anymore. Ayasa Instruments, by contrast, paid advances to keep the case alive.

The financial cost has been staggering. HCU’s side alone has already exceeded €1.1 million in legal fees – far more than initially estimated. PANArt has gone “all in,” and the community has had to match them, with hundreds of pages of submissions, countless hours of lawyers’ time, time from the involved parties and ongoing court appearances.

The result of our efforts is however tangible: five years into the dispute, makers everywhere are still free to build, sell, and play handpans. We are also confident that handpans will be able to be built and sold in the future given suggestive remarks from the judge at the last oral hearing, the strengths and variety of our legal arguments and very recent changes in European case law. 

As long as the community stands united and is adequately funded, the handpan has the resources to remain alive. Therefore, please consider contributing to our fundraising efforts!

•