The commercial use (e.g. sale, rental) is prohibited according to your cited text.
The manufacture, import, distribution, sale, rental, advertising with a view to sale or rental and the possession for commercial purposes of devices, products or components as well as the provision of services which: […]
And while the LG Köln (Cologne) sided with the copyright owner of the wallpaper, other LGs and the OLG Düsseldorf - a higher court - said otherwise:
The case I ZR 140/23 is really meta: A woman posted a screenshot of a website of a tennis center online; the documented website also contains a photograph of the guest room of the tennis center, whose wall is (in)decorated with a photo wallpaper on which a picture motif is reproduced to which the photographer claims rights via his company registered in Canada.
The commercial use (e.g. sale, rental) is prohibited according to your cited text.
And while the LG Köln (Cologne) sided with the copyright owner of the wallpaper, other LGs and the OLG Düsseldorf - a higher court - said otherwise:
Abbildung einer Fototapete im Netz ist keine Urheberrechtsverletzung (2024-02-29, in German)
But the copyright owner is appealing that decision and the BGH - the highest court - has to decide.
Urheberrecht: Foto von Fototapete landet beim Bundesgerichtshof (2024-03-07, in German)
And this is just absurd: