1. Home
  2. News Letter
  3. May 13, 2025

May 13, 2025

Copyright News

The IP High Court found that the form of the TRIPP TRAPP chair qualifies as a goods indication but denied copyrightability.

The IP High Court held that a chair, TRIPP TRAPP, has distinctive features that are widely recognized, and therefore, the overall product can be considered a goods indication. However, it concluded that the shape of the Defendant’s Product could not be deemed similar to that of the TRIPP TRAPP. Additionally, the court denied the copyrightability of the TRIPP TRAPP, stating that it does not have parts that can be appreciated independently for their aesthetic value apart from its practical function as a chair, nor can it be regarded as having been created solely for aesthetic appreciation (IP High Court judgment, September 25, 2024 (Case No.: 2023 (Ne) No. 10111).

Background
The Plaintiff, Opsvik AS, acquired the copyright for TRIPP TRAPP from the designer. The Plaintiff, Stokke AS, obtained an exclusive license to use the copyright from Opsvik AS and has been manufacturing and selling TRIPP TRAPP.


  • Feature ①: The chair has two legs formed by a pair of side bars on the left and right, with the seat board and foot board fixed horizontally between those side bars.
  • Feature ②: When viewed from the left or right side, the side bars rise diagonally from the floor. Their lower ends connect only to the diagonally cut front ends of the foot bars, allowing the side bars to directly contact the floor and form an approximately L-shaped structure at an acute angle of around 66 degrees.
  • Feature ③: Both the seat board and the foot board are fitted and secured along grooves formed on the inside surfaces of the side bars.
  • Feature ④: When viewed from the front or back, the seat board, foot board, cross bar, and backrest intersect perpendicularly with the side bars, emphasizing straight-line elements except for a small, nearly semicircular groove area on the inside surfaces of the side bars.
  • Feature ⑤: When viewed from the left or right side, each side bar is rendered in a single straight line with its top two corners forming right angles, and each foot bar is also in a single straight line with the angles at its front and rear corners being roughly symmetrical.
  • Feature ⑥: When viewed from the top, apart from the curved backrest (which contacts the user’s body) and the wavy rear sections of the seat board and foot board, the front portions of the seat board and foot board are straight, with their two corners forming right angles.

Defendant Noz manufactures, sells, and otherwise deals in Defendant’s Products 1 and 2.

Defendant’s Product 1


Defendant’s Product 2


The Plaintiffs claimed that Defendant's acts of manufacturing, selling, and otherwise dealing in Defendant's Products constitute unfair competition by using the same goods indication as TRIPP TRAPP, which has become well-known and famous as the Plaintiffs’ goods indication. Even if such acts do not constitute unfair competition, the Plaintiffs further asserted that they infringed the Plaintiff’s (Opsvik AS’s) copyright and its (Stokke AS’s) exclusive right to use TRIPP TRAPP. On these grounds, the Plaintiffs sought an injunction against the manufacture and sale of Defendant’s Products, an order for their destruction, and damages.

Original Judgement
The original judgment dismissed all of the Plaintiffs’ claims on the following grounds:

Unfair Competition Prevention Act
The Plaintiffs’ argument that the overall form of TRIPP TRAPP constitutes an indication of goods is unfounded, as they fail to specify the function of indicating source. In addition, even with respect to the argument that the “features of the form” in this case constitute a goods indication, these features are vague and do not clearly identify the part that functions as a goods indication. Thus, the acts do not constitute unfair competition.

Copyright Infringement
Although even if a utilitarian article can be recognized as a work of authorship where it displays artistic merit, and even if the linear aesthetic of the TRIPP TRAPP is deemed to possess copyrightability, the complex and curvilinear form of the Defendant’s Products cannot be said to perceive the essential features of the TRIPP TRAPP. Therefore, it does not constitute copyright infringement.

Dissatisfied with the original judgment of the court, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal.

Judgement in this case
For the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

The court first specified the general criteria for requirements of goods indications as follows;

"A goods indication" is defined as "a name, trade name, trademark, mark, container or packaging of a product, or any other indication of a product or business related to a person's commercial activities". Even if it is the shape of a product itself, if it objectively possesses a particularly distinctive characteristic that differentiates it from other similar products (special distinctiveness), and if, through long-term, continuous, and exclusive use by a specific business entity, or through extremely strong advertising, explosive sales performance, or other means, the shape of the product has become well-known among consumers as indicating the origin of the specific business entity (publicity), it may acquire a source-identifying function. In such cases, the shape of the product should be considered a "goods indication." under Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.


The court said that it integrates Features ① to ③ inseparably and adopts a design in which the side rails and leg rails form a straight line, resulting in a sophisticated, simple, and sharp impression not found in other products.
Also, it said that the design of TRIPP TRAPP was also recognized as having become widely known among consumers as indicating the plaintiffs’ products in connection with their business, at the latest by the time Defendant’s Products were launched, due to its long sales history, advertising efforts, and awards.

The court determined that the overall shape of TRIPP TRAPP identified from the Features ① to ③ qualifies as a "goods indication."

Regarding similarity between Defendant’s Products and TRIPP TRAPP, the court said that;

Whether the shape of each of Defendant’s Products is similar to the plaintiffs’ "goods indications" should be determined based on the actual conditions of trade. Specifically, the assessment should be made by considering whether traders and consumers, based on the appearance, sounds, or conceptual impression of the products, are likely to perceive them as similar overall due to impressions, memories, or associations.



The court said that while Defendant’s Products are also two-legged children's chairs, they do not possess TRIPP TRAPP’s Feature ③. Instead, Defendant’s Products secure the seat and footrest using support components, fasteners, and screws.
Additionally, it said that the upper ends of the side rails of Defendant’s Products are bent vertically, giving it an overall impression of curved elements and a combination of multiple components. This differs from TRIPP TRAPP, which has a "linear, simple, and sharp impression."
Accordingly, it concluded that Defendant’s Products do not possess the "special distinctiveness" of the plaintiffs’ products, and their appearance and overall impression cannot be considered similar.

Therefore, the court determined that the Defendant’s conduct does not constitute unfair competition.

Copyright Infringement
The court specified the general criteria for copyrightability as follows;

For a creative expression in the shape or design of a utilitarian object, such as the plaintiffs’ product, to be recognized as a copyrighted work, it must either (1) contain elements that can be appreciated aesthetically, independent of its practical function, or (2) be considered as having been created solely for the purpose of aesthetic appreciation.


The court said that the distinctive features of TRIPP TRAPP consist of Features ① to ③, and each of these features was chosen from among multiple possible design options to achieve the practical functionality of an adjustable-height children's chair.

Also, it said that while TRIPP TRAPP exhibits creativity in aspects such as its sophisticated, linear design, the defining features—such as the two-legged structure, L-shaped side and leg rails, and the groove-based panel fixation—primarily serve to fulfill the chair's functional purpose.

It said that, in other words, these design features are inseparable from the product’s utilitarian function and cannot be considered independent expressions created solely for aesthetic appreciation.

Moreover, the court added that even assuming that TRIPP TRAPP contains creative expressions that can serve as independent objects of aesthetic appreciation, the Defendant’s Product adopts a different shape and fixation method. As such, it does not evoke the essential expressive features of the plaintiffs’ product.

Therefore, Defendant’s Products cannot be considered a reproduction or adaptation of TRIPP TRAPP.

As a result, the court denied copyrightability and concluded that copyright infringement was not established.

Comments
Unfair Competition Prevention Act
In many past judicial precedents, courts have identified “special distinctiveness (having clearly distinct features from other products of the same kind) “and “publicity” (that the shape is widely recognized as indicating the product of a particular business) for a product’s shape to be deemed an “indication of goods or business”

The original judgment, in addition to the above two requirements, established a criterion that “if multiple forms are included and some do not qualify as indications of goods, then the whole does not qualify either,” thereby denying the goods indication.
On the other hand, this judgment, as in the past, emphasized the above two requirements. It recognized the goods indication for the overall form of TRIPP TRAPP but denied the similarity in form for Defendant’s Products, as it lacked Feature ③ (seat fixation using grooves).

There is another case (IP High Court ruling on April 14, 2015, the “Prior Case”) in which the Plaintiffs sought an injunction and other measures against the sale of products by companies other than Defendant in this case regarding the TRIPP TRAPP.
The defendant’s product in the Prior Case differs from Defendant’s Products in this case in that it possesses Feature ③ regarding the method of fixing the seat plate and footrest plate.
The Prior Case also recognized special distinctiveness for the form that included Feature ③ similar to this case, affirmed the qualification of TRIPP TRAPP as a goods indication, but denied similarity to the defendant’s product in the Prior Case.

Although it is not explicitly stated in the judgment, the fact that TRIPP TRAP design was registered as a three-dimensional trademark (No. 6769295) after the original judgment suggests that it has acquired special distinctiveness. This may have influenced the determination of whether it functions as a goods indication.

This judgment concludes that the product forms of TRIPP TRAPP and the Defendant's Products are not similar. However, some experts suggest that there is a possibility that the Defendant's Products may cause confusion as if it were a model change of TRIPP TRAPP, and that both product forms are similar to the extent that there is a risk of confusion.
It will be important to follow future cases regarding the relationship between the requirements for product forms similarity and the likelihood of confusion.

Copyright Infringement
According to previous court precedents, applied art, except for artistic crafts, is protected as a “work of art” only if it possesses a high level of creativity equivalent to pure art. There has been a tendency to apply stricter standards compared to ordinary copyrighted works.
On the other hand, the Prior Case assessed the copyrightability of applied art using the same standards as ordinary copyrighted works and recognized its copyrightability but denied similarity to the defendant’s product in the Prior Case.
However, the original judgment and this judgment, in line with previous court precedents, required a high level of creativity for applied art and denied the copyrightability of TRIPP TRAPP. Furthermore, the original judgment and this judgment found that even if assuming a position recognizing the copyrightability of the TRIPP TRAPP, copyright infringement was denied on the grounds that the essential characteristics of TRIPP TRAPP could not be directly perceived from Defendant’s Products.

Court rulings have consistently denied the copyrightability of various designs for utilitarian object, including chair designs, original drawings of decorative window lattices, blueprints for smoking stands, decorative streetlight designs, general residential houses, and log-style wooden houses.
However, the Prior Case adopted a more lenient standard than these precedents.
In contrast, this judgment has returned to a stricter standard.

Written by: Ms. Wakana Furuhashi (Attorney at Law)