On September 25, 2024, the Japan IP High Court dismissed an appeal by Peter Opsvik AS and Stokke AS who had claimed copyright protection for their award-winning, best-selling children’s chair, “TRIPP TRAPP.”
[Court case no. Reiwa5(ne)10111]TRIPP TRAPP
In 2021, Peter Opsvik AS and Stokke AS, as co-plaintiffs, initiated legal proceedings against Noz Corporation at the Tokyo District Court on the grounds of copyright infringement and the Unfair Competition Prevention Law.
The plaintiffs have asserted that Noz Hopple’s “Choice Kids” and “Choice Baby” chairs (see below right) are liable for copyright infringement and prohibited under the Unfair Competition Prevention Law in relation to their iconic “TRIPP TRAPP” high chair (see below left), and sought damages in the amount of 14 million JPY (approximately 98,000USD) in the complaint.
However, the Tokyo District Court did not rule in favor of the plaintiffs in a decision on the merits, rendered on September 28, 2023 [Reiwa3(wa)31529].
To contest, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the IP High Court, requesting the cancellation of the District Court decision.
IP High Court decision
The IP High Court found that the distinctive shape of “TRIPP TRAPP” perse has played a significant role in identifying the source of the plaintiff’s chair. However, the court questioned resemblance between the “TRIPP TRAPP” chair and the defendant chairs by globally taking account of their respective appearances and overall impressions.
Pertinent to a legal protection to the “TRIPP TRAPP” chair under the Copyright Law, the court held that:
In determining appropriate protection for creative works on the shape of utility articles, it is necessary to pay due attention to the purposes, nature, and content of rights provided by the Copyright Law and the Design Law in Japan.
To the extent that creative expression on utility articles is visible and causes aesthetical effect in the mind of consumers, it will not require protection under the Copyright Law since the Design Law takes an initiative to provide sufficient protection for such expression.
Based on these points, it is reasonable to conclude that creative shape of utility articles is protectable under the Copyright Law only where it contains an independent part that is an object of aesthetic appreciation apart from its practical function or when the entire article is deemed to have been created exclusively for the purpose of aesthetic appreciation.
The court has an opinion that the unique features of the “TRIPP TRAPP” chair are mainly serving to realize the practical function as a height adjustable children’s chair and aim to achieve basic function of chair as a whole. Therefore, it is difficult to separate the features apart from basic function of the plaintiff’s product as a chair. In other words, even if the plaintiff’s chair gives rise to an aesthetic effect in the mind of consumers as a whole, the unique feature of the chair is not an object of independent aesthetic appreciation apart from its practical function as a chair.
Obviously, there is no evidence to find that the plaintiff’s chair was made exclusively for the purpose of aesthetic appreciation.
Besides, the defendant’s chairs do not have the unique function of the plaintiff’s product. Due to a clear distinction in overall impression of respective products, the IP High Court believes the defendant was not liable for copyright infringement consequently.
