タグ: copyright protection

The Supreme Court found the Tripp Trapp chair to be uncopyrightable

Posted on

In a legal dispute over whether artwork embodied on mass-produced utilitarian goods is protected under Japan’s copyright law, the Supreme Court of Japan upheld the High Court’s decision that the Tripp Trapp chairs are not copyrightable in Japan.
[Court case no. Reiwa7(Ju)356, decided on April 24, 2026]

1. Background of the Case

The Appellenats, Stokke AS, and Peter Opsvik AS, the manufacturer and distributor of the “TRIPP TRAPP” children’s chair (the “Chair”), designed by Peter Opsvik, alleged that the respondent’s products infringed upon their copyrights, asserting that the chair’s unique shape is protectable as a “work of authorship.”

2. The Legal Standard for Mass-Produced Utilitarian Goods

The Supreme Court addressed whether mass-produced utilitarian goods—items intended for practical use in daily life—can be protected under the Copyright Act.

  • Relationship with Design Act: The Court noted that Japan has a Design Law specifically to protect the shapes of mass-produced goods that aim to contribute to industrial development. Broadly granting copyright protection to such goods could undermine the significance of the Design Law, as copyright offers a much longer protection period (up to 70 years after the author’s death) without requiring registration.
  • The “Conceptual Separability” Criterion: The SC ruled that a mass-produced item can be considered a “work of fine art” under the Copyright Law only where its shape can be conceptually grasped as a creative expression of thoughts or emotions, independent of the components derived from its utilitarian function.

3. Application to the “TRIPP TRAPP” Chair

The Appellants argued that the Chair’s creative character lies in its L-shaped side profile with two legs rising at a 66-degree angle. However, the SC concluded:

  • The specified features are merely configurations derived from the chair’s function for children.
  • The shape of the Chair cannot be grasped as a creative expression of thoughts or emotions separately from its functional components.
  • Therefore, the Chair does not constitute a “work of authorship” under the Copyright Law.

Supplementary Opinion of Justice Akira Ojima

The SC ruling includes Justice Ojima’s opinion on the legal balance with other jurisdictions, such as the US and Europe.

  • The Berne Convention: While the Berne Convention protects works of applied art, it leaves the specific conditions and scope of protection to the domestic legislation of each member nation.
  • International Comparisons: Although the “TRIPP TRAPP” chair might be protected by copyright in some European countries or the U.S. (under their specific “separability” doctrines), Japan’s distinct legal framework between the Copyright Law and the Design Law necessitates a rational boundary based on Japanese law.
  • Aesthetic Judgment: The Justice noted that the SC intentionally avoided the term “aesthetic appreciation” (used in the lower court’s ruling) to avoid the misunderstanding that a high level of artistic merit is required, as courts are generally not suited to judge artistic value.

Japan IP High Court Decision: 3D shape of Stokke “TRIPP TRAPP” high chair Unprotectable under Copyright Law

Posted on

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.