Form Follows Function: The Japanese Supreme Court Rejects Copyright Protection To The Tripp-Trapp Chair

Not All Design Is Art: Japan's Supreme Court and the Tripp Trapp Standard

 Introduction

Lately, it can be observed that consumers are starting to look for artistic appeal in every product they purchase. This has led to a large number of manufacturers creating products which are designed to form a functional purpose while simultaneously embodying significant artistic features. Such products are usually termed as works of applied arts. The applied arts are the application of design and decoration to everyday objects to make them aesthetically pleasing.¹ It is an overlap of objects that have utilitarian functions with objects of beauty that provide intellectual stimulation.

Imagine 2 brands, both manufacture doorknobs. One creates a standard metal doorknob which solves the function of opening the door. Then this second brand enters the market with multiple new variations in doorknobs, one has ethnic motifs carved on it, another has some design painted on it, then another is distinguishable in its shape. An interesting question to ask here is that When the appearance of a functional product reflects creativity and artistic craftsmanship, can that appearance receive copyright protection?

The recent ruling of the supreme court of Japan in Peter Opsvik AS et al. v. Noz Corporation² ("Tripp Trapp case") dealt specifically with this issue regarding the scope of applicability of copyright law to Applied Arts and whether the shapes, size and colour of these mass produced goods can be considered “Creative expression” distinct from the function they serve for the purpose of such protection.

This blog examines the abovementioned judgement in light of the copyright-ability of applied arts and further expounds upon the interplay between the copyright and Designs act. It aims to give the producers a better understanding of their intellectual property rights over the products they manufacture.

Legal Provisions

1. Copyright Act, Act No. 48 of 1970³

Article 2(2) of the copyright act of Japan clearly establishes that an "artistic work" includes a work of artistic craftsmanship.⁴ Article 10(1)iv of the same act puts forward an illustrative yet non-exhaustive classification of “works” such as Literary works, Photographic works, works of Architecture etc which can be classified as copyrighted works of fine art.⁵

A notable part of the act is the Article 51 which deals with the age of a copyright and states that a copyright subsists till 70 years after the death of the Author.⁶

2. Design Act（Act No. 125 of 1959)⁷

Article 2 (1)⁸ defines as "shape, patterns or colors, or any combination thereof, of an article ... which creates an aesthetic impression through the eye”

Notably, the age of a design is 25 years from the date of filing of the same. The same has been clarified through Article 21(2)⁹ of the Act.

3. Copyright Act of 1957¹⁰

The Indian law on copyright  gives a detailed and relatively wider definition of Artistic Works as “(i) painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving or a photograph whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality; (ii) a 1 work of architecture; and (iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship” in Section 2(c)¹¹ of the Act.

Section 22¹² of the Act states that the term of the copyright will be till 60 years after the death of the Author of the work.

Legal Analysis

1. FROM AESTHETIC MERIT TO FUNCTIONAL DISTINCTNESS

During the adjudication of the first appeal, the Japanese IPHC followed the test of “Aesthetic Appreciation” to dismiss the appeal. As reported by Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu, the test applied by the IPHC basically says that the copyrightability of such objects of utilitarian functions is limited to the part of the product capable of “aesthetic appreciation apart from their practical functions.”¹³

While the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, their reasoning contained a crucial distinction. They completely avoided buying into the "aesthetic appreciation" argument, observing that copyright protection applies, whether to added parts or the product as a whole in “cases where the shape or other features of the whole or a part of the product can be perceived conceptually as sculptures or the like distinct from the functional elements, even in spite of its relevance to functions”¹⁴

Notably, Justice Ojima in his supplementary opinion, specifically stated that “the using the term ‘aesthetic appreciation’ could give rise to the misunderstanding that a high degree of creativity or artistry is required; moreover, it is considered inappropriate for the court to judge whether an object is worthy of appreciation as an aesthetic work of art in the first place.”¹⁵

In this case, The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim for copyright on the ground, as explained by the Marks IP Law firm, that the shape and other physical characteristics of the chair were “merely configurations derived from the chair’s function for children”.¹⁶

2. THE COPYRIGHT AND DESIGN OVERLAP

The copyright act protects the “Creative Expression” or any work as defined under Article 2¹⁷of the copyright act. Notably, its counterpart in the Designs Act protects a “Design” which protects the shape or pattern or colour or a combination of those in any article, building or graphic image. In plain terms: the Copyright Act is designed to guard "Creative Expression,”¹⁸ where the Designs Act exists to protect "Aesthetic Impression."

Interestingly, neither statute explicitly excludes the other, which naturally creates a messy overlap between Copyright and Design law. As a result, if a creation checks the boxes for both regimes, it technically ends up enjoying double protection under both laws.

The reason why this can be a complex situation is that the protection given under the Copyright Act is much broader and lasts for 70 years after the lifetime of the author.¹⁹ However, a design right ends 25 years after the filing date of the application for design registration.²⁰ This asymmetry would make the entire Designs Act Registration system commercially unviable.

Therefore, the court’s conceptual separability test enables in identifying genuinely creative objects which can be separated from functions and ensuring that they do not benefit from dual protection under both copyright and the Designs Act.

Relevant Cases

Peter Opsvik AS et al. v. Noz Corporation²¹

The factual matrix of the case is such that the Appellants Stokke AS and Peter Opsvik AS, manufacturer and producer of the children’s  “TRIPP-TRAPP” chair, reached the doors of the court with a claim the Respondent’s product amounted to copyright infringement. It was alleged that the unique shape of the chair is protectable as a “work of Authorship”²².

The Tokyo District Court²³ refrained from ruling on the copyrightability of the chair but simply held that both the products were distinguishable in their form and therefore no infringement was found.

As a result, the IPHC used the “Aesthetic Appreciation” test to reject the Appeal but did not indicate whether the chair was copyright-protected. In the third stage of litigation, which was held at the Supreme Court of Japan, the appeal was dismissed because the court used the rule of “configurations derived from functions.”²⁴

Finally, in the third round of litigation, when the matter reached the Supreme Court of Japan, the appeal was dismissed again as the court applied the rule of “configurations derived from functions”.²⁵

Practical Implications

This judgement, according to Nagashima’s assessment, significantly improves the predictability of the future cases relating to copyright of mass produced functional goods by giving a much more clear standard of copyright and excludes the element of “Aesthetic Appreciation.”²⁶

Since this ruling limits copyright protection in Japan, it makes Designs Act registration under Article 3²⁷ imperative for IP holders looking to protect their products which fall under the category of objects “where the shape or other features of the whole or a part of the product can be perceived conceptually as sculptures or the like distinct from the functional elements, even in spite of its relevance to functions.”²⁸

In this safest way for the producer to protect their IP rights would be by getting both Design as well as a 3D Trademark Registered for their product.

Conclusion

With this decision, the Japanese Supreme Court finally cleared away decades of fog hanging over applied art, ditching squishy, subjective aesthetic tests in favour of a much sharper, function-focused standard. However, as Justice Ojima cautioned, the standard is abstract and future courts will have to work out its exact application on a case-by-case basis. The message to designers and brands is clear: copyright cannot be relied upon as automatic protection for product design in Japan, however artistically distinguished that design may be. The surefire route is Design Act registration and, where applicable, a 3-D trade mark. Section 15²⁹ India's own statutory boundary provides a helpful contrast in this respect, by showing two different ways of achieving the same policy objective.

Footnotes

^{1 Applied Arts, Art Law, https://www.hhrartlaw.com/category/applied-arts/ (last visited Aug. 9, 2026)}

^{2 Peter Opsvik AS v. Noz Co., Ltd., Saikō Saibansho Sup. Ct., Reiwa 8 (Ju) No. 356, Apr. 24, 2026 (Japan), available at https://www.courts.go.jp/assets/hanrei/hanrei-pdf-95904.pdf.}

^{3  Chosakukenhō Copyright Act, Act No. 48 of 1970 (Japan), translated in Japanese Law Translation Database, japaneselawtranslation.go.jp}

^{4 Chosakukenhō Copyright Act, Act No. 48 of 1970, art. 2(2) (Japan).}

^{5 Chosakukenhō Copyright Act, Act No. 48 of 1970, art. 10(1) (Japan).}

^{6 Chosakukenhō Copyright Act, Act No. 48 of 1970, art. 51 (Japan).}

^{7  Ishōhō Design Act, Act No. 125 of 1959 (Japan), translated in Japanese Law Translation JLT DS, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/4806.}

^{8 Ishōhō Design Act, Act No. 125 of 1959 art. 2(1) (Japan)}

^{9  Ishōhō Design Act, Act No. 125 of 1959 art. 21(2) (Japan)}

^{10 The Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14 of 1957 (India)}

^{11 The Copyright Act, 1957, § 2, No. 14 of 1957 (India).}

^{12 The Copyright Act, 1957, § 21(2), No. 14 of 1957 (India).}

^{13 Kenji Tosaki, Takahiro Hatori & Nozomi Kato, Japanese Supreme Court's First Ruling on the Copyrightability of Works of Applied Art (Judgment Issued on April 24, 2026), Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu (May 2026), https://www.nagashima.com/en/publications/publication20260513-1/.}

^{14 Id. at 3.}

^{15 Id. at 4}

^{16 Masaki Mikami, The Supreme Court found the Tripp Trapp chair to be uncopyrightable, Marks IP L. Firm (Apr. 25, 2026), https://marks-iplaw.jp/supreme-court-tripp-trapp/.}

^{17 Chosakukenhō Copyright Act, Act No. 48 of 1970, art. 2 (Japan).}

^{18  Id.} 

^{19 Chosakukenhō Copyright Act, Act No. 48 of 1970, art. 51 (Japan).}

^{20 Ishōhō Design Act, Act No. 125 of 1959 art. 21(2) (Japan)}

^{21 Peter Opsvik AS, Reiwa 8 (Ju) No. 356.}

^{22  Mika Ishōhō Design Act, Act No. 125 of 1959 (Japan), translated in Japanese Law Translation JLT DS, https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/4806.}

 ^{Ishōhō Design Act, Act No. 125 of 1959 art. 2(1) (Japan)}

 ^{Ishōhō Design Act, Act No. 125 of 1959 art. 21(2) (Japan)}

 ^{The Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14 of 1957 (India)}

 ^{The Copyright Act, 1957, § 2, No. 14 of 1957 (India).}

 ^{The Copyright Act, 1957, § 21(2), No. 14 of 1957 (India).}

 ^{Kenji Tosaki, Takahiro Hatori & Nozomi Kato, Japanese Supreme Court's First Ruling on the Copyrightability of Works of Applied Art (Judgment Issued on April 24, 2026), Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu (May 2026), https://www.nagashima.com/en/publications/publication20260513-1/.}

 ^{Id. at 3.}

 ^{Id. at 4}

^{23 Peter Opsvik AS v. Noz Co., Tōkyō Chihō Saibansho Tokyo Dist. Ct. Sept. 28, 2023, Reiwa 3 (Wa) No. 31529 (Japan), https://www.courts.go.jp/app/files/hanrei_jp/269/092269_hanrei.pdf.}

^{24 Tosaki et al., supra note 13, at 2.}

^{25 Mikami, supra note 16}

^{26 Tosaki et al., supra note 13, at 4}

^{27  Ishōhō Design Act, Act No. 125 of 1959 art. 3 (Japan)}

^{28 Tosaki et al., supra note 13, at 3}

^{29 The Copyright Act, 1957, § 15, No. 14 of 1957 (India).}

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.