1. Introduction
On April 24, 2026, the Supreme Court of Japan (the “Supreme Court”) rendered a judgment (the “Judgment”) addressing the widely debated issue of whether works of applied art can be protected under Japanese copyright law and the criteria therefor.
Courts in Japan had expressed divergent views on this issue, and this issue had been a long-standing topic of debate among scholars and practitioners. Against this backdrop, the Supreme Court explicitly addressed in the Judgment, for the first time, the specific criteria for determining whether shape, design or color or their combination of “products intended to be mass-produced and put to practical use in everyday life” qualifies as a copyrighted work※1.
Given this, in this newsletter, we briefly summarize the discussions regarding the copyrightability of works of applied art prior to the Judgment (section 2), introduce an overview of the facts of the case (i.e., Peter Opsvik AS et al. v. Noz Corporation; the “Case”) as well as the rulings of the Intellectual Property High Court (the “IPHC”) and the Supreme Court (sections 3–5), and provide our comments on the potential impact of the Judgment on future intellectual property law practice in Japan (section 6).
2. Divergent Views in Japan on the Copyrightability of Works of Applied Art
Under the Copyright Act of Japan, “works of artistic craftmanship” (e.g., a one-of-a-kind flower vase) explicitly included in the category of “work of art” (Article 2(2)); however, to what extent works of applied art, such as a designed chair, have the copyrightability has been a subject of discussion. Prior to the Judgment, the criteria applied in Japan addressing the copyrightability of works of applied art have not been aligned. Some of the different approaches taken by courts include:
-
an approach requiring an aesthetic appreciation or creativity comparable to that of a work of fine art or a “work of artistic craftsmanship”; and
-
an approach to determine whether or not to distinguish the object’s creative expression quality (aesthetic characteristics capable of being the object of aesthetic appreciation) from the configuration necessary to achieve its practical purpose.
On the other hand, some courts have applied
-
the same criteria for determining copyrightability of works of fine art (as the scope of copyright protection for works of applied art will naturally be narrow)※2.
Thus, the criteria adopted by the courts for determining copyrightability of works of applied art varied from case to case, resulting in a situation where judgments were unpredictable.
3. Summary of the Case
Central to the Case is the copyrightability under the Copyright Act of Japan of the design of a particular children’s chair named “TRIPP TRAPP” (the “Chair”) which was designed by the renowned furniture designer Mr. Peter Opsvik. Mr. Opsvik transferred his rights regarding the Chair (the “Right”) to a corporation named Peter Opsvik AS (“POAS”), and POAS granted Stokke AS (“Stokke”) the exclusive right under the Rights to manufacture and sell the Chair. Since 1972, Stokke has manufactured and sold units of the Chair.
Noz Corporation (“Noz”) also manufactures and sells children’s chairs, as well as chairs equipped with baby restraints and backrests (“Defendant’s Products”).
Stokke and POAS (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit against Noz in the Tokyo District Court, seeking an injunction against the manufacture and sale of Defendant’s Products and an award of damages.
The Tokyo District Court did not explicitly rule on the Chair’s copyrightability. Instead, after comparing the characteristics of the Chair and Defendant’s Products, the court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims since the Chair and Defendant’s Products were clearly different in terms of the form they express and thus no copyright infringement was found (Tokyo District Court Judgment of September 28, 2023; the “First Instance Judgment”※3).
4. The Intellectual Property High Court’s Judgment
Plaintiffs appealed the First Instance Judgment to the IPHC; however, the IPHC also determined that no copyright infringement was found and dismissed the appeal by Plaintiffs (IPHC Judgment of September 25, 2024; the “IPHC Judgment”).
(1) Criteria for Copyrightability
In analyzing the criteria for copyrightability, the IPHC first compared the purposes of the Copyright Act and the Design Act, scope of the protection under copyright and design rights, duration of the protection, etc.,※4 and, consequently, reached the following determination:
It is reasonable to interpret that copyrightability will be recognized for the creative expression of the shape, etc., of a utilitarian object such as the Chair only in cases where it includes elements that can be appreciated as independent objects of aesthetic appreciation apart from their practical functions, or where the utilitarian object is recognized as having been produced solely for the purpose of aesthetic appreciation. (Emphasis added by the authors.)
(2) Determination in this case
Consequently, the IPHC refrained from explicitly stating whether the Chair is protected as a copyrighted work and yet denied Plaintiffs’ argument of copyright infringement.
5. Supreme Court Judgment
Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a petition for final appeal with the Supreme Court, claiming that the IPHC had erred in its ruling in the IPHC Judgment, and the Supreme Court decided to hear the case.
The Supreme Court (Supreme Court Second Petty Bench Judgment of April 24, 2026) considered and addressed, among the several grounds for petition for final appeal argued by Plaintiffs※5, the Plaintiffs’ argument that “products intended for mass production and practical use in daily life (hereinafter referred to as ‘Mass-Produced Practical Products’) should be regarded as falling within the scope of artistic works if their shape, pattern or color, or a combination thereof constitutes a creative expression,” and “the Chair should be regarded as a work of authorship given that the distinctive shape of it constitutes a creative expression.” Ultimately, the Supreme Court held as following (1) and (2), and affirmed the IPHC Judgment, ruling that the IPHC’s decision was justified and did not conflict with the precedent referred to by the Plaintiffs, thereby dismissing Plaintiffs’ final appeal.
(1) Criteria for Copyrightability
The Supreme Court stated that “with regard to Mass-Produced Practical Products, it is not appropriate to adopt the interpretation that they immediately fall within the scope of artistic works and thus constitute copyrighted works merely because their shape or other features can be said to creatively express thoughts or sentiments.” (i.e., denial of the approach (iii) described in Section 2 above)
Then, the Supreme Court pointed out that: “the shape and other features of Mass-Produced Practical Products are basically determined subject to certain constraints related to the functions necessary for their practical purposes (hereinafter simply referred to as ‘functions’) and cannot be recognized separately from the configuration derived from such functions.”
The Supreme Court further elaborated: eligibility for protection under the Copyright Act is recognized for added parts in “cases where the shape or other features of the added parts is unrelated to functions and can be perceived conceptually as paintings or sculptures distinct from the functional elements,” or for a product itself (as a whole or in part) 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”. With that background, the Supreme Court ruled as follows:
Based on the foregoing, when the shape or other features of the whole or a part of a Mass-Produced Practical Product can be perceived, conceptually, as a creative expression of thoughts or sentiments distinct from the configuration derived from its function, the whole or part of the said Mass-Produced Practical Product should fall within the scope of artistic work as defined in Article 2(1)(i) of the Copyright Act. (Emphasis added by the authors.)
(2) Application to the Chair / Judgment on the Case
Regarding Plaintiffs’ arguments on the Chair’s creativity, the Supreme Court ruled that “the shape and other features of the Chair, whether in whole or in part, can only be recognized as a configuration derived from its function as a children’s chair, and cannot be regarded as a creative expression of thoughts or sentiments separate from that configuration” and therefore denied its copyrightability.
(3) Supplementary Opinion by Justice Akira Ojima
Supreme Court Justice Akira Ojima, a member of the panel of justices, put his supplementary opinion. Though supplementary opinions are not legally binding, Justice Ojima’s supplementary opinion to this Judgment is noteworthy as he was involved in TRIPS negotiation;
-
Justice Ojima stated that “A work of artistic craftsmanship …… is typically craft items that is produced one at a time and serve a practical purpose; however, no provisions in the legislation provide a definitive basis for establishing its definition, and it cannot be categorically stated that no Mass-Produced Practical Products fall within this category. Although the scope of what constitutes a work of artistic craftsmanship is not necessarily clear-cut, it is evident that the Chair is not a work of artistic craftsmanship.”
-
Justice Ojima also remarked that the opinion of the court “sets forth criteria for defining the scope of the application of the Copyright Act and the Design Act with respect to Mass-Produced Practical Products, taking into account the targets and objectives of protection, the requirements and procedures for protection and the scope and duration of rights under each Act, from the perspective of how Japan’s intellectual property laws have been legislatively structured to determine the scope of protection and the specific rights to be protected.” Furthermore, regarding Plaintiffs’ references to laws and judicial practices concerning applied art in other countries, Justice Ojima noted that “under the Berne Convention, the institutional design regarding the relationship between applied art and industrial designs is left to the discretion of each member state.” Then after providing an overview of the situations in the United States and Europe, Justice Ojima concluded that: “the fact that the Chair is recognized as a work of authorship in many European countries does not mean that similar protection is required in Japan, where the legal system differs. In Japan, the Copyright Act and the Design Act separately define their respective objects of protection and requirements for protection, and given that the Copyright Act contains no provisions regarding applied art, it is necessary, as the opinion of the court states, to reasonably delineate the scope of application of the Copyright Act and the Design Act while taking into account the objectives of these laws and the balance of interests.”
-
In addition, Justice Ojima elaborated on the reason why the opinion of the court avoided using the term “aesthetic appreciation” as follows: “while the existence of some form of ‘beauty’ is presupposed, 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.” He further stated that while the requirements outlined in the opinion of the court are “highly abstract, it is expected that various judgments applying these requirements to specific cases will be rendered in the future, just as the opinion of the court has applied them to the Chair.”
6. Potential Impacts of this Judgment on Future Practice
This Judgment is a notable and landmark judgment particularly because it explicitly addresses the requirement for design of “Mass-Produced Practical Products” to be protected as copyrighted works: “when the shape or other features of the whole or a part of the Mass-Produced Practical Products can be perceived, conceptually, as a creative expression of thoughts or sentiments, distinct from a configuration derived from its function.” It can be said that this ruling has improved the predictability of court decisions as it clarifies the criteria for future courts faced with this issue and excludes the element of “aesthetic appreciation”, which are not suitable for determination by judges, from the criteria for determination of the copyrightability of the Mass-Produced Practical Products.
On the other hand, as Justice Ojima pointed out, the criteria set forth in this ruling are still abstract, and it remains unclear exactly how they will be applied in practice.
Furthermore, the criteria set forth in this Judgment are to limit the scope for a “Mass-Produced Practical Product” to be recognized as a copyrighted work in Japan. Even if the design of a Mass-Produced Practical Product is protected as a copyrighted work in other countries, it may not be deemed to qualify as such in Japan. Consequently, when seeking the legal protection of designs for Mass-Produced Practical Products in Japan, it is important to assess whether they satisfy the requirements for design registration, such as novelty, and, where necessary, to ensure that a design registration is obtained. Furthermore, for designs that have become widely recognized and served as symbolic representations of a brand, it may be worth considering registering them as three-dimensional trademarks.
Endnotes
*1
To be precise, the Supreme Court had once rendered its decision in a case where the parties disputed over this issue before the Judgment: Takeshi Nii v. Nissen Co., Ltd., Supreme Court Judgment of March 28, 1991. In that case, the copyrightability of NychairX, the chair designed by the plaintiff and recognized for having received numerous design awards, was disputed and ultimately denied by the lower court. While the Supreme Court of this NychairX judgment affirmed the decision of the lower court, it provided no substantive commentary, and made no specific decision as to whether a work of applied art can be evaluated as a copyrighted work.
*2
Peter Opsvik AS et al. v. KATOJI CO., LTD., the IPHC judgment of April 14, 2015 (known as “TRIPP TRAPP II” case), etc. As a side note, for all IPHC precedents decided upon based on the same reasoning, the panels of judges in charge of the cases were led by the same presiding judge.
*4
The Design Act of Japan provides the system of design rights, of which notable features (compared to the copyright system) are (i) necessity of examination and registration by the Japanese Patent Office, (ii) necessity of annual fees to maintain a right, and (iii) the shorter duration.
*5
Although claims based on the Unfair Competition Prevention Act were also made, we do not address them in this newsletter since they were not addressed in the Judgment because the grounds for petition for final appeal in relation to such claims were excluded by the decision by the Supreme court to hear the case.
