Case Brief
Stokke AS (hereinafter “Stokke”) is a Norwegian manufacturer of children’s furniture and accessories renowned worldwide for developing outstanding solutions for children. Over the years, Stokke has produced numerous globally acclaimed products. Among them, since its launch in 1972, the Tripp Trapp high chair has been favored by consumers for its unique shape and design, pioneering the concept of growing children’s furniture. Sitongjia Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Sitongjia”) was established on 28 December 2012 and is Stokke’s wholly-owned subsidiary in China.
In 2020, Stokke and Sitongjia discovered that Suzhou *** Home Furnishing Co., Ltd. was manufacturing and, through its 1688, Tmall, Taobao, JD.com and Pinduoduo online stores, selling in large quantities products identical in shape and trade dress to the Tripp Trapp high chair.
On 30 December 2022, upon trial of first instance, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court found that the shape and configuration of the Tripp Trapp high chair for which the plaintiffs Stokke and Sitongjia sought protection constituted product trade dress with certain market influence, and that the defendants’ acts constituted unfair competition. The court ordered the defendants to compensate the plaintiffs for economic losses and reasonable expenses in a total amount of RMB 1.5 million. The case was subsequently appealed to the Jiangsu High People’s Court. Upon second-instance trial, on 31 March 2025, the Jiangsu High People’s Court rendered a final judgment dismissing the appeal and upholding the original judgment.
Key Points of the Judgment
1. The simple and unique shape and configuration of the Tripp Trapp high chair at issue does not fall within the category of functional shapes excluded from protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law; granting protection to such shape and trade dress does not restrict competition.
The scope of protection sought by Stokke and Sitongjia for the Tripp Trapp high chair’s trade dress in terms of shape covers the overall configuration consisting of an inclined L-shape formed by the inclined uprights and the bottom crossbar, and a step-like configuration formed by the seat board and footrest. The defendants argued that the shape design at issue falls under the first two types of functional shapes excluded from protection as provided in the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court, and therefore cannot be protected as product trade dress.
In this regard, the court of second instance held that, according to the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court, the first two types of shapes excluded from trade dress protection are “shapes solely determined by the nature of the product itself” and “shapes of a product that are solely necessary to achieve a technical effect.” The former refers to shapes that are necessary or commonly adopted to achieve the inherent purpose and use of the product, and the latter refers to shapes that must be used to enable the product to possess specific functions or to make the inherent functions of the product easier to achieve. If the shape adopted for part or all of a product, although designed to achieve certain functions, is not a shape that is necessary or commonly adopted, then, due to the existence of multiple variations, it possesses distinctiveness and cannot be deemed a functional shape excluded from protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law merely because its design also takes functionality into account. In the present case, the shape and configuration of the Tripp Trapp high chair claimed by Stokke and Sitongjia as trade dress is the overall configuration presented by designing the uprights and bottom crossbar into an inclined L-shape and the seat board and footrest into a step-like configuration. To achieve the safety, stability and adjustability functions of a growing children’s chair, the L-shaped support frame and the two step-like boards must also work in conjunction with other components such as grooves, crossbars and iron tubes. However, as regards the shape and configuration of the Tripp Trapp high chair at issue, there is insufficient evidence to prove that this is a shape that is necessary for or commonly adopted by growing chairs. On the contrary, the evidence submitted by Stokke and Sitongjia shows that there are various styles of growing children’s chairs on the market with different shapes and configurations; most growing chairs on the market adopt closed structures such as triangular or quadrilateral shapes, whereas the chair at issue adopts an open L-shaped configuration, which is clearly different. Therefore, the shape and configuration of the Tripp Trapp high chair at issue does not fall within the functional shapes excluded from protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and protecting such shape and trade dress does not restrict competition.
2. The termination of patent rights does not necessarily mean that the relevant shape and configuration automatically enters the public domain; as long as the conditions for protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law are met, it may still be protected under that law.
The Tripp Trapp high chair was granted utility patents abroad, which did not limit the specific shape of the chair. However, the defendants argued on this basis that, since the Tripp Trapp high chair had been protected under patent law and the patent term had expired, it could no longer be protected under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
In this regard, the court of second instance held that, in the field of intellectual property, it is not uncommon for the same subject matter to fall within the scope of protection of different intellectual property rights, and the termination of one right does not mean that other rights simultaneously lose effect, especially given that the Anti-Unfair Competition Law provides supplementary protection for certain civil interests under specific conditions. As for the Tripp Trapp high chair at issue, although it had been granted invention or utility model patents in multiple countries, invention or utility model patents protect technical solutions rather than the overall or partial shape and configuration of a product, and their purpose is to encourage inventions and creations and promote scientific progress. The Anti-Unfair Competition Law protects commercial signs with certain market influence, with the purpose of encouraging fair competition and preventing confusing acts of imitation. Therefore, the termination of patent rights does not necessarily mean that the relevant shape and configuration automatically enters the public domain; as long as the conditions for protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law are met, it may still be protected under that law. The evidence submitted by the defendants consists of documents generated in the course of overseas patent applications for the Tripp Trapp high chair at issue. Since the nature and scope of the rights applied for abroad are different from the shape and configuration trade dress of the Tripp Trapp high chair claimed by Stokke and Sitongjia in this case, such evidence should not serve as the basis for determining functional shape in this case.
3. Whether a three-dimensional trademark is approved for registration does not affect the determination in an individual case as to whether a product’s trade dress has certain market influence.
The China National Intellectual Property Administration once rejected the application for the Tripp Trapp three-dimensional trademark on the ground that it lacked distinctiveness. The defendants argued that, since the overall appearance of the Tripp Trapp high chair could not obtain protection as a three-dimensional trademark, it likewise could not be protected as product trade dress.
In this regard, the court of second instance held that, after long-term promotion and advertising, the shape and configuration trade dress of the Tripp Trapp high chair at issue has established a stable correspondence with the Stokke brand and Stokke as a company, and the relevant public can identify the source solely by the shape of the high chair. Regardless of whether the plaintiffs’ promotion of the Tripp Trapp high chair at issue focused on the product’s functions, this does not negate the fact that the shape and configuration trade dress of the high chair has actually acquired the function of distinguishing the source of goods. Although the application for a three-dimensional trademark for the shape of the high chair at issue was rejected, the reason for rejection was lack of distinctiveness rather than a finding that it constituted a functional shape, and there is no evidence proving that the evidence of reputation submitted in the aforementioned administrative proceedings is identical to that in the present case. Therefore, it cannot be inferred from the fact that the shape of the Tripp Trapp high chair did not obtain registration as a three-dimensional trademark that its shape and configuration trade dress likewise lacks distinctiveness.
Lawyers’ Commentary
For the shape and structure of a product itself to obtain protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, more stringent conditions must be satisfied, and successful cases of this type are relatively rare. The shape of the Tripp Trapp high chair, due to its concurrent functional considerations, is more prone to controversy as to whether it falls within the “functional shape” excluded from protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. In fact, the shape of the Tripp Trapp high chair is not determined by its functionality. In this case, the plaintiffs, through extensive evidence, demonstrated that products of the same type can achieve the same functions through various different designs, and that the functionality of Tripp Trapp is not realized solely by the shape for which protection is sought in this case. In addition, although the shape of the Tripp Trapp high chair appears simple, it embodies substantial intellectual input by the designer, is clearly distinguishable from similar growing chairs on the market, and has a high degree of distinctiveness. Through long-term use and promotion, it has further come to embody the plaintiffs’ brand goodwill and has acquired the function of identifying the source of goods.
This case also explores in depth the issue of multiple protection of intellectual property rights. The courts of both instances confirmed that the same subject matter may be the object of protection of different intellectual property rights. In addition to design patents, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law provides more flexible and dynamic protection for the shape and configuration of products. Although the Tripp Trapp high chair had been granted invention patents, given that the legislative purposes, objects of protection and conditions for protection under the Patent Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law are different, once the patent rights have terminated, as long as the appearance and configuration of the Tripp Trapp high chair meets the conditions for protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, it may still be protected as a distinctive commercial sign under that law. The fact that a product’s shape and configuration has failed to obtain registration as a three-dimensional trademark does not mean that it cannot be protected as product trade dress under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. In practice, the Trademark Office imposes very high requirements on the examination of distinctiveness and evidence of reputation for three-dimensional trademarks. This is based on the strong level of protection afforded to trademarks and the possibility of unlimited renewal of the protection term, and reflects a cautious attitude toward granting rights in three-dimensional trademarks. By contrast, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law follows the principles of case-by-case determination and dynamic protection; its scope of protection is easier to define in individual cases and is more flexible in terms of the protection of legal interests.
In summary, this case marks the first time that the external design of the Tripp Trapp high chair has obtained judicial protection in China, which is of milestone significance for Stokke’s core product that has achieved great commercial success. At the same time, this case conducts an in-depth discussion on the constitutive elements and conditions for protection of structural trade dress, and thus has high reference value for similar rights protection cases.
