The L-shape Of Things To Come? Netherlands Court Grants Pan-EU Relief In Tripp Trapp Chair Works Of Applied Art Copyright Dispute

The Dutch court reaffirms its credentials as a hot spot for European copyright litigation on works of applied art by granting a pan-European injunction to the famous Tripp Trapp chair.

Last year, we wrote about the ECJ judgment in Kwantum concerning a referral from the Supreme Court of the Netherlands regarding yet another famous chair, the DSW. The case asserted the significance of harmonisation of the approach to copyright in the EU. The judgment opened the door to enforcing rights in works created outside the EU, even where local protection in the non-EU state would be unavailable, provided there is a sufficient jurisdictional hook to an EU Member State.

This recent Tripp Trapp case highlights another valuable impact of EU copyright harmonisation, which is the importance of carefully selecting your litigation venue to enhance your chances of obtaining the broadest scope of protection and relief.

The Tripp Trapp IP legacy

The Tripp Trapp chair is somewhat of a celebrity for both parents and IP practitioners, with its trade mark and copyright protection vigorously litigated in the EU following the expiry of the patent granted in 1972 and any applicable design rights. Stokke, the Norway-based rightsholder of Peter Opsvik's infamous design, is not afraid of a lengthy legal bust up, having tirelessly defended a Benelux trade mark for the chair's shape granted in 1998 until its eventual invalidation by the Netherlands Supreme Court in 2020, and having fought copyright battles across the world – including success in the Netherlands and Germany.

The most recent parties to trip into Stokke's trap, are Cybex, a group of German companies designing and developing children's products, and Baby-Dump and BabyPark the Dutch distributors of those products. They launched the Iris chair by email in March 2025, and entered the spotlight as Stokke's new adversary. Both chairs are shown below in an image from the judgment (Tripp Trapp on the left and the Iris chair on the right).

Copyright

In the preliminary injunction brought in the Netherlands, the court found that copyright subsisted in the Tripp Trapp chair in two key elements: the L shape and the floating seat. These were found to be an expression of the author's free and creative choices. The judge said that whilst the other choices (including the rounded back, the wood–metal contrast and other "Scandi" style features) may have been free, it did not follow that they were creative. As Peter Opsvik died in 2024, copyright would subsist until 2094, offering a powerful though relatively narrow scope of protection.

The analysis of infringement was based on the established overall impression approach under Dutch law. On that basis, the judge concluded the Iris chair replicated both protectable elements, and therefore gave the same overall impression as the Tripp Trapp chair and was found to infringe. The judge acknowledged the upcoming CJEU decision regarding works of applied art in Mio / Konektra may take an approach similar to the alternative infringement analysis offered in the Advocate General's Opinion i.e. whether the creative elements of the work have been recognisably reproduced. However, the Dutch court considered it was bound to apply the current law and, in any event, adopting the approach set out in the AG's Opinion would have resulted in the same conclusion.

Pan European Injunction

What makes this case so valuable to rightsholders is the strategic approach to jurisdiction. Different courts have varied appetites for making decisions with a pan-European consequence, particularly in unsettled areas like copyright in works of applied art where purported harmonisation competes with divergent territorial approaches.

Jurisdiction

The preliminary injunction proceedings were brought before the Dutch courts because of the Dutch distributor defendants, neither of which operated outside of the Netherlands. The more valuable opponent was the German Cybex group operating across much of the EU. It is notable that Stokke brought and withdrew proceedings twice before The Hauge prior to settling on the District Court of Gelderland, making it clear the Dutch courts were their preference. Cybex, by contrast, raised non-infringement proceedings in Germany and Italy. Had the German claim been raised two days earlier, it would have pre-dated the first Hague action and may have displaced the Netherlands as the member state with jurisdiction.

Under Article 8(1) Brussels I-bis, it is possible to sue a defendant in a jurisdiction other than the one where they are domiciled provided that:

• at least one other defendant is domiciled in the chosen jurisdiction; and
• the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear them together to avoid irreconcilable judgments.

Case law has established that this rule cannot merely be used to pull a defendant from their domiciled jurisdiction. It must be foreseeable that the defendants could be sued in the chosen member state because of the close connection of the claims, i.e. whether the same factual and legal situation applies to the various defendants. Here, even though the defendants are at different stages of the supply chain, the factual and legal situation was the same. Also, while there appears to have only been a single sale of the Iris chair in the Netherlands (a latterly cancelled trap purchase), the fact was that the chair was sold and marketed by the distributors in the Netherlands, because of Cybex making it expressly available to them. This fact pattern was sufficient for Netherlands enforcement to be both foreseeable for Cybex and to avoid the inference that the action was brought solely to remove Cybex from the German jurisdiction.

Relief

The court granted a limited injunction for the distributors, accepting that their activities were restricted to the Netherlands. The real game changer was the relief granted against Cybex. The Dutch court granted an injunction across the EU, save for the territories in which Cybex does not operate and therefore Stokke's rights were at no urgent risk. The main defence mounted, other than in the Netherlands, was Germany. Cybex argued that under the German standard for works of applied art, it is not plausible that the Tripp Trapp chair would be protected by copyright. In light of the March 2025 German Supreme Court judgement against Birkenstock, whichindicated a higher threshold for copyright protection in works of applied art, Cybex may have had a point. However, the IP legacy of the Tripp Trapp chair meant that Stokke and the court could point to previous German decisions on the same chair where copyright was granted. Ultimately, the decision to grant relief in 19 out of 27 member states was guided by the previously referenced Kwantum judgment reaffirming the imperative of EU copyright harmonisation.

Conclusion

Given this case was decided in the liminal space between the Advocate General's Opinion in Mio and Konektra and the handing down of the CJEU judgments, the copyright conclusions for pan-EU treatment of works of applied art is of uncertain value. What is clear however, is that careful consideration of the most valuable jurisdiction is key, and in some cases, decisions need to be taken quickly. Had Cybex filed their German and/or Italian non-infringement claims prior to Stokke's initial filings before The Hauge, it would have been a much harder job to shift from the first EU court seized to the Netherlands.

Whilst harmonisation is the aim of the game at the EU level, each member state is still reconciling its laws with that imperative. The consequence is varied assessments of copyright subsistence, particularly in works of applied art. As a result, rightsholders need to think carefully where their interests may receive the broadest protection, both in terms of copyright subsistence and cross-jurisdictional relief.

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.