CJEU confirms imprescriptibility of bad faith invalidity - EU copyright dispute: Tripp Trapp chair vs. IRIS chair 

CJEU confirms imprescriptibility of bad faith invalidity 

On 10 July 2025, in case C-322/24, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on a request for a preliminary ruling from Commercial Court No. 1 of Alicante. The case involved a dispute between Sánchez Romero Carvajal Jabugo, owner of the well-known '5J' trade mark, and Embutidos Monells concerning the use of similar distinctive signs ('5Ms' and '5Ps') on meat products. 

Sánchez Romero Carvajal owns the EU figurative marks 5J (no. 009335662) and 5J Cinco Jotas SÁNCHEZ ROMERO CARVAJAL JABUGO S.A. DESDE 1879 (no. 001412048), which were registered between 2006 and 2015 for goods in Class 29. Meanwhile, Embutidos Monells registered the Spanish figurative marks 5Ms (no. M3003995) and 5Ps (no. M3014970) for meat products in 2012.  

In November 2016, Sánchez Romero Carvajal sent Embutidos Monells a cease-and-desist letter, warning of possible invalidity action due to the similarity of the marks, and setting specific deadlines of February and March 2017 for initiating such action. However, the company did not take legal action until November 2021, on the grounds that the contested marks had been registered in bad faith. 

The Spanish court asked the CJEU whether, by setting a deadline for initiating invalidity proceedings in the letter that coincided with the general five-year limitation period for acquiescence, the earlier mark holder would be bound by that deadline, even if they were already aware of signs of bad faith. The court also asked whether actions such as opposing the registration of similar marks could be considered valid interruptions of the limitation period. 

In this regard, the CJEU pointed out that Article 9(1) of Directive 2008/95/EC (which was applicable at the time the contested marks were registered) explicitly excludes the application of the limitation period based on acquiescence if the later mark was filed in bad faith. Furthermore, the Court noted that bad faith constitutes an absolute ground for invalidity and that actions based on it are not subject to any limitation period. Therefore, the earlier trade mark owner's voluntary setting of a deadline in a cease-and-desist letter does not prevent them from invoking bad faith in later proceedings, even if they were already aware of such conduct at the time the letter was sent. Protection against abusive trade mark filings cannot be undermined by unilateral acts or the subjective expectation of legitimate trust on the part of the owner of the later mark. 

Lastly, the CJEU clarified that there is no time limit for bringing an action to invalidate a trade mark on the grounds of bad faith. Therefore, stating a deadline in a cease-and-desist letter does not prevent the earlier trade mark owner from bringing an invalidity action based on bad faith later on, as long as they can prove that the later mark was filed dishonestly or to infringe the rights of others. As this resolved the primary legal issue, the court considered it unnecessary to address the second question concerning potential interruptions to the limitation period. 

EU copyright dispute: Tripp Trapp chair vs. IRIS chair 

On 30 June 2025, in case  C/05/450845/KG ZA 25-130, the District Court of Gelderland in the Netherlands ruled that the German company Cybex had infringed the copyright of the Tripp Trapp children's chair and granted a pan-European injunction against them. 

Cybex was sued by Stokke AS, a Norwegian company that holds the exclusive licence to manufacture and market the Tripp Trapp chair, and Opsvik AS, the copyright holder of the original design created by Peter Opsvik in 1972. Since 1995, Stokke has marketed the chair as an adjustable, evolving children’s product, and it has gained international recognition for its minimalist and functional design. 

In March 2025, Cybex GmbH, through its subsidiaries Cybex Retail and Columbus Trading Partners, launched the IRIS chair on the European market. According to Stokke, this new model copied essential elements of the protected design. The IRIS chair was offered in several EU countries and displayed in Dutch stores, including Babypark and Baby-Dump, both of which were also named as defendants in the proceedings. 

Although Cybex challenged the court’s jurisdiction, the Dutch court declared itself competent under Article 8(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation based on a close connection between the parties and the relevant facts. Specifically, the cross-border marketing and use of the design in multiple Member States justified a joint assessment to avoid conflicting judgments. 

In terms of the case itself, the court applied the “original work” criteria defined by the CJEU. It concluded that the Tripp Trapp chair contains original features that are worthy of copyright protection, particularly the inclined L-shaped frame and the visual impression of a “floating” seat. These features reflected the designer's personal creative choices, rather than being dictated by technical functions or everyday Scandinavian design aesthetics. After comparing the IRIS chair with the Tripp Trapp, the court asserted that the new design replicated the key protected elements, including the structural form and the integration of components into the side rails. Although Cybex introduced some aesthetic differences, these did not alter the overall impression. Therefore, the floating appearance of the seat and the structural shape were recognisable and sufficient to establish infringement. 

Cybex claimed that the design had evolved independently from previous models, including the Click & Fold chair. However, this was not enough to prove that it was developed separately. Given the Tripp Trapp chair's notoriety and the fact that both companies operate in the same market segment, the court concluded that the IRIS chair was derived from protected work. 

As a result, the Dutch court prohibited Cybex and its affiliates from manufacturing, marketing, importing, or exporting the IRIS chair throughout the European Union, except in eight member states (Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, and Slovenia), where no commercial activity or urgency was proven. Furthermore, the court imposed a daily penalty of up to two million euros in the event of non-compliance and ordered Cybex to pay €15,000 in legal costs. Nevertheless, the court rejected other requests, such as requiring Cybex to publish corrective notices or hand over court filings submitted in different jurisdictions.