Jellycat’s ‘Dupe’ Dilemma: Can IP Protect a ‘Cute’ Aesthetic?

Jellycat, a London-based plush toy company, is on a quest to protect its intellectul property rights. The company has started a litigation campaign to combat "dupes" and other alleged copies.  

Recently, they lost a design infringement case against Keel Toys when the Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg overturned an injunction blocking sales of Keel’s Bakery Sweet Treats Collection. The dispute centered on Jellycat’s popular anthropomorphic plushies styled as everyday items such as croissants, coffee cups, sushi, avocados, houseplants, and the like. 

The court dismissed Jellycat’s assertion that Keel had copied its Amuseable line, stating that the general concept of creating plush versions of common bakery items with human characteristics could not be monopolized through IP rights.  

This case demonstrates the challenges relating to trademark and copyright claims. Finnegan partner Sarah Husslein told World Intellectual Property Review that, “Lookalike products often avoid using a brand owner’s trademarks, making trademark infringement claims more difficult to establish. Passing off can also be challenging because consumers are frequently aware that they are purchasing an alternative product rather than the original.” 

Copyright, she continues, raises a “different” question. “The focus is not on consumer confusion but on whether the defendant has reproduced, without permission, the claimant’s protected artistic expression in whole or in a substantial part.” 

She added, “this claim arguably complements a design infringement claim, which protects the appearance of a product and focuses on whether the defendant has reproduced the design or created the same overall impression.” 

Read “Jellycat’s ‘Dupe’ Dilemma: Can IP Protect a ‘Cute’ Aesthetic?”