There's patents, trade marks, and copyright.
Functional designs (including shapes) can be patented, but (consequently) not copyrighted or trademarked. Trade marks are by definition non-functional and should be highly distinctive and identifying, and are then protected, whether or not deposited. Artistic expression (whether in text, image, or shape) are copyrighted. Note that a copyright only protects actual text/wording, not content or meaning (for that you would need a patent, if the content is patentable). So under copyright I cannot copy a text verbatim, but I can rephrase the contents to my heart's content.
A handle is a functional design, therefore a handle could be patented (only a shaving brush handle is prior art, so in the public domain). The shape of such a handle, if non-functional, could be copyrighted or even trademarked, but for that, it would need to be distinctive enough that it would be immediately recognizable as Mr X's handle, or it would need to be artistic. Since handle shapes, as they are right now, are pretty nondistinctive (everyone has a set of fairly similar handles), I would hazard a guess that none of these would be held up in a court of law as eligible for copyright or trade mark. Even the shape of the Semogue handles, which is somewhat 'unique' is probably not unique enough for that.
As said, a patentable, functional design cannot be copyrighted or trademarked. More explicitly, a design for which a patent was granted cannot, after the patent runs out, be declared a trade mark (for an additional period of protection). There's a fairly high-profile court case example of this in the US that clearly concluded this (Fuji vs. Pacific Bay, on the shape of single leg fly rod guides).