Dual
Protection for Industrial Designs Confirmed by Court
In
a recent decision, the appellate court, Beijing High People's Court
affirmed the decision made by the trial court, Beijing First Intermediate
People's Court in INTERLEGO AG v. Tianjin COKO Toy Co., Ltd.
relating to copyright infringement of the Lego bricks. In its landmark
decision, the high court confirmed dual protection under the patent
law and copyright law for industrial designs as works of applied art.
The Swiss company INTERLGEO AG is a related company of the Lego Company,
a Danish toy giant famous for its interlocking brick toys. The Lego
toys were imported to China as early as 1992. INTERLGEO discovered that
interlocking bricks, which were very similar to Lego bricks, were used
in a range of children's play sets provided by a Chinese company, Tianjin
COKO Toy Co., Ltd. With the evidence obtained from a big department
store in Beijing, INTERLGEO brought a lawsuit against COKO for copyright
infringement.
The trial court confirmed that as a member of the Bern Convention for
the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, China was obligated to
protect works of literature and art originated from member states of
the convention. In accordance with the convention, works of literature
and art include works of applied art. The Regulation of Implementing
International Copyright Convention of China also stipulated that foreign
works of applied art were protected in China for 25 years from the date
when the works were made within the members of the Bern Convention.
The trial court recognized 50 pieces among the 53 pieces of the Lego
bricks submitted to the court by the plaintiff were qualified as works
of applied arts. The court is of the opinion that to be qualified as
works of applied art, industrial designs must meet the following requirements:
1) practical applicability; 2) artistic quality; 3) originality; and
4) reproducibility. The trial court held that 33 pieces out of the 50
pieces of the Lego bricks were infringed, as COKO's products were substantially
similar to the Lego's. However, the rest 17 pieces of the Lego bricks
were not infringed since there was no substantial similarity between
the COKO's and the Lego's. Furthermore, the 17 pieces could not enjoy
copyright protection because the level of the originality is not high
enough and considering the balance of interests between the parties.
The court ruled that COKO must stop manufacturing and selling the infringing
products, publish an apology in Beijing Daily, and pay 50,000 RMB (equivalent
to about $6,000) damages to INTERLEGO.
COKO and INTERLGEO did not satisfy with the decision and appealed to
the appellate court. COKO argued that the Lego bricks did not qualify
as works of applied arts and works of applied arts even could not be
protected by the Chinese copyright law. In practice, industrial designs
should be protected by the patent law. There is no evidence showing
that industrial designs could enjoy "dual protection" under the copyright
law and the patent law in the judicial history of China. INTERLEGO had
applied patent applications for the Lego bricks. Therefore, they could
not be protected by the copyright law. INTERLEGO made an argument that
the 3 pieces of the Lego bricks which were not recognized by the trial
court as works of applied art were qualified and therefore should be
protected. INTERLEGO alleged that the trial court was wrong when judging
the 17 pieces of the Lego bricks were not infringed on the basis that
the level of the originality is not high enough to be afforded copyright
protection with the consideration of "balance of interests".
The appellate court, Beijing High People's Court, upheld the trial court's
ruling. Regarding the issue of "dual protection", the court is of the
opinion that there is no evidence showing that Chinese laws prohibit
providing dual protection under the copyright law and patent law to
foreigner's works of applied art. Although patent applications were
filed for the Lego bricks, they can enjoy copyright protection simultaneously
and continuously.
|