>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Home Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Co., Ltd.

Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Co., Ltd.
(A case about copyright disputes)

Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Co., Ltd.



(A case about copyright disputes) [裁判摘要]
[Summary of Judgment] 我国是《伯尔尼保护文学艺术作品公约》、《与贸易有关的知识产权协议》的参加国,根据著作权法以及国务院《实施国际著作权条约的规定》,外国实用艺术作品受我国法律保护。
China has acceded to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, and in accordance with the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as “Copyright Law”) and the Provisions on the Implementation of International Copyright Treaties issued by the State Council, foreign works of applied art are protected by Chinese law. 司法实践中,对于实用艺术作品的著作权保护,人民法院一般是从实用艺术作品的实用性与艺术性角度分别予以考虑,对于实用性部分不适用著作权法保护,但对于艺术性部分可以归入著作权法规定的“美术作品”予以依法保护。外国实用艺术作品的权利人申请著作权保护时,应当首先从审美意义方面予以审查,如果涉案实用艺术作品不具备美术作品应当具备的艺术高度,即使被控侵权产品与涉案作品构成相似或者基本相同,也不能作为实用艺术作品获得著作权保护。
In judicial practice, the people's court usually considers the copyright protection of works of applied art from the angles of utility and artistry respectively. Their Utility is not under the protection of the Copyright right, but the artistry of them is protected by the Copyright Law as works of fine art set forth in the Copyright Law. When the right holder of a foreign work of applied art applies for copyright protection of the work, the people's court should first examine the work in the sense of aesthetics. If the work of applied art involved in the case fails to reach the artistic level that a work of fine art is supposed to reach, it could not be protected by the Copyright Law as a work of applied art even if the alleged infringing products are similar to or basically identical with the work of applied art involved. 
BASIC FACTS 原告:英特宜家系统有限公司(Inter Ikea Systems B.V.)
Plaintiff: Inter IKEA Systems B.V. 法定代表人:加布里埃尔.奥尔森.斯加林(MariaGabrielle Olsson Skalin),该公司常务董事。
Legal Representative: Maria Gabrielle Olsson Skalin, executive director. 被告:台州市中天塑业有限公司
Defendant: Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Co., Ltd. 法定代表人:陈爱华,该公司总经理。
Legal Representative: Chen Aihua, general manager. 原告英特宜家系统有限公司(以下简称英特宜家公司)因与被告台州市中天塑业有限公司(以下简称中天公司)发生著作财产权纠纷,向上海市第二中级人民法院提起诉讼。
The plaintiff, Inter IKEA Systems B.V. (hereinafter referred to as “Inter IKEA”), filed a lawsuit with the No.2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai against the defendant, Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Zhongtian Company”), for disputes over economic rights in copyrighted works. 原告英特宜家公司诉称:原告创立于 1943年,是世界上最大的家具零售公司,在31个国家和地区设立了190多家专营店。玛莫特(Mammut)系列儿童家具是在原告的指导下,由设计师莫滕.谢尔斯特鲁普 (Morten Kjelstrup)和服装设计师阿伦·厄斯特(Allan Ostgaard)代表原告设计完成,原告是玛莫特系列作品的著作权人。玛莫特系列商品多年前就在商品目录和多本书籍中刊载,1994年,玛莫特童椅还获得瑞典“年度家具”的大奖。被告中天公司未经原告允许擅自抄袭玛莫特系列作品的设计,生产和销售了多种型号的儿童椅和儿童凳,并在其公司网站上展示侵权商品。自 2004年起,原告就委托律师多次致函被告要求其停止侵权行为,被告对此置之不理,还将侵权设计申请了外观设计专利,后专利被国家知识产权局专利复审委员会宣告无效。玛莫特系列儿童椅和儿童凳,属于家具,具有实用性,同时具有较高的艺术性,属于受中国法律保护的实用艺术作品。被告生产、销售侵权作品及网络宣传行为侵犯了原告的著作权,给原告造成了极大的经济损失。请求判令:1.被告立即停止一切侵犯原告玛莫特系列作品著作权的行为; 2.被告立即收回已投入市场的侵权产品、销毁侵权商品存货和生产模具、印模,销毁带有侵权商品的包装及宣传材料;3.被告立即删除www.ztpc.cc网页中展示的侵权产品图片;4。被告赔偿原告包括合理费用在内的经济损失人民币50万元;5.被告就其侵权行为在《新民晚报》、《钱江晚报》上刊登声明,消除影响。
The plaintiff, Inter IKEA, alleged that: Inter IKEA, founded in 1943, was the largest furniture retailing company in the world, and had set up over 190 brand stores in 31 countries and regions. Its Mammut series of children furniture was created by designer Morten Kjelstrup and fashion designer Allan Ostgaard on behalf of and under the instructions of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was the copyright owner of the Mammut series of works. Its Mammut series of products had been recorded in a number of commodity catalogues and books many years before. In 1994, Mammut children chair won the “Furniture of the Year” award of Sweden. By plagiarizing the design of the Mammut series of products, the defendant produced and sold various models of children chairs and stools without the permit of the plaintiff, and showcased the infringing products on its company website. Since 2004, the plaintiff had demanded that the defendant stop its infringement through lawyer' letters several times, whereas the defendant ignored turned a blind eye to them and even applied for design patent for its infringing designs, which were afterwards declared invalid by the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office of China. The Mammut series of children chairs and stools belonged in furniture, possessed both utility and high artistry, and therefore should be works of applied art protected by Chinese law. The defendant's manufacturing and selling of infringing products and online advertising activities constituted infringement on the plaintiff's copyrights, and caused enormous economic losses to the plaintiff. The plaintiff asked the court to rule that: (1) the defendant should immediately desist from infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the Mammut series of products; (2) the defendant should immediately withdraw all infringing products that had been put into market, destroy all infringing products in stock and moulds and moulage for the production thereof, and destroy all packages and advertising materials carrying the infringing products; (3) the defendant should immediately remove images of infringing products as shown on www. ztpc. cc; (4) the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for economic losses in the amount of 500,000 yuan including the plaintiff's reasonable costs and expenses; and (5) the defendant should publish a statement on its infringement on Xinmin Evening newspaper and Qianjiang Evening newspaper to eliminate the adverse effects. 原告英特宜家公司一审提交以下证据:
The plaintiff, Inter IKEA, submitted the following evidence in the trial at first instance: 
1. A notarized Statement concerning the Ownership of Intellectual Property signed between the plaintiff and Ikea of Sweden Aktiebolag which was not a party to this case, and a notarized Statement concerning the Copyright in Mammut Works issued by Morten Kjelstrup and Allan Ostgaard, in order to prove that the relevant copyrights in Mammut works had been assigned to Inter IKEA on Feb. 8, 1992. 1.经过公证的原告英特宜家公司与案外人瑞典宜家公司签署《知识产权权属问题的声明》、莫滕·谢尔斯特鲁普和阿伦·厄斯特出具的《关于“Mammut作品著作权”的声明》各1份,用以证明玛莫特作品的相关著作权已经于1992年2月8日转让给英特宜家公司。
2. A copy of Artistic Family magazine (1994) and a copy of Popular Design magazine (1995), in order to prove that the Mammut series of products had been recorded in commodity catalogue and many books many years before. 2.杂志《艺术家庭》(1994年)、《大众化设计》(1995年)各1册,用以证明玛莫特系列商品多年前就在商品目录和多本书籍中刊载。
3. A notarization certificate (No. 7549 [2006], Shanghai) produced by the Notary Office of Shanghai and a notarization certificate (No. 2664 [2008], Beijing Chang'an, Domestic, Economic) produced by Beijing Chang'an Notary Office, in order to prove that the defendant had committed infringement. 3.上海市公证处制作的(2006)沪证字第7549号公证书、北京市长安公证处制作的(2008)京长安内经证字第2664号公证书各1份,用以证明被告中天公司实施了侵权行为。

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容;
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese