>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History 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. (A case about copyright disputes)
英特宜家系统有限公司诉台州市中天塑业有限公司著作权纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: IPR-->IPR Ownership & Infringement Disputes
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 08-22-2009
  • Procedural status: Trial at First Instance
  • Source: SPC Gazette,Issue 7,2010

Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Co., Ltd. (A case about copyright disputes)
(A case about copyright disputes)
英特宜家系统有限公司诉台州市中天塑业有限公司著作权纠纷案

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

 

英特宜家系统有限公司诉台州市中天塑业有限公司著作权纠纷案

(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。
4. The inquiry results from the website of State Intellectual Property Office and a Decision on an Application for Declaration of Invalid Patent, the main content of which was that: on Aug. 30, 2006, the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office of China declared that the No. 200430019946.X design patent was null and void, in order to prove that the defendant did not have any design patent on the aforesaid design. 4.知识产权局网站查询结果和无效宣告请求审查决定书,主要内容是:2006年8月30日,国家知识产权局专利复审委员会宣告200430019946.X号外观设计专利全部无效,用以证明被告中天公司对于前述设计不享有外观设计专利。
The defendant, Zhongtian Company, pleaded that: (1) the plaintiff was not eligible as a party to this action; (2) in the design of the Mammut series of products, more consideration was given to the utility functions of furniture, and these products lacked such characteristics of a work of applied art such as originality and artistry; therefore, they were applied industrial products without any difference from other chairs at home and abroad, rather than works of applied art; and (3) the products of the defendant were finished independently by the defendant's own designers, so the defendant did not infringe the copyright of anyone else. In addition, before the completion of the product design involved in this case, a furniture design which was basically the same with the product design involved in this case had emerged in cartoons. In conclusion, the claims of the plaintiff should be rejected. 被告中天公司辩称:1.原告英特宜家公司不具备本案诉讼主体资格;2.玛莫特系列产品在设计上更多考虑家具实用功能方面的要求,不具有实用艺术品应当具有的独创性和艺术性等特征,不属于实用艺术作品,而是实用工业品,与国内外的其他椅子没有什么区别;3.被告生产的产品是被告的设计人员独立创作完成的,不存在侵犯他人著作权的事实。此外,在涉案产品设计完成之前,与该产品外形基本一致的家具设计就曾在动画作品中出现。综上,原告的诉讼请求应当被驳回。
The defendant, Zhongtian Company, did not submit any evidence in the trial at first instance. 被告中天公司一审没有提交证据。
Through trial at first instance, the No.2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai found that: 上海市第二中级人民法院一审查明:
The plaintiff, Inter IKEA, was founded on Oct. 31, 1983 in Netherlands. The creation of the Mammut children chairs and stools involved in the case were accomplished by two designers: Morten Kjelstrup and Allan Ostgaard, on Feb. 6, 1991, and were formally delivered to Ikea of Sweden Aktiebolag which was not a party to this case in January 1992. On Feb. 8, 1992, Ikea of Sweden Aktiebolag assigned the copyright in the Mammut series of works to Inter IKEA. A few journals and books, such as Artistic Family and Popular Design once, introduced Mammut Children chairs and stools. 原告英特宜家公司于1983年10月 31日成立于荷兰。涉案玛莫特(Mammut)儿童椅和儿童凳由莫滕·谢尔斯特鲁普 (Morten Kjelstrup)和阿伦·厄斯特(Allan Ostgaard)两位设计师于1991年2月6日创作完成,1992年1月正式将作品交付给案外人瑞典宜家公司(Ikea of Sweden Aktiebolag)。1992年2月8日,瑞典宜家公司将玛莫特(Mammut)系列作品的著作权转让给英特宜家公司。《艺术家庭》、《大众化设计》等杂志书籍对玛莫特儿童椅和儿童凳做过相关介绍。
A Mammut children chair consisted of chair back, cushion and legs. The chair back was made up of three rectangular battens and a piece of trapezoidal solid wood which took up about half of the space of the whole chair back. Chair cushion had the basic structure of ordinary chairs. Chair legs were four upright cones which were narrow on the top and broad at the bottom. A Mammut children stool consisted of stool surface and legs. The stool surface was a round solid surface with equal top and bottom sides, and its shape was not different from that of ordinary children stools. The legs of the stool were four spindle-like rods. 玛莫特儿童椅由椅背、椅垫和椅腿三个部分组成,椅背是由一块梯形的实木和三根矩形木条组成,其中上部的梯形实木占据了整个椅背近二分之一的空间,椅垫是一般椅凳的基本结构,椅腿是由四根立椎体组成,呈上窄、下宽的形状。玛莫特儿童凳由凳面和凳腿两部分组成,凳面是上下均等的圆形实体,形状与一般的儿童凳无异,凳腿是四根纺锤状棒体。
On Jun. 10, 2006, Huang Ye, a person who was not a party to this case, bought 3 children stools and 2 children chairs at Suite 1508, No. 33, Building 11, Alley 187, Qingjian Rd., Shanghai, and got one invoice, one business card and one brochure after payment. The invoice showed the special invoice stamp of “Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Co., Ltd.” The words, “Li Wei, Shanghai Regional Manager of Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Co., Ltd.” were printed on the business card. The brochure contained such words as “Zhongtian Plastic” and “ZTPC”. Huang Ye took pictures of the shop and the children chairs and stools purchased. The above process was monitored by Huang Xin and Ding Zhenhua, two notaries of the Notary Office of Shanghai. As to it, the Notary Office of Shanghai produced a notarization certificate (No. 7549 [2006], Shanghai). 2006年6月10日,案外人黄晔在上海市清涧路187弄11幢33号1508室,购买了童凳3张和童椅2张,付款后获得发票、名片各1张和宣传册1份,发票上盖有“台州市中天塑业有限公司”的发票专用章,名片上印有“台州市中天塑业有限公司、李伟上海区域经理”等字样,宣传册上印有“中天塑业”、“ZTPC”等字样。黄晔对购物地点及所购童凳和童椅等进行了拍照。上述过程在上海市公证处公证员黄欣、公证人员丁振华的监督下进行,上海市公证处对此制作了(2006)沪证字第7549号公证书。
The plaintiff, Inter IKEA, also provided one sales invoice and one delivery checklist for Amutong chairs and stools purchased in the name of Shanghai Yongguan Trading Co., Ltd. The special invoice stamp of Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Co., Ltd. was affixed to the invoice. 原告英特宜家公司还提供了以“上海市永冠贸易有限公司”名义购买阿木童凳和阿木童椅的销售发票和送货清单各1张,发票上盖有“台州市中天塑业有限公司”的发票专用章。
On Apr. 10, 2008, Li Chunjuan, an agent with Gaoluyun (Beijing) Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd., preserved evidence on the relevant contents on www.ztpc.cc together with the notaries of Beijing Chang'an Notary Office at Shouchuang Mansion situated at 6 Chaoyangmen North Street, Dongcheng District, Beijing. Beijing Chang'an Notary Office produced a notarization certificate (No. 2664 [2008], Beijing Chang'an, Domestic, Economic). The certificate stated that the website, www.ztpc.cc, exhibited products of the defendant, Zhongtian Company, and the plaintiff, Inter IKEA, alleged that 15 models of the products shown on the website including model ZTT-326 were infringing products. 2008年4月10日,高露云(北京)知识产权代理有限公司的代理人李春娟在位于北京市东城区朝阳门北大街6号首创大厦的北京市长安公证处与公证人员对于 www.ztpc.cc网站上的有关内容进行证据保全,北京市长安公证处制作了(2008)京长安内经证字第2664号公证书。该份公证书载明,www.ztpc.cc网站展示了被告中天公司的产品,原告英特宜家公司认为其中 ZTT-326等15个型号的产品属于侵权产品。
Chen Aihua, legal representative of the defendant, applied to the State Intellectual Property Office on Feb. 10, 2004, Oct. 25, 2004 and Aug. 8, 2005 respectively for five design patents on Chair (Amutong), Chair (ZTY-521), Stool (ZTY-537), Stool (ZTY-536) and Chair (ZTY-538), with patent numbers being 200430019946.X, 200430083416.1, 200430083418.0, 2004300834195 and 200530114174.2 respectively. The No. 200430019946.X design patent was declared null and void by the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office of China on Aug. 30, 2006. 被告中天公司的法定代表人陈爱华于 2004年2月10日、2004年10月25日和 2005年8月8日,向国家知识产权局申请了五项外观设计专利,名称分别为:椅(阿木童)、椅(ZTY-521)、凳(ZTY- 537)、凳(ZTY-536)、椅(ZTY-538),专利号分别为:200430019946.X、200430083416.1、 200430083418.0、2004300834195、200530114174.2。其中,200430019946.X号外观设计专利于2006年8月30日被国家知识产权局专利复审委员会宣告全部无效。
By comparison, among the 15 models of products shown on www.ztpc.cc that were alleged to be infringing products, ZTY-525S, ZTY-525M and ZTY-525L children stools of the defendant were basically the same with Mammut children stools of the plaintiff in the general shape; ZTY-534, ZTY-533, ZTY-537, ZTY-536, ZTY-541, ZTT-322, ZTT-325, ZTT-326 and ZTY-542 children stools were slightly different in the shape of stool surface from Mammut children stools but were basically the same in the shape of legs with Mammut children stools, and therefore were similar in the general structure to the plaintiff's Mammut children stools; ZTY-521, ZTY-538 and ZTY-535 children chairs were slightly different in the shape of chair back from Mammut children chairs but were basically the same in the shape of chair legs with Mammut children chairs, and therefore were similar in the general structure to the plaintiff's Mammut children chairs. 经比对,在www.ztpc.cc网站上被控侵权的15个型号产品中,被告中天公司的儿童凳产品(ZTY-525S、ZTY-525M、ZTY-525L)与原告英特宜家公司的玛莫特儿童凳从整体形状上看构成基本相同,儿童凳产品(ZTY-534、ZTY-533、ZTY-537、ZTY-536、ZTY-541、ZTT-322、ZTT-325、ZTT-326、ZTY-542)与原告的玛莫特儿童凳在凳面部分的形状上有所区别,但在凳腿部分的形状上基本相同,两者从整体上看构成相似。儿童椅(ZTY-521、ZTY-538、ZTY-535)与原告的玛莫特儿童椅在椅背部分的形状上有所区别,但在椅腿部分的形状上基本相同,两者从整体上看构成相似。
By comparison, Amutong children chairs and stools of the defendant which were bought by the plaintiff under notarization were basically the same in the general shape with Mammut children chairs and stools. 经比对,原告英特宜家公司公证购买的被告中天公司的阿木童儿童凳、儿童椅产品在整体外形上与玛莫特儿童凳、儿童椅构成基本相同。
DISPUTED ISSUES 
The focal dispute in this case was: whether the alleged children chairs and stools produced by the defendant had infringed the copyright of the plaintiff. 本案的争议焦点是:被告中天公司生产的涉案儿童凳、儿童椅产品是否侵犯原告英特宜家公司的著作权。
The No.2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai held that: 上海市第二中级人民法院一审认为:
Article 2.2 of the Copyright Law of China provided that: “The copyright in a work enjoyed by a foreigner or stateless person under an agreement signed by the country of the author or the country of the author's permanent residence and China or under an international treaty to which both that country and China are parties shall be protected by this Law.” China had acceded to the Berne Convention and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Berne Convention protected works of applied art as included in the “literary and artistic works” in the convention. Article 6 of the Provisions on the Implementation of International Copyright Treaties issued by the State Council provided that: “The term of protection of a foreign work of applied art shall be 25 years commencing from the creation of the work. The preceding paragraph, however, shall not apply to a work of fine arts, including design of cartoon characters, used in industrial goods.” According to these provisions, foreign works of applied art should be protected by Chinese laws. The argument of the defendant that the plaintiff was not eligible as a party to this action had no legal basis, and should not be supported by this court. 中华人民共和国著作权法》(以下简称著作权法)第二条第二款规定:“外国人、无国籍人的作品根据其作者所属国或者经常居住地国同中国签订的协议或者共同参加的国际条约享有的著作权,受本法保护。”我国是《伯尔尼保护文学艺术作品公约》(以下简称伯尔尼公约)、《与贸易有关的知识产权协议》的参加国,在伯尔尼公约中,实用艺术作品被归入“文学艺术作品”受到保护。国务院《实施国际著作权条约的规定》第六条规定:“对外国实用艺术作品的保护期,为自该作品完成起二十五年。美术作品(包括动画形象设计)用于工业制品的,不适用前款规定。”根据上述规定,外国实用艺术作品受我国法律保护。被告中天公司认为原告英特宜家公司不具备本案诉讼主体资格的主张没有法律依据,不予支持。
Article 3 of the Copyright Law provided that: “ A ‘Work' as mentioned in this Law means a work of literature, art, natural science, social science, engineering technology, etc. created in any of following forms: … (4) A work of fine art and work of architecture; …” In this provision, works of applied art were not separately listed. In judicial practice, in accordance with the international treaties that China had acceded to and the relevant laws, the people's court considered the protection of copyright in a work of applied art from the angles of utility and artistry respectively. Utility of a work of applied art was not under the protection of copyright law, whereas its artistry may be protected by copyright law as a “work of fine art”. Article 4(8) of the Regulation on the Implementation of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China provided that: “A work of fine art means a two- or three-dimensional shape of work created in lines, colors or other medium, with esthetic effects, such as a painting, calligraphy or sculpture.” When the right holder of a foreign work of applied art applied for copyright protection, the people's court should examine whether the work of applied art had reached the artistic level that a work of fine art was supposed to reach. The artistic level of a work of applied art should be analyzed in the sense of aesthetics, and generally, consideration should be given to whether the idea, manner of expression, etc. of a work of applied art were original. The Mammut children chairs involved in the case consisted of three parts: chair back, cushion and legs. Chair back was made up of three rectangular battens and a piece of trapezoidal solid wood which took up about half of the space of the whole chair back. Chair cushion had the basic structure of ordinary chairs. Chair legs were four upright cones which were narrow on the top and broad at the bottom. The Mammut children stools consisted of stool surface and legs. The stool surface was a round solid surface with equal top and bottom sides, and had the same shape of ordinary children stools. The stool legs were four spindle-like rods. According to the above facts, in the manner of expression, the key design of Mammut children chairs and stools was embodied in the line modeling – simple and smooth lines to embody an idea of plainness and childhood pleasures. But this design idea could not completely separate itself from that of other ordinary children products. In the originality of expression, the whole appearance of Mammut children chairs and stools was generally the same with that of the great majority of ordinary children chairs and stools, though their upstanding cone and spindle-like legs were slightly different from those of ordinary chairs and stools. Generally speaking, the design of Mammut children chairs and stools was relatively simple and did not reach the artistic level that a work of fine art needed to reach. So, even if the alleged children chairs and stools produced by the defendant were, in overall structure, similar or basically identical with Mammut children chairs and stools of the plaintiff, they did not infringe the copyright of the plaintiff. 著作权法三条规定:“本法所称的作品,包括以下列形式创作的文学、艺术和自然科学、社会科学、工程技术等作品:…… (四)美术、建筑作品;……”前述规定中,未将实用艺术作品单列为作品,在司法实践中。根据我国参加的国际公约和相关法律规定,对实用艺术作品的著作权保护,是从实用艺术作品的实用性和艺术性角度分别予以考虑,对于实用性部分不适用著作权保护,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。《中华人民共和国著作权法实施条例》第四条第八项规定:“美术作品,是指绘画、书法、雕塑等以线条、色彩或者其他方式构成的有审美意义的平面或者立体的造型艺术作品。”外国实用艺术作品的权利人申请著作权保护时,应当审查涉案实用艺术作品在审美意义上是否具有美术作品应当具备的艺术高度,从审美意义上分析作品的艺术高度,一般从作品思想、表达方式是否具备独创性等方面考察。本案中,涉案的玛莫特儿童椅由椅背、椅垫和椅腿三个部分组成,椅背是由一块梯形的实木和三根矩形木条组成,其中上部的梯形实木占据了整个椅背近二分之一的空间,椅垫是一般椅凳的基本结构,椅腿是由四根立椎体组成,呈上窄、下宽的形状。玛莫特儿童凳由凳面和凳腿两部分组成,凳面是上下均等的圆形实体,形状与一般的儿童凳无异,凳腿是四根纺锤状棒体。根据上述事实,玛莫特儿童椅和儿童凳从表达形式来讲,设计要点主要体现在造型线条上,简单、流畅的线条力图体现朴实而略带童趣的作品思想,但这样的设计思想并不能与其他普通儿童用品设计思想完全区别开来;从表达的独创性来讲,玛莫特儿童椅和儿童凳除了在细节方面立椎体以及纺锤状棒体的凳腿与普通的儿童椅和儿童凳有所区别外,整体外形上与绝大多数普通的儿童椅和儿童凳区别不大。总体而言,玛莫特儿童椅和儿童凳属于造型设计较为简单的儿童椅和儿童凳,不具备美术作品应当具备的艺术高度。因此,尽管被告中天公司生产的涉案儿童凳、儿童椅产品与原告英特宜家公司的玛莫特儿童椅和儿童凳从整体上看构成相似或者基本相同,也不构成对原告著作权的侵犯。
JUDGMENT 
Accordingly, on Aug. 22, 2009, the No.2 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai rendered a judgment as follows: 据此,上海市第二中级人民法院于 2009年8月22日判决:
To dismiss the claims of the plaintiff. 驳回原告英特宜家公司的诉讼请求。
Neither of the two parties appealed within the statutory time limit after the judgment of first instance was announced, and the judgment of first instance came into force.

 一审判决宣判后,双方当事人均未提出上诉,一审判决已经发生法律效力。
 

     
     
【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