|
|
|
|
|
Maped v. Yangjiang Bonly Industries Ltd. and Yangjiang Ewin Knife & Scissors Co., Ltd. (Dispute on infringement of design patent)
(Dispute on infringement of design patent)
马培德公司与阳江市邦立贸易有限公司、阳江市伊利达刀剪有限公司侵害外观设计专利权纠纷案
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Maped v. Yangjiang Bonly Industries Ltd. and Yangjiang Ewin Knife & Scissors Co., Ltd. (Dispute on infringement of design patent) | | 马培德公司与阳江市邦立贸易有限公司、阳江市伊利达刀剪有限公司侵害外观设计专利权纠纷案 |
| [Judgment Abstract] | | [裁判摘要] |
| In determining the protection scope of a design patent and making infringement judgment, the shape, pattern, and color design essentials in a picture or photography shall be deemed as the fundamental basis. | | 在确定外观设计专利权的保护范围以及侵权判断时，应当以图片或者照片中的形状、图案、色彩设计要素为基本依据。 |
| Adopting the design identical with or similar to a design patent in a product identical with or similar to a design patented product shall be identified by the People's Court that the infringing product sued falls into the scope of protection of design patent. The infringing product sued, if have other pattern and color design essentials which are added additionally, besides the design identical with or similar to the design patent, shall have no substantial impact on the infringement judgment. | | 在与外观设计专利产品相同或者相近种类产品上，采用与外观设计专利相同或者近似的外观设计的，人民法院应当认定被诉侵权产品落入外观设计专利权的保护范围。被诉侵权产品在采用与外观设计专利相同或者近似的外观设计之余，还附加有其他图案、色彩设计要素的，如果这些附加的设计要素属于额外增加的设计要素，则对侵权判断一般不具有实质性影响。 |
| Supreme People's Court | | 最高人民法院 |
| Civil Ruling | | 民事裁定书 |
| No. 29 [2013], Civil Petition | | (2013)民申字第29号 |
| Retrial applicant (the plaintiff of the first instance and the appellee of the second instance): Maped, domiciled at 530 RTE DE PRINGY, ARGONAY, France. | | 再审申请人(一审原告、二审上诉人)：马培德公司(MAPED)。住所地：法兰西共和国阿戈耐普吉林路530号。 |
| Legal representative: Jacques LACROIX, chairman of the board of directors of this company. | | 法定代表人：雅克·拉科卢瓦，该公司董事长。 |
| Agent: Chen Xiaoling, lawyer of Beijing Wan Hui Da Law Firm. | | 委托代理人：陈晓玲，北京市万慧达律师事务所律师。 |
| Agent: Zhang Han, lawyer of Beijing Wan Hui Da Law Firm. | | 委托代理人：张涵，北京市万慧达律师事务所律师。 |
| Respondent (the defendant of the first instance and the appellee of the second instance): Yangjiang Bonly Industries Ltd., domiciled at Room 703, Block E, 168 Third Dongfeng Road, Jiangcheng District, Yangjiang, Guangdong, China. | | 被申请人(一审被告、二审被上诉人)：阳江市邦立贸易有限公司。住所地：中华人民共和国广东省阳江市江城区东风三路168号E座703房。 |
| Legal representative: Huang Changxi, general manager of this company. | | 法定代表人：黄昌西，该公司总经理。 |
| Respondent (the defendant of the first instance and the appellee of the second instance): Yangjiang Ewin Knife & Scissors Co., Ltd., domiciled at Fengmen Middle School, Gangqiao District, Yangjiang, Guangdong, China. | | 被申请人(一审被告、二审被上诉人)：阳江市伊利达刀剪有限公司。住所地：中华人民共和国广东省阳江市岗侨区风门中学。 |
| Legal representative: Huang Changxi, general manager of this company. | | 法定代表人：黄昌西，该公司总经理。 |
| Retrial applicant Maped filed an application for retrial with this Court against the civil judgment (No. 164 [2011], Final, Civil, Guangdong) of the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province, for the case of dispute on infringement of design patent against respondent Yangjiang Bonly Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Bonly Company”) and respondent Yangjiang Ewin Knife & Scissors Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Ewin Company”). This Court formed a collegial bench according to the law to review the case. The review of the case has been concluded. | | 再审申请人马培德公司因与被申请人阳江市邦立贸易有限公司(以下简称邦立公司)、阳江市伊利达刀剪有限公司(以下简称伊利达公司)侵害外观设计专利权纠纷一案，不服广东省高级人民法院(2011)粤高法民三终字第164号民事判决，向本院申请再审。本院依法组成合议庭对本案进行审查，现已审查终结。 |
Maped filed an application for retrial with this Court, alleging: (I) A design patent of a simple shape shall be fully and effectively protected by law. The judgment of second instance asserted that the infringing product sued was neither identical with nor similar to the patent in dispute, which fails to comply with the provision of paragraph 2, Article 59 of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Patent Law”) and its legislative purpose. (1) The judgment of second instance asserted that “A color pattern designed on a scissor blade usually exercises greater influence on the overall visual effect of an appearance design. Judged according to the knowledge and cognitive abilities of general consumers, the abovementioned difference between the infringing design and the authorized design in scissor blades has constituted substantive difference in overall visual effect, therefore they are neither identical nor similar”, which was mistaken in asserting facts and inappropriate in applying laws. (2) The provision of 5.2.3 of Chapter V, Part IV of the Guidelines for Patent Examination shall apply in determining the scope of protection of a simple shape design patent and judging whether the infringing product sued has constituted infringement. However, there is no need to consider pattern or color essentials. The pattern and color essentials added to the infringing product sued shall not be considered. (3) The patent in dispute, as a simple shape design, is fundamental innovation of product appearance. With greater difficulty of innovation, it shall deserve a wider scope of protection and more adequate legal protection. Therefore, as long as a design identical with or similar to the patent in dispute is adopted in the infringing product sued, it shall be asserted that the infringing product sued falls into the scope of protection of the patent in dispute. (4) The infringing product sued, while plagiarizing the product shape of the patent in dispute, intentionally added a pattern to the product, which both utilized the innovation of the patentee in dispute and avoided liability for tort. (II) The infringing product sued constituted a design which is identical with or similar to the patent in dispute, therefore fell into the scope of protection of design patent. (1) Except the rivets which are slightly larger in size, the infringing product sued has other shape essentials identical with those of the patent in dispute. Based on overall observation and comprehensive judgment, the change in the size of the rivets is subtle partial change, therefore the infringing product sued is a product identical with or similar to the patent in dispute. (2) Analyzed from the part which is easy to be observed in normal use, the infringing design sued fell in the scope of the protection of the patent in dispute. (III) The respondent, while producing and selling the infringing product sued with the patent and color, also produced and sold the product of model SC0306 without the pattern or color which is completely the same as the patent in dispute, and offered for sale thereof. It is recorded on page 36 of the 2008 Product Manual of Yangjiang Bonly Industries LTD PROFESSIONAL SCISSORS FACTORY printed and issued by Bonly Company that the blade of SC0306 scissor is made of non-ferrous metals. The infringing product sued by Maped in the first instance and the second instance include the product without pattern or color. The court of first instance did not review or assert this fact and made mistake in asserting facts. (IV) Bonly Company and Ewin Company which jointly implemented the infringement act should jointly assume the legal liability of ceasing infringement and compensating losses. The reasonable expenses paid by Maped to cease infringement should be assumed by Ewin Company. In conclusion, Maped filed an application for retrial in accordance with the provision of paragraph 1 (2) and (6), Article 179 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (2007 Amendment), requesting the Court that: 1. The first-instance judgment and the second-instance judgment should be revoked. 2. Bonly Company and Ewin Company should be ordered to cease the act of infringing the patent in dispute and to compensate for economic loss of 100,000 yuan.
．．．．．． | | 马培德公司向本院申请再审称：(一)单纯形状类型的外观设计专利权应当得到充分有效的法律保护，二审判决认定被诉侵权产品与涉案专利既不相同也不近似，不符合《中华人民共和国专利法》(以下简称专利法)第五十九条第二款的规定及其立法宗旨。1．二审判决认定“在剪刀片上设计有彩色图案，通常对外观设计的整体视觉效果更具有影响。以一般消费者的知识水平和认知能力来判断，侵权外观设计与授权外观设计在剪刀片上的上述差异已经构成整体视觉效果的实质性差异，故两者既不相同也不近似”，认定事实错误，适用法律不当。2．在确定单纯形状类型的外观设计专利权的保护范围，判断被诉侵权产品是否侵权时，应当参照适用《专利审查指南》第四部分第五章5．2．3的规定，无需考虑图案、色彩要素。被诉侵权产品外表上增添的图案、色彩要素应当不予考虑。3．涉案专利权属于单纯形状类型的外观设计，是对产品外观的基础性创新，创新难度更大，应获得更宽的保护范围，得到更为充分的法律保护。因此，只要被诉侵权产品采用了与涉案专利相同或者近似的产品外形，即应当认定其落入涉案专利权的保护范围。4．被诉侵权产品在抄袭涉案专利的产品形状的同时，有意在产品外表上添加了图案，既利用涉案专利权人的创新成果，又逃避侵权责任。(二)被诉侵权产品与涉案专利构成相同或近似的设计，落入涉案专利权保护范围。1．被诉侵权产品除了铆钉尺寸略大以外，其他形状要素与涉案专利相同。按照整体观察，综合判断的方法，铆钉尺寸的变化属于局部细微变化，涉案专利与被诉侵权产品属于相同或近似产品。2．从产品正常使用时容易观察到的部位分析，被诉侵权设计落入涉案专利保护范围。(三)被申请人在生产、销售带有图案、色彩的被诉侵权产品的同时，还生产、销售、许诺销售未带有图案、色彩，与涉案专利完全一致的SC0306型号产品。邦立公司印刷、发行的《2008年度阳江邦立产品手册YangjiangBonly Industries LTD PROFESSIONAL SCISSORS FACTORY》第36页记载，SC0306剪刀的剪刀刀片部分为五色金属。马培德公司在一、二审中指控的被诉侵权产品包括无图案、色彩的产品。一审法院对此未予审查和认定，认定事实错误。(四)邦立公司与伊利达公司共同实施侵权行为，应当共同承担停止侵权、赔偿损失的法律责任。马培德公司为制止侵权行为所支付的合理支出，应当由伊利达公司负担。综上，马培德公司根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》(2007年修正)第一百七十九条第一款第(二)、(六)项的规定，向本院申请再审。请求本院：1．撤销一、二审判决。2．判令邦立公司、伊利达公司停止侵犯涉案专利权的行为，赔偿经济损失10万元。
．．．．．． |
|
Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.
1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.
2. Binding to the account with access to this database.
3. Apply for a trial account.
4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【￥400.00】 for your single purchase. | |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
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 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|