>>>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
 
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
【法宝引证码】

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爬数据可耻》(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。
Bonly Company and Ewin Company did not submit any defense opinions. 阳江公司、伊利达公司未提交答辩意见。
This Court held the opinion that the argument in this case focused on: 1. Whether did the court of first instance miss any infringing product sued without pattern or color. 2. Whether did the infringing product sued fall into the scope of protection of the design patent in dispute. 3. What kind of impact did the color pattern on the blades have on the infringement judgment. 本院认为,本案焦点在于:1.一审法院是否遗漏无图案、色彩的被诉侵权产品。2.被诉侵权产品是否落入涉案外观设计专利权的保护范围。3.被诉侵权产品刀片上的彩色图案对侵权判断具有何种影响。
I.  On whether did the court of first instance miss any infringing product sued without pattern or color. 一、关于一审法院是否遗漏无图案、色彩的被诉侵权产品
The Court found that Mapei did not claim that Bonly Company and Ewin Company produced or sold infringing product sued without pattern. According to the records of court hearing of the first instance and the written comments submitted by Maped, Maped expressly claimed in infringement comparison that “the difference between the two items only lies in the size of rivets and there are pattern and color on the blades of the infringing product sued. ...... The infringing product sued is similar to the patent in dispute”. Therefore, Maped's claim that the court of first instance missed any infringing product sued was lack of factual basis, therefore should not be supported by this Court. 本院审查查明,马培德公司在一审中并未主张阳江公司、伊利达公司生产、销售刀片上未带有花纹、图案的被诉侵权产品。根据一审庭审笔录以及马培德公司提交的书面意见,马培德公司在进行侵权比对时明确主张“两者不同点仅有铆钉的大小不同以及被诉侵权产品刀片上印有图案、颜色。……被诉侵权产品与涉案专利构成相近似”。因此,马培德公司有关一审法院遗漏被诉侵权产品的主张,缺乏事实依据,本院不予支持。
II.  On whether did the infringing product sued fall into the scope of protection of the design patent in dispute. 二、关于被诉侵权产品是否落入涉案外观设计专利权的保护范围
The infringing product sued and the design patent in dispute both include the three main parts, namely handle, blade, and rivet placed in the middle of the scissor. The common ground is that the shape of handles and blades is basically the same; the handle comprises of two different inner and outer light and dark concentric rings which are both designed as water drop through hole in the middle of the handle. The two main differences are: 1. The rivets of the infringing product sued which are significantly large in volume are respectively set up in the two bulges of circular shape and there are wavy stripes on the center lines. The rivets of the patent in dispute are metal and significantly small in volume, with only one line groove set up in the middle of one side (hereinafter referred to as “distinguishing feature 1”). 2. There is color pattern on the blades of the infringing product sued (hereinafter referred to as “distinguishing feature 2”). 将被诉侵权产品与涉案外观设计专利相比较,二者均包括手柄、刀片以及设置于剪刀中部的铆钉三个主要部分。二者的共同点为,手柄、刀片的形状基本相同,手柄包括内、外两个明暗不同的同心圆环,并且在手柄中部均设置水滴状通孔。二者的主要区别在于:1.被诉侵权产品的铆钉为分别设置于剪刀两侧的两个圆台状凸起,体积明显较大,其中心线上还设置有波浪状条纹;涉案专利的铆钉为金属铆钉,体积明显较小,且仅在一侧中部设置有直线槽(以下简称区别特征1)。2.被诉侵权产品的剪刀片上还设置有彩色图案(以下简称区别特征2)。
With regard to distinguishing feature 1, for the purposes of the design patent in dispute, the design of blade and rivet, as the conventional design of a scissor product, has the design features mainly reflected in the handle which is relatively limited in innovation height. Although a handle design basically identical with the patent in dispute is adopted in the infringing product sued, the shape and size of the rivets of these two products are significantly different and the rivet is designed in the middle of the product. The distinguishing feature 1, which can be easily observed by general consumers, is sufficient to produce significant difference in the overall visual effect between the two products. 关于区别特征1。对于涉案外观设计专利而言,刀片、铆钉的设计均为剪刀类产品中的常规设计,其设计特点主要体现于手柄之上,创新高度相对有限。虽然被诉侵权产品采用了与其基本相同的手柄设计,但由于二者铆钉的形状、大小差异明显,并且铆钉设置于产品中部,区别特征1容易被一般消费者观察到,足以导致二者的整体视觉效果产生明显差异。
With regard to distinguishing feature 2, firstly, correctly defining the scope of protection of the design patent in dispute is the basis for the judgment of design patent infringement. According to the provision of the second paragraph of Article 56 in the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (2000 Amendment), “the extent of protection of the patent right for design shall be determined by the product incorporating the patented design as shown in the drawings or photographs”. Shape, pattern, and color are three basic design essentials of product design. Therefore, the shape, pattern, and color design essentials in a picture or a photograph shall be the fundamental basis for the determination of the protection scope of design patent and the judgment of infringement. Secondly, the color element which cannot be separated from shape and pattern must exist together with the shape and pattern of a product. The color change itself may also form a pattern. According to the provision of paragraph 2, Article 28 of the Detailed Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (2002 Amendment), “the summary of a design shall contain the design essentials, the colors for which protection is sought, and the omission of the view”. Therefore, for a patent whose colors for which protection is sought are not specified in the summary, the colors in the picture and photograph shall not be used to restrict the protection scope of a design patent or be considered in comparison for infringement. However, the shades of a product forming a pattern shall be regarded as design essentials of pattern, rather than design essentials of colors. The light and dark concentric rings in the handles of the patent in dispute shall belong to design essentials of pattern. Maped's claim that the patent in dispute belongs to a simple shape design is inconsistent with the facts. Finally, adopting a design identical with or similar to the design patent in a product identical with or similar to the design patented product shall be asserted by the People's Court that the infringing product sued falls into the scope of protection of design patent as specified in paragraph 2, Article 59 of the Patent Law. 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. Otherwise, others can easily avoid patent infringement by simply adding patterns and colors to a design patent, which undoubtedly is contrary to the Patent Law's legislative purpose of encouraging inventions and promoting scientific and technological progress and innovation. No protection was sought for colors of the patent in dispute. Nor there was pattern design in the blades. The distinguishing feature 2, as additionally added design essentials, shall not have a material impact on infringement judgment. 关于区别特征2。首先,正确界定外观设计专利权的保护范围,是进行外观设计专利侵权判断的基础。根据《中华人民共和国专利法》(2000年修正)第五十六条第二款的规定,“外观设计专利权的保护范围以表示在图片或者照片中的该外观设计专利产品为准”。形状、图案、色彩是构成产品外观设计的三项基本设计要素,因此,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。其次,色彩要素不能脱离形状、图案单独存在,必须依附于产品形状、图案存在,色彩变化本身也可形成图案。根据《中华人民共和国专利法实施细则》(2002年修订)第二十八条第二款的规定,“外观设计的简要说明应当写明使用该外观设计的产品的设计要点、请求保护色彩、省略视图等情况。”因此,简要说明中未明确请求保护色彩的,不应以图片、照片中的色彩限定外观设计专利权的保护范围,在侵权对比时应当不予考虑。但产品上明暗、深浅变化形成图案的,应当视为图案设计要素,不应将其归入色彩设计要素,涉案专利手柄上明暗不同的同心圆环属于图案设计要素,马培德公司有关涉案专利属于单纯形状的外观设计的主张,与事实不符。最后,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专利法五十九条第二款规定的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相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。否则,他人即可通过在外观设计专利上简单增加图案、色彩等方式,轻易规避专利侵权。这无疑有悖于专利法鼓励发明创造,促进科技进步和创新的立法本意。涉案专利并未要求保护色彩,刀片上亦无图案设计,区别特征2属于被诉侵权产品上额外增加的设计要素,不应对侵权判断产生实质性影响。
In summary, the distinguishing feature 1 has a significant impact on the overall visual effect. The infringing product sued is neither identical with nor similar to the patent design in dispute. On the grounds including “a colorful pattern designed on a scissor blade usually exercises greater influence on the overall visual effect of an appearance design”, the judgment of second instance asserted that there are substantial differences in the overall visual effect between the two products, which was mistaken in applying laws and shall be corrected. The conclusion of the judgment of second instance shall be supported, as it is correct. 综上所述,区别特征1对整体视觉效果具有显著影响,被诉侵权产品与涉案外观设计专利既不相同也不近似。二审判决以“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”等为由,认定二者整体视觉效果具有实质性差异,适用法律错误,应予纠正。鉴于二审判决结论正确,故本院予以维持。
In conclusion, Maped's application for retrial did not comply with the provision of Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. In accordance with the provision of paragraph 1, Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, this Curt rules as follows: 综上,马培德公司的再审申请不符合《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百条的规定。依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百零四条第一款之规定,裁定如下:
Maped's application for retrial should be dismissed. 驳回马培德公司的再审申请。
Presiding judge: Zhou Xiang 审 判 长  周 翔
Acting judge:  Du Weike 代理审判员  杜微科
Acting judge: Luo Xia 代理审判员  罗 霞
September 22, 2013 二0一三年九月二十二日
Court clerk: Zhang Bo 书 记 员  张 博
谁敢欺负我的人 
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【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