Recently, the Shanghai intellectual property court accepted the plaintiff co., LTD., zhejiang some household together to Sue the defendant in Shanghai baoshan shop of a furniture co., LTD., guangdong some household appearance design patent infringement dispute, the two defendants should immediately stop selling the infringement, the plaintiff patent product appearance design and joint damages of the plaintiff economic loss of 200000 yuan, and to prevent infringement of reasonable costs 50000 yuan.
In September 2015, the plaintiff filed a patent application for the design of "single chair" with the state intellectual property office, and was authorized in December 2015. In January 2017, the plaintiff found that the chairs sold by a furniture management department in baoshan, Shanghai, were very similar to its appearance design patents. The products involved were produced by a household furniture co., LTD in guangdong province. The plaintiff argues that the two defendants manufacturing, sales for the purposes of the production and business operation behavior belongs to patent infringement, so Sue to the court, requesting the court accused of Shanghai baoshan a furniture shop to stop selling, the defendant co., LTD. Guangdong some household stop manufacturing, selling for exterior design patent right infringement behavior of products, and jointly compensate the plaintiff reasonable expenses economic loss of 1 million yuan and 220000 yuan.
The defendant argues that the two defendants do exist, but is not infringing products co., LTD. Guangdong some household sold to Shanghai baoshan a shop of furniture, and the alleged infringing products and in the case of a patent is not the same nor approximation, the two defendants act doesn't constitute infringement.
After hearing the case, Shanghai intellectual property court held that, first of all, the design patent of "single chair" is still within the validity period. Secondly, using the same design characteristics, on both sides of the plaintiff's appearance design middle hollow out, the structure of the vertical trust in circular generalized concave arc under the back of the chair, chair, support bar and the back of the chair, chair, armrest, chair cushion, chair leg and support steel basic shape, size, proportion of relations, the overall design features such as color, on the whole determines its unique design style, and the design features in the alleged infringement product design, can be considered in the whole design style and main design characteristics of the two approximation.
According to the Shanghai intellectual property court, the scope and intensity of protection required for a patent should be in harmony with its innovative contribution. The design patent with high innovation degree has large protection scope, high protection intensity and low protection intensity. According to the case evidence, in May 2017, the state intellectual property office in accordance with the plaintiffs request is involved in a patent issued by the evaluation report, the retrieved 10 existing design, evaluation, according to the report of the patent with the existing design in both the overall shape and have very big difference on the specific parts of the design, such as the back of the chair, chair, armrest and the shape of the support bar, its design diversity, different style, the above the mark has a significant influence on appearance design of the overall visual effect, therefore, in the case of patent and has significant difference between the existing design. Accordingly, Shanghai intellectual property court thinks, the patent innovation degree of plaintiff's exterior design is higher. Chair cushion in the chair, larger area of the back of the chair of the central trust in position in consumers easily observed, also has a considerable effect on the overall visual effect are that the alleged infringement product appearance design that violated the plaintiffs enjoy appearance design patents.
Accused of infringement product by the plaintiff was purchased from Shanghai baoshan a furniture shop, Shanghai baoshan also confirmed a furniture shop in trial accused of infringement by its product sales, and its failure to proof to prove the alleged infringement of its products sales with legal source, on this basis, the Shanghai intellectual property court ascertained that the implementation of the sales of the behavior of the infringing products. Although the two defendants denied guangdong some household co., LTD., manufacture and sales of the alleged infringement products to Shanghai baoshan a furniture shop, but the alleged infringement product pictures brochure marked "guangdong some household co., LTD., from" the words; And the alleged infringing products marked with the trademark is a household co., LTD. Guangdong ever apply for registration of trademarks, both the defendant did not provide a disproof, accordingly, the Shanghai intellectual property court ascertained that the guangdong some household co., LTD., the implementation of the manufacturing, sales of the behavior of the infringing products.
According to the type of the patents involved in the Shanghai intellectual property court, patent for product profit contribution, of the price of the infringing products and possible profit, the defendant implementation factors such as the nature of the infringement and the plot discretion to determine both the defendant joint compensation reasonable expenses economic loss of 200000 yuan and 50000 yuan. (reporter: feng fei, correspondent: Chen yingying)