中文/English

Supreme Law issued 2016 ten largest 10 cases of intellectual property "pen" design infringement case

2017-4-26 23:09| Announcer: admin

Shanghai Chenguang Stationery Co., Ltd. and the effective Group Co., Ltd., Jinan Kun-sen Trading Company infringement design patent dispute case[Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (2016) Shanghai 73, No. 113, Civil Judgment]

 

Case Summary:Shanghai Chenguang Stationery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as dawn company) is ZL200930231150.3 entitled "pen (AGP67101)" design patent of the patentee, filed on November 26, 2009, authorized notice Day on July 21, 2010, is currently in a valid state. Jinan Kunsen Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) in the "day cat" online business "effective Kunsen store", sales of effective Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) production of the A32160 Gel Ink pen. Chenguang company that the product infringement of its patent rights involved, to the court. Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that the shape of the main body of the design, the shape of the top of the pencil, the shape of the cap cap, the shape of the cap cap, the length of the pen cap relative to the length of the pen, the way the pencil and the cap were connected, The design features of the design style are designed in the whole, and these design features are possessed in the design of the infringing infringement, and it can be concluded that the two are in the overall design style and the main design features constitute an approximation. The four characteristics of the design of the infringement design and authorization design are different, and the impact on the overall visual effect is limited, which is not enough to constitute a substantial difference in the overall visual effect. In addition, the brief description of the authorization design does not explicitly require the protection of color, and from the picture or photo display of the authorized design point of view, it does not exist due to the shape of the shades, shades of changes in the formation of the pattern, When the infringement is judged, the color and pattern elements should not be taken into account. Attempted infringement design The use of additional colors, patterns and other elements in the form of an approximation of the shape of the authorized design, which is an additional design element, does not have a material effect on the infringement judgment. So the infringing products constitute infringement of the patent infringement involved, and the company and Kunsen company should bear the cessation of infringement, the company compensation for the company's economic losses of 490,000 yuan and pay the plaintiff attorney costs 50,000 yuan. The court to determine the amount of compensation to consider the following factors: 1. The plaintiff patent for the design patent; 2. Patent validity from November 26, 2009, the infringement occurred when the protection period is nearly half; 3. Pen products profit ; 4. Consumers in the purchase of pen products, in addition to shape, the pen brand, cartridge quality, appearance patterns, color, etc., are its main consideration, that is, the company authorized to use the shape of the design authorization Profits are only part of the profits of the allegedly infringing products.

 

Typical meaning:The original case, the defendants are more influential domestic stationery production enterprises, involving products for daily life in the common pen products, its design infringement judgments subjective factors greater impact. This paper explores the objective criteria of the approximate judgment of the design, taking into account the similarity of the infringing products and the authorized patents, and considering the differences. The influence of the same design features and the difference between the design features and the overall visual effects is analyzed separately , Come to the conclusion. The judgment of this case is of great significance to the cognition of the similarity of the design of common products. In addition, the case according to the characteristics of the design patent, combined with the specific circumstances, to determine the amount of statutory compensation and the defendant should bear the amount of plaintiff attorney fees, also has a guiding role. After the verdict, both sides are satisfied with the prosecution, the defendant took the initiative to fulfill the verdict.

 

Address: 5/F, Tower A, GT International Center, Jia 3 Yongandongli, Jianguomenwai Ave, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100022, China
Tel:+86-10-5879 3300Fax:+86-10-5879 3311Email: mail@boss-young.cn
返回顶部