Professional Documents
Culture Documents
25/9/2017, 11*24 AM
[Summary of Judgment] []
BASIC FACTS
http://en.pkulaw.cn.eproxy1.lib.hku.hk/Print/Print.aspx?Lib=cas53999&Id=800&SearchKeyword=&SearchCKeyword=&paycode=&LookType= Page 1 of 8
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Co., Ltd. 25/9/2017, 11*24 AM
The plaintiff, Inter IKEA, alleged that: Inter IKEA, founded in 1943, was
the largest furniture retailing company in the world, and had set up 1943
over 190 brand stores in 31 countries and regions. Its Mammut series 31190
of children furniture was created by designer Morten Kjelstrup and (Mammut)
fashion designer Allan Ostgaard on behalf of and under the
instructions of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was the copyright owner of the (Morten Kjelstrup)
Mammut series of works. Its Mammut series of products had been (Allan Ostgaard)
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 1994
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 2004
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 1
infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the Mammut series of products; (2) 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 3
packages and advertising materials carrying the infringing products; (3) wwwztpccc
the defendant should immediately remove images of infringing 4
products as shown on www. ztpc. cc; (4) the defendant should 505
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.
http://en.pkulaw.cn.eproxy1.lib.hku.hk/Print/Print.aspx?Lib=cas53999&Id=800&SearchKeyword=&SearchCKeyword=&paycode=&LookType= Page 2 of 8
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Co., Ltd. 25/9/2017, 11*24 AM
The plaintiff, Inter IKEA, submitted the following evidence in the trial at
first instance:
The defendant, Zhongtian Company, pleaded that: (1) the plaintiff was 1
not eligible as a party to this action; (2) in the design of the Mammut 2
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 3
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.
http://en.pkulaw.cn.eproxy1.lib.hku.hk/Print/Print.aspx?Lib=cas53999&Id=800&SearchKeyword=&SearchCKeyword=&paycode=&LookType= Page 3 of 8
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Co., Ltd. 25/9/2017, 11*24 AM
The plaintiff, Inter IKEA, was founded on Oct. 31, 1983 in Netherlands. 198310 31
The creation of the Mammut children chairs and stools involved in the (Mammut)
case were accomplished by two designers: Morten Kjelstrup and Allan (Morten
Ostgaard, on Feb. 6, 1991, and were formally delivered to Ikea of Kjelstrup)(Allan Ostgaard)
Sweden Aktiebolag which was not a party to this case in January 199126
1992. On Feb. 8, 1992, Ikea of Sweden Aktiebolag assigned the 19921
copyright in the Mammut series of works to Inter IKEA. A few journals (Ikea of Sweden Aktiebolag)
and books, such as Artistic Family and Popular Design once, 199228
introduced Mammut Children chairs and stools. (Mammut)
On Jun. 10, 2006, Huang Ye, a person who was not a party to this 2006610
case, bought 3 children stools and 2 children chairs at Suite 1508, No. 18711331508
33, Building 11, Alley 187, Qingjian Rd., Shanghai, and got one 32
invoice, one business card and one brochure after payment. The 11
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. 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)7549
[2006], Shanghai).
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 1
stamp of Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Co., Ltd. was affixed to the invoice.
http://en.pkulaw.cn.eproxy1.lib.hku.hk/Print/Print.aspx?Lib=cas53999&Id=800&SearchKeyword=&SearchCKeyword=&paycode=&LookType= Page 4 of 8
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Co., Ltd. 25/9/2017, 11*24 AM
http://en.pkulaw.cn.eproxy1.lib.hku.hk/Print/Print.aspx?Lib=cas53999&Id=800&SearchKeyword=&SearchCKeyword=&paycode=&LookType= Page 5 of 8
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Co., Ltd. 25/9/2017, 11*24 AM
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.
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.
http://en.pkulaw.cn.eproxy1.lib.hku.hk/Print/Print.aspx?Lib=cas53999&Id=800&SearchKeyword=&SearchCKeyword=&paycode=&LookType= Page 6 of 8
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Co., Ltd. 25/9/2017, 11*24 AM
JUDGMENT
Accordingly, on Aug. 22, 2009, the No.2 Intermediate People's Court of 2009
Shanghai rendered a judgment as follows: 822
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.
http://en.pkulaw.cn.eproxy1.lib.hku.hk/Print/Print.aspx?Lib=cas53999&Id=800&SearchKeyword=&SearchCKeyword=&paycode=&LookType= Page 7 of 8
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Co., Ltd. 25/9/2017, 11*24 AM
http://en.pkulaw.cn.eproxy1.lib.hku.hk/Print/Print.aspx?Lib=cas53999&Id=800&SearchKeyword=&SearchCKeyword=&paycode=&LookType= Page 8 of 8