Recently, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court made a decision about Dongguan Boyuan Roto molding Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Boyuan Company) for infringement of design patent rights of Giovannoni Design SRL (hereinafter referred to as Giovannoni Design SRL).  The first-instance judgment was made in the dispute case, which determined that the design of the rabbit-shaped product produced and sold by Boyuan Company and the design patent right entitled "CHAIRS" by Giovanni (the patent number: ZL201530388869.3, hereinafter referred to as involved (Patent) constitutes similarity, infringing Giovannoni’s patent rights, ordering Boyuan to stop infringement and compensating Giovannoni’s economic losses, etc., totaling 80,000 CNY.  After the judgment of the first instance, Boyuan Company has filed an appeal.

The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court conducted a public trial on whether the design of the alleged infringing product fell within the protection scope of the patent rights involved in the case and whether the behavior of Boyuan Company constituted patent infringement.

Regarding Boyuan’s claim that the alleged infringing product is a lighting product, which is different from the patented product involved in the case, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that the alleged infringing product was named Luminous Rabbit Stool on Boyuan’s online store, and was on the official website as "LED luminous bar chair and bar stool".  The webpage has a product display of the infringing product used as a chair.  The size of the infringing product indicted can meet the conditions for use as a chair.  Therefore, the alleged infringing product is the same as the patented product involved in the case and can be compared for infringement.

On the issue of whether the design of the infringed product falls within the scope of protection of the patent rights involved in the case, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that comparing the design of the infringed product with the patent involved in the case, the two are generally long-eared rabbits in shape. Shape, proportion of limbs and other specific design features are the same.  The difference between the two is that from the bottom view, the bottom of the alleged infringing product is concave in the middle and has a circular power seat design; while the bottom of the patent design involved is an oval ring design with no power supply design. After comparison, the above differences are relatively small, and are not easily observed by ordinary consumers.  There is no substantial difference in the overall visual effects of the two, and they are similar.  Therefore, the design of the infringing product infringed falls into the protection scope of the patent rights involved in the case.

After comprehensively considering such factors as the type of patent involved, the popularity of the patented product, the nature and circumstances of the infringement by Boyuan, and the sales price of the product, the court determined that Boyuan should compensate Giovannoni for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 80,000 CNY.

  From PEOPLE.CN

April 28th, 2020