【Summary of Judgments】

China is a participant in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the Agreement on Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights. According to the Copyright Law and the State Council's Regulations on the Implementation of International Copyright Treaties, foreign practical art works are protected by Chinese law.

In judicial practice, for the copyright protection of practical art works, people's courts generally consider the practicality and artistry of practical art works separately. For practical parts, copyright law protection is not applicable, but for artistic parts, they can be classified as "art works" under the copyright law for legal protection. When the owner of a foreign practical art work applies for copyright protection, they should first examine it from the perspective of aesthetic significance. If the practical art work in question does not possess the artistic height that the art work should possess, it cannot be protected as a practical art work.

【Case Introduction】

InterIKEA Systems Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as InterIKEA) is the world's largest furniture retail company, founded in 1943, with over 190 specialty stores in more than 31 countries and regions such as China, the United States, Sweden, and Australia. The "MAMMUT" series of children's furniture was designed by designers Morten Kjelstrup and Allan Ostgaard under the guidance of IKEA. In 1994, the "MAMMUT" children's chair won the Swedish "Furniture of the Year" award.

Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhongtian Company) is a comprehensive plastic product production enterprise in Taizhou City, Zhejiang Province, mainly producing and selling over 350 plastic products under the two major brands of "ZTPC" and "LUYI". We have achieved excellent results in environmental protection series, logistics series, outdoor furniture series, and children's furniture series, and have obtained over 30 national patents. Our products are best-selling nationwide and exported to various parts of the world.

The company believes that the various models of children's chairs and benches produced and sold by Zhongtian Company were the result of plagiarism from the company's "MAMMUT" series of works, infringing on the copyright of the company's "MAMMUT" series of practical artworks. Therefore, in June 2008, the company filed a lawsuit with the Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court, requesting the court to order: 1 The defendant shall immediately cease all acts that infringe upon the copyright of the plaintiff's Mamote series of works; 2. The defendant immediately takes back the infringing products that have been put into the market, destroys the inventory of infringing products, production molds, and impressions, and destroys packaging and promotional materials containing infringing products; 3. The defendant immediately deleted the infringing product images displayed on the website www.ztpc.cc; 4. The defendant shall compensate the plaintiff with an economic loss of RMB 500000, including reasonable expenses; 5. The defendant published a statement on their infringement behavior in Xinmin Evening News and Qianjiang Evening News to eliminate the impact.

Zhongtian Company argues in its defense that: 1. The evidence provided by InterteIKEA shows that the industrial property rights of the "Mamote" series of works belong to Interte-Aiji Systems Co., Ltd. The company and the plaintiff are two independent legal entities, so InterteIKEA Company does not have the qualification as the subject of litigation in this case; 2. The "Mamote" series of works do not possess the characteristics of originality and artistry that practical artworks should possess. Prior to the completion of the plaintiff's product design, furniture that is basically consistent with its product existed in the animation work, and this work should not be protected by China's copyright law; 3. The products produced by Zhongtian Company are independently created by the company's own designers, and there is no infringement of the copyright of others. Request the court to dismiss the plaintiff's claim.

Dispute focus and agency opinions:

Focus of controversy: As the plaintiff provided evidence during the litigation process to prove that Swedish IKEA had transferred the copyright of the "Mammut" series of works to Inter IKEA, the focus of controversy in this case ultimately boils down to whether the Mammut children's chair and stool belong to practical art works protected by China's copyright law.

Opinion from Intertek IKEA: Mammut children's chairs and benches are highly artistic and belong to the category of furniture. They are practical works of art that are protected by Chinese law. And provided various domestic and foreign magazines and books such as "Art Family", "Popular Design", "The Material World of Child", "Fayton Design Classics", and "Internal Design Yearbook" to the court to introduce and evaluate the Mammut children's chair, in order to prove that it is a practical artwork with originality and aesthetic value.

The core agency opinion proposed by Zhongtian Company: In response to the plaintiff's viewpoint, as the agent of Zhongtian Company, after a detailed analysis of the entire case, the lawyer submitted the following agency opinion to the Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court:

1、 Although InterIKEA provided a series of domestic and foreign magazines and books to the court, including "Artistic Family", "Popular Design", "The Material World of Child", "Felton Design Classics", and "Internal Design Yearbook", the content related to the case was an introduction and evaluation of the Mammut children's chair. Zhongtian Company does not deny that the "Mammut" series furniture has the characteristics of bright colors, simple lines, fashionable design style, and is a very successful and popular furniture among consumers. However, these evidences are insufficient to prove that the Mammut series furniture meets the requirements of originality, practicality, artistry, and other conditions required by copyright law for practical artworks.

2、 The "Mamote" chairs and stools claimed by Intertek do not meet the conditions for copyright protection in China and should not be protected by China's copyright law.

1. The "Mamote" chair and stool claimed by the plaintiff do not have the artistic quality of a practical artwork. Practical art is a product that combines practicality and artistry. The object of copyright is a practical art work that meets the requirements of the work, and it should have practicality, artistry, originality, and replicability at the same time. Having artistry is one of the important conditions for practical artworks to be protected by copyright. Artistic quality requires the item to have a certain level of artistic creation, which should at least be sufficient for the general public to consider it as a work of art and have artistic appreciation value. The plaintiff's claim for rights in the "Mamote" chair and stool does not reach the height of artistic creation in terms of design. Taking the "Mamote" stool as an example, the entire stool is composed of a stool surface and four stool legs. The stool surface is only an ordinary circular shape, and the four stool legs have the same shape as a bowling ball. These two components are very common in life, and the entire stool is a simple combination of a stool surface and four stool legs, which is not artistic. The "Mamote" chair is the same, no different from other chairs at home and abroad. Its chair surface is the most ordinary rectangular shape, and the chair legs are four cylindrical shapes, without any artistic significance. It cannot be denied that the "Mamote" chairs and stools claimed by the plaintiff are products that are highly favored by children in the market and are furniture that has been recognized by customers and other parties. However, these cannot change the fact that "Mamote" furniture is only a practical product rather than a practical artwork.

Secondly, in order for a product to be protected by China's copyright law as a practical artwork, there is also a condition that the artistic expression of the practical artwork must be able to be separated from the practical function of the product and form an independent work. Because copyright law protects the artistic expression in practical works of art, rather than the object itself, copyright law also does not protect the ideas or functions contained in an object. Therefore, when the idea or function of an item overlaps and merges with the expression, copyright law not only does not protect the idea or function, but also does not protect the expression. In this case, the plaintiff claimed that the "Mamote" chairs and stools for copyright protection were designed more to consider the practical functional requirements of the furniture, rather than artistic creation or selection. The only factors such as lines and shapes cannot be separated from their practicality, and therefore cannot be protected by China's copyright law.

Thirdly, the plaintiff claims that the "Mamote" chair and stool for copyright protection are not original. In the animation works "Smurfs" and "Flower Fairy" provided by Zhongtian Company to the court, there are elements similar to the products claimed by the plaintiff, especially the shape of the legs of the chairs and stools. These two animated works were created in 1958 and 1979 respectively, much earlier than the design time of the "Mamote" children's furniture series. Therefore, the "Mamote" children's chair and stool do not have the individuality characteristics of practical art originality and therefore do not have originality.

【Summary of Judgment】

After trial, the Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court issued a civil judgment (2008) Hu Er Zhong Min Wu (Zhi) Chu Zi No. 187. The main text of the judgment believes that a practical art work refers to an intellectual creation that has practicality, artistry, and meets the requirements of the work's composition, that is, a practical art work should have practicality, artistry, originality, and replicability. According to the relevant provisions of China's Copyright Law, practical art works belong to the category of art works and are protected by the Copyright Law. Art works refer to flat or three-dimensional plastic art works composed of lines, colors, or other means that have aesthetic significance, such as painting, calligraphy, sculpture, etc. Therefore, the artistry of practical art works must meet the minimum requirements for the artistry of the work in order to obtain protection under copyright law. The Mammut children's chair in this case is composed of three parts: the chair back, chair cushion, and chair legs. The chair back is composed of a trapezoidal solid wood and three rectangular wooden strips, with the upper trapezoidal solid wood occupying nearly half of the space of the entire chair back. The chair cushion is the basic structure of a general chair, and the chair legs are composed of four upright vertebrae, in a narrow upper and wide lower shape. The Mammut children's stool consists of two parts: the stool surface and the stool legs. The stool surface is a circular entity with equal height and shape, similar to a typical children's stool. The stool legs are four spindle shaped rods. Our court believes that the design points of the Mammut children's chair and stool in this case are mainly reflected in the design lines, but overall, they are not significantly different from ordinary children's chairs and benches in appearance. They belong to the relatively simple design of children's chairs and benches, and do not meet the minimum requirements for artistic composition, so they do not belong to the category of practical art works, Not protected by China's copyright law. Therefore, the defendant's aforementioned actions do not constitute an infringement of the plaintiff's copyright. The judgment rejected the plaintiff's lawsuit request from Intel IKEA Systems Co., Ltd.

【Media coverage】

The Gazette of the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China, No. 7 (165 in total) of 2010, published this case in the Typical Cases column.

【Lawyer Introduction】

1. Zhou Xiangen, male, born in 1964, graduated from Zhejiang University and started working as a lawyer in July 1984. Currently, he is the director of Zhejiang Liqun Law Firm, a member of the All China Lawyers Association, an executive director of the Zhejiang Lawyers Association, the president of the Taizhou Lawyers Association, a specially invited supervisor of the People's Procuratorate of Taizhou, and the chief arbitrator of the Taizhou Arbitration Commission. Proficient in handling various civil and commercial legal affairs such as companies and contracts.

2. Zhu Meicong, female, born in 1975, graduated from Zhejiang University. Currently, she is the Deputy Director and Senior Partner of Zhejiang Liqun Law Firm, and the Executive Director of Taizhou Lawyers Association. He has won multiple honors such as "Excellent Party Member Lawyer in Zhejiang Province" and "Excellent Young Lawyer in Zhejiang Province", and is skilled in handling civil and commercial legal affairs such as company, contract, intellectual property, etc.