(Supreme Court Landmark Case No. 157)
On June 30, 2021, the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China issued the 28th batch of guiding cases, of which Case No. 157 concerned the protection of applied artworks.
Highlights of the ruling
For a work of applied art to be protected under copyright law, it must be original, possess a certain artistic value, and that artistic value must be clearly distinguishable from its practical function. Furthermore, intellectual property law protects only the aesthetic character of the work, not its technical utility.
Background
In 2009, Crosplus Home Furnishings (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Crosplus”) designed a traditional Chinese-style cabinet that it named the “Tang Yun Cabinet.” Between September and October 2011, it was displayed on a third-party website, and on December 10, 2013, Crosplus registered the copyright for the “three-dimensional design of the Tang Yun combination cabinet” through the China Copyright Protection Center.
In 2013, Crosplus discovered that Mengyang Furniture Sales Center (hereinafter “Mengyang”), a distributor of Beijing Zhongrong Hengsheng Wood Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Hengsheng”), was selling a cabinet manufactured by Hengsheng that was substantially similar in appearance to “Tang Yun.” Crosplus then sued the Mengyang Sales Center and Hengsheng for copyright infringement of its work of applied art, the “Tang Yun Cabinet.”
The court rejected the plaintiff's claims, and the decision was overturned by the appellate court.
Conclusion
The appellate court reviewed the case in two steps:
- Was the “Tang Yun Cabinet” a work protected under the Intellectual Property Law?
Article 2 of the Implementing Regulations of the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China provides that “the term ‘work’ as referred to in the Copyright Law means original intellectual creations in the literary, artistic, or scientific fields, provided that they can be reproduced in tangible form.”
Article 4, paragraph 8, of the Implementing Regulations stipulates that “’works of art’ are two-dimensional or three-dimensional works of the visual arts created through lines, colors, or other means that produce an aesthetic effect, such as paintings, calligraphic works, and sculptures.”
Therefore, any original intellectual work that can be reproduced in tangible form is protected by the Copyright Act as a “work.”
Although China’s Copyright Law does not explicitly mention “works of applied art,” in practice they are generally protected as works of art. For an industrial product to be considered a “work of applied art,” it must—in addition to meeting the general requirements for a work (independent creation and creative expression)—have an aesthetic effect. Furthermore, the scope of protection under the Copyright Law is limited to the author’s expression and does not protect technical utility. Therefore, the protection of a work of applied art under the Copyright Law also requires that its artistic and functional aspects be clearly distinguished.
In this case, the plaintiff’s cabinet met both aesthetic and functional requirements. On the one hand, the plaintiff’s creative work is reflected in the choice of materials, patterns, and the specific placement of the accessories. The color of the furniture panels is not the natural wood grain itself, but rather imitates the color and elements of traditional Chinese furniture reimagined using abstract techniques; furthermore, the front cabinet doors, drawer handles, and drawers feature handcrafted solid brass hardware, among other characteristics.
On the other hand, the artistic nature of the closet can be clearly distinguished from its practicality, since modifying its artistic elements would not affect the closet’s practical function, which is the storage and display of clothing.
Based on the foregoing, it was confirmed that the plaintiff’s wardrobe can be considered a work of art eligible for protection under the Copyright Act.
- Does the manufacture and sale of a product that is substantially similar in appearance to a work of applied art infringe the copyright of the latter?
To determine whether a product infringes the copyright of a protected work, the court must examine and decide whether that product is “substantially similar” to the protected work and whether the infringer had “access” to it.
As noted above, the Copyright Act protects only the artistic nature of works of applied art; therefore, the comparison between the infringing product and the protected work must be limited to the “artistic aspect.”
After comparing the two works, the court found that their creative elements were substantially similar, based, among other things, on the cabinet’s overall L-shape, the similar arrangement of the doors, the decorative accents, the pattern of the panels, and the overall shape.
Given that the defendant did not provide evidence to show when the design of the infringing products was completed, nor did it provide information about the designers—coupled with the fact that the defendant and the plaintiff were competitors in the same industry—the court found that there were grounds to believe that the defendant had “access” to the plaintiff’s works.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the court ultimately ruled that the products in question infringed the copyright in the work protected by the plaintiff.
Author: Dan Liu