2020 years 6 month 11 day, The European Court of Justice Brompton Resolution of case C-833/18 adjudication, This paper analyzes the copyright protection of practical works.

　　Brompton Is a British company that manufactures and sells foldable bicycles, One of them is a foldable bike 1987 Sales from year to date. The technical innovation of the bicycle has been applied for and granted patent protection: Brompton Bicycles come in three different forms (Folded form, Development form, And intermediate form, As shown in Figure 1) I can balance on the ground. Figure 1　　Brompton Think that Get2Get A bicycle product sold by the company (There are folds, Unfold and middle three forms, As shown in Figure 2) with Brompton The foldable bikes are extremely similar in appearance, Although at that time the said patent rights had expired, It still argues that the latter infringes on the copyright of the bikes it sells, Initiate a lawsuit. Figure 2　　The Court of Admissibility questions the European Court of Justice: An article having the appearance of a particular technical effect required for patent protection, Whether it can be the object of copyright protection? After the European Court of Justice reaffirmed the criteria for judging such disputes, Throw the issue back to the court of hearing.

　　The European Court of Justice first confirmed, The specific appearance of the infringed bicycle is the shape necessary to produce a particular technical effect: This means that the bike can be folded into three forms, Either form can be balanced on the ground. however, The accepting court shall find out, In addition to the above, Whether the appearance of the bicycle constitutes an original work of intellectual creativity?

　　For that matter, The European Court of Justice warned in its ruling, If the specific appearance is for technical reasons, As determined by technical specifications or other requirements, There is little or no room for free creativity, So that thought and expression become one, indivisible, In this case, Original works that do not belong to intellectual creative activities shall be recognized. namely, The shape of a product is determined only by its technical function, It does not belong to the protection category of copyright.

　　When making a judgment, the accepting court shall first make it clear, "author" When determining the appearance of the product, It expresses its creativity in an original way through free and creative choices, And the appearance of the product reflects that "author" personality.

　　When evaluating why the author chose a particular look, The European Court added, The same technical effect can be achieved with the appearance of other shapes, Not a decisive factor. similarly, The subjective will of the person sued, It has nothing to do with that assessment. 　　The prior patent has expired before the proceedings in this case begin, And the effectiveness of the appearance to achieve the same technical effect, Only when it can reveal the considerations in determining the particular appearance of the relevant product, Before being considered.

　　European court of justice ruling, "Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonization of the partial provisions on copyright and related rights in the information society (The first 2001/29/EC No) " The first 2 Article to clause 5 The provisions of this Article shall be understood as, The following works may be granted copyright protection: Although the appearance of the product is at least in part required for a specific technical effect, But the product is still the result of intellectual creativity, because "author" It expresses its creativity in an original way through free and creative choices, And the appearance of the product reflects that "author" personality. but, It is for the admissible court of the Member State to make its judgement on the basis of examining all the relevant facts of the case.

　　Finally, Intellectual works and other industrial property rights (patent, Appearance design, trademark) The difference is still not clear, In fact, Even on the basis (Or through) The European Court of Justice (ambiguous) Judge by standard, The discretion of member states' courts remains excessive.

　　compile: Liu Dan, Esabarry Legal Counsel　　source: Esabaril (ELZABURU) Intellectual property rights