[Editor's note] Like most countries and regions in the world, The rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union have important guiding significance and predictive value for understanding the legal norms of the European Union. Esabaril (ELZABURU) At the beginning of each year, typical cases of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the previous year are summarized and published, And a brief review of each case, In order to help customers and partners to understand the EU intellectual property norms. Given the importance of Chinese customers and partners, We try to publish the Chinese version of typical cases on a weekly basis, It is convenient for Chinese partners to learn the latest information in a timely manner.

　　 [background]

　　The right holder of a visual work, A business was found to be selling chair products in its visual works without permission, He sued the latter for infringing his copyright. In the plaintiff's visual works CORSET, JAMAICA, BIKINI, SPLASH, TOLEDO, and MIRALOOK And other brand chair elements.

　　The defendant countersued, It holds that the appearance of the chair in the plaintiff's work is not the plaintiff's original work, Therefore do not belong to "Spanish copyright law" The first 10 The scope of protection specified in the article. The defendant further stated that, The registered design rights of the chairs used in Plaintiff's works have long since lapsed, Has entered the public domain, So anyone can use the design freely.

　　The appearance of the chair involved in the plaintiff's work is shown in the figure:

　　The judgment of the first instance partially supported the plaintiff's claim, Found that the plaintiff had copyright in the design of the chair and stool on which the action was based, The defendant infringes upon the above rights of the plaintiff, Order the infringement to cease. The court of appeal upheld the decision of the first instance.

　　 [conclusion]

　　As stated in the judgment, The real issue in this case is, Works consist of goods designed for industrial use purposes, Whether the appearance of the commodity as an element of the work enjoys copyright, In particular, the design has been subject to other industrial property rights (The right of appearance design for industrial products) In the case of protection? The reason for the above problem is that, There are two distinctly different and conflicting rights protection regimes——Copyright system (Give rights to the author of the work) And the system of appearance design rights for industrial products (Provision is made for the protection of designs) , The protection period of the latter is much less than that of the former.

　　In fact, The issue is far from consensus among legal scholars, National laws also vary——From the exclusive model of the traditional Italian system (Also known as the German system) , To the mainstream French system of superimposed protection of rights. 　　The court ruled in accordance with the European Union design regulations ( "Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of the European Union on the legal protection of Industrial designs (The first 98/71/EC No) " , "Regulation of the Council of Europe on Community designs (The first 6/2002 No) " ) , And Spain "Copyright law" and "Industrial property protection law" The first 10 article—— "The right of appearance design of industrial products protected by this Law, Where copyright is acquired by possessing both the inherent creativity and independence required by copyright law for a protected work of art, They're independent of each other, stackable, And mutually compatible" , And other relevant provisions are made.

　　This case is one of the above circumstances. The judgment stated, An exterior design——have "Industrial property protection law" The first 10 The article requires artistic value, Conform to "Works of art" Conceptual requirements for exterior design, Not all designs——Be likely to receive (Copyright and industrial property) Double protection. This is known as a partial or finite accumulation system——Differentiating simplicity/General appearance design and "Applied works of art" Appearance design, Only the latter applies the dual protection system.

　　The court then determines what design meets the copyright protection requirements of originality and artistic value, evaluate.

　　The judgment first states, Judge everyday objects (Such as a chair or stool) Whether the design has a specific artistic value in addition to novelty, Not easy. There are two reasons: First of all, The concept of artwork is not clearly defined, It's hard to avoid judgment calls; second, When the work is intended for industrial use and human use, It makes judgment more difficult.

　　Take into account "art (art) " The term is applied to works that represent a high degree of creativity, while "Works of art (artwork) " Objects that convey the artist's thoughts and subjective feelings, From this we can draw the conclusion: The artist's subjective point of view should be considered first. In addition, Not every work of an artist is necessarily a work of art; You have to have a certain level of creativity, Objects that convey certain ideas or subjective feelings are considered works of art. The question is, How to evaluate?

　　Artistic value is not only related to pure aesthetic characteristics; It may also be influenced by the way a design solves a particular technical problem. It can even be said, Like most creative works, Artistic value is realized through the interaction of different features, For example, In this case Pascual Master's CORSET chair, Marcial Master's BIKINI, SPLASH, and TOLEDO chair, and Raúl Master's JAMAICA stool. We agree with the expert witness in this case, All designs at issue in this case provide reasonable solutions to practical or functional problems, It also has a specific aesthetic feeling.

　　The verdict came to a conclusion, The designs included in the plaintiff's works are of specific artistic value, Shall be protected by copyright law.

　　 [comment]

　　The issues discussed in this case, There is little consensus in the copyright world, There are also differences in the way it is handled under different legal systems. Out of "Copyright protection shall be applied to practical works that are closer in nature to the field of appearance design of industrial products, May lead to copyright abuse" Worry about, The verdict was met with a torrent of criticism, And after the verdict in this case, Different approaches to similar problems, both in Spain and elsewhere, continue to emerge.

　　The European Court of Justice after the decision in this case 5 month, in 2019 years 9 month 12 Published on Sunday Cofemal Case regulation C-683/17 adjudication——Practical works shall be protected by copyright, Except for the practical purpose and originality of the work, No unique visual or aesthetic effect is required. (See our commentary on the case for details " [copyright] Copyright protection of fashion design (C-683/17) " ) .

　　If the court of the present case is aware of the above decision of the European Court of Justice before proceeding with the case, Whether they would come to the same conclusion?

　　compile: Liu Dan, Esabarry Legal Counsel

　　source: Esabaril (ELZABURU) Intellectual property rights