The controversy over Hennessy's bottle copyright settled

Bottles that are both artistic and practical are typical works of art. To protect their intellectual property rights, right owners often choose to apply for design patents. However, in recent years, in judicial practice, many right holders have continuously tried to protect their rights through copyright.

Recently, the Higher People’s Court of Guangdong Province (hereinafter referred to as the Guangdong High Court) sued Guangdong Karaer Liquor Industry Co., Ltd. against Societe Jas Hennessy & Co. (also known as Hennessy & Co., hereinafter referred to as Hennessy). The four defendants, including Caral Company, Meizhou Sino-French Brandy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Brandy Company), and Guangzhou Li Brothers Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Li’s Company), were judged in the second instance of copyright infringement. It is determined that Hennessy has the copyright to the Paradis brandy bottle (hereinafter referred to as the "Paradise bottle"), and the 4 Defendants produced and sold the "JOHNNYS BLUE-Kajue XO Brandy" product (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) The infringing wine bottle) infringed Hennessy's rights to copy, distribute, and information network dissemination of the wine bottle work. The 4 defendants were required to stop the infringement and compensate a total of 500,000 yuan for economic losses.

It is worth noting that the court of second instance revoked the first-instance judgment made by the court of first instance that Hennessy did not enjoy the copyright of the bottle works of Palestine in combination with the new evidence submitted by the parties. However, the courts of both instances determined that the bottle involved in the case constitutes protection under China's copyright law. The art works and the composition elements of the art works have been explained in detail, which has attracted widespread attention from the industry.

　　 Liquor bottle triggers copyright lawsuit

　　 On November 1, 1923, Hennessy was established in France. Its brands include Hennessy V.S.O.P, Hennessy X.O, Hennessy Paradise, Napoleon and other products. On April 23, 2001, Hennessy Company filed an appearance design patent application for the design of the Palestine bottle in France, and was subsequently authorized. On August 21, 2014, Hennessy Company registered the copyright of fine art works with the National Copyright Administration of China for the Palatine bottle, and obtained the work registration certificate on January 15, 2015. In market operations, Hennessy found that the alleged infringing wine bottles produced and sold by the 4 defendants were highly similar in design to the Palatinate bottles, and were suspected of infringing the copyright of the Palatinate bottles' artwork. After the communication failed, Hennessy brought the 4 defendants to the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court.

In the first instance, Caral Company, Brandy Company, and Lee Company denied the infringement and jointly argued that: First, Hennessy Company claimed that it was the copyright owner of the art work involved, but the evidence submitted by it could not prove that the work involved was a legal person work. Nor can it be proved that Hennessy has the copyright of the works involved. Secondly, the alleged infringing wine bottle implements the prior design patent, which is neither the same nor similar to the Palestine wine bottle, and does not constitute infringement.

　　 After hearing the trial, the court of first instance held that the overall design of the Palatinate bottle embodies the author's personalized expression, has strong artistic and originality, and is full of aesthetics. It constitutes a work of art protected by my country's copyright law. However, on the issue of whether the 4 defendants constituted a copyright infringement of Hennessy, the court of first instance held that the evidence submitted by Hennessy could not prove that the Palatinate bottle was a legal person’s work, that is, it could not prove that Hennessy Company’s artistic work of the Palatinate bottle Enjoy copyright. Accordingly, the court of first instance rejected Hennessy's claim.

　　 Hennessy Company refused to accept it and appealed to the Guangdong Higher Court. In the second trial, Hennessy submitted evidence such as the copyright ownership statement issued by the designer of the bottle designer Agnès Dielli, in order to prove that it owns the copyright of the art works of the bottle bottle.

　　 The Guangdong High Court, based on the evidence in the case, supported Hennessy’s appeal, and ruled that the 4 defendants constituted copyright infringement and fully supported Hennessy’s 500,000 yuan economic loss claim.

Detailed determination of copyright attributes

　　 The reporter learned during the interview that how to define the copyright attribute of the applied art represented by wine bottles is the key to resolving such disputes. Although the first-instance court held that Hennessy could not prove that it had copyright to the Palatinate bottle art works, it determined that the Palatinate bottle constitutes a work of art and was protected by China's copyright law. The second-instance court further obtained the applied artwork as a work of art. The constituent elements of copyright law protection are explained in detail, which plays an important reference role in the trial of such disputes.

In this case, Hennessy Company clearly advocated that the Palatinate wine bottle constitutes a work of art. However, as we all know, the wine bottle is a piece of practical work of art, which is both practical and artistic. According to the relevant provisions of China's copyright law, it is regarded as an ideological category. Practical functions are not protected by copyright law. Therefore, in order to judge whether a piece of applied art can constitute a work of art, in addition to satisfying the general constitutional requirements of the copyright law and the special constitutional requirements of the works of art, it should also meet the conditions that practicability and artistry can be separated from each other, as well as satisfy the It is highly aesthetic and can make the general public regard it as an essential part of art.

Specifically, the court of first instance pointed out in the judgment that first of all, judging whether a wine bottle constitutes a work of art should be based on whether it meets the three constituent elements of the work: first, whether it is an expression form in the fields of literature, art, and science; Second, whether it is original; third, whether it can be copied in tangible form. At the same time, it should also meet the special composition requirements of art works, that is, it is composed of lines, colors or other methods, has aesthetic significance and constitutes a flat or three-dimensional plastic art. Secondly, to judge whether the works of applied art represented by wine bottles can be protected as fine art works, it should be examined separately whether they have aesthetic significance or sense of beauty. Practical art works refer to intellectual creations that are practical, artistic and meet the requirements of the composition of the work. Whether they have aesthetic or aesthetic significance is an important criterion for distinguishing whether a practical industrial product can be included in an art work for protection. Therefore, it is only necessary to prove originality for general art works, but for practical art works, it is necessary to demonstrate whether it has aesthetic significance.

At the same time, the court also pointed out in the judgment that, in order to constitute a work of art, a practical artwork should also meet the conditions that practicability and artistry can be separated from each other, that is, the practicability with practical functions and the artistry that reflects artistic beauty are physically or conceptually Can be separated from each other. Regarding physical separation, although copyright protection continues to extend to items with practical functions, only those artworks or industrial designs whose aesthetic or artistic features can be separated from practical items can obtain copyright protection. Even though these works may have aesthetically pleasing features, if they cannot be separated from their aesthetic features and their practicality, copyright protection cannot be obtained. Regarding the separation of concepts, the court pointed out that attention should be paid to the unique art of practical objects Or whether aesthetic features are necessary for the realization of practical functions, that is to say, if the artistic part of the applied artwork is changed, which affects the realization of its practical function, the artistic and practical cannot be separated conceptually. On the contrary, if The modification of the artistic part of the design will not affect the realization of the practical function, so its artistic and practicality can be separated conceptually.