As like as two peas, sofa chairs, dresser, and dressing table, they do not label themselves selling for manufacturers. Is such a practice tort? Recently, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court heard such a case.
On March 30, the court made a first instance decision on seven cases of infringement of design patent filed by the plaintiff, Mercer home furnishing Co., Ltd., and ordered the two defendants to immediately stop the infringement of seven cases of design patent enjoyed by the plaintiff, Mercer home furnishing Co., Ltd., and jointly compensate the plaintiff, Mercer home furnishing Co., Ltd., for the economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 1.26 million yuan.
Alleged infringing products
Copied from the meikemei family and sold on the little red book app
In January 2019, the plaintiff company found in the store of Shanghai Huqingping road that the seven products displayed and sold in the store were similar to the patent design involved. And this patent right belongs to the plaintiff Meike home furnishing company at present.
By checking the information on the company's website, the plaintiff company found that these products were jointly provided by the two companies. Three months later, the plaintiff found in xiaohongshu app that lab franchise stores sold and promised to sell products infringing the plaintiff's design patent.
So far, the plaintiff appealed to the court, believing that the two companies violated the design patent rights they enjoyed, and proposed a total compensation of more than 5 million yuan. However, the two defendants argued that they were not the manufacturers of the products involved and did not know the patent involved.
The court holds that the products involved constitute infringement
After hearing the case, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that the accused infringing product and the patented product belong to the same product, and their appearance is similar. It can be concluded that there is no substantial difference between the accused infringing design and the authorized design in the overall visual effect, which constitutes the similar design.
Although one of the defendants, junhejun company, did not clearly mark the accused infringing product as the manufacturer, but marked the trademark of the accused junhejun company on the accused infringing product, and claimed to have the ability to produce the accused infringing product, it should be recognized as the manufacturer of the accused infringing product according to law.
Another defendant, Zhou Yushen company, is responsible for the operation and management of the website, wholesale sales and franchise stores nationwide, and shall be deemed to jointly manufacture, sell and promise to sell the alleged infringing products with Jun and Jun company.
The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, taking into account the categories of patent rights involved, the nature and circumstances of the defendant's infringement, the sale price of the products accused of infringement and other factors, determined that the two defendants should compensate the plaintiff for the economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 1.26 million.
