最高人民法院2019年12月16日作出终审裁定,驳回江铃控股有限公司(以下简称:江铃控股)提出的再审申请,裁定陆风X7抄袭路虎揽胜极光设计,并向路虎支付赔偿金150万元。近日,中国裁判文书网公布了这份裁定书全文。

The Supreme People's Court made its final ruling on December 16,2019, rejecting the application for retrial filed by Jiangling Holdings Limited (hereinafter referred to as Jiangling Holdings), ruling that Lu Feng X7 copied the Aurora design of Land Rover and paid compensation of 1.5 million yuan to Land Rover. Recently, the full text of the ruling was published by the China Referee Paper Network.

澎湃新闻()此前报道,2019年3月22日,英国豪车制造商捷豹路虎发布公告称,由北京市朝阳区法院裁定,江铃控股生产的陆风X7汽车有5项车型设计直接抄袭了路虎揽胜极光设计,在消费者中造成混淆。

Surging News () has previously reported that on March 22,2019, British luxury car maker Jaguar Land Rover issued an announcement that five models of the Lufeng X7 car produced by Jiangling Holdings had directly copied the Land Rover Range Rover Aurora design, which caused confusion among consumers.

公开资料显示,陆风X7车型于2014年11月的广州车展上首次亮相,因与路虎揽胜极光高度雷同的外观造型引发关注。捷豹路虎认为陆风X7涉嫌侵犯其知识产权;陆风方面回应称,“该车型是江铃控股独立研发的中高端SUV,至于说像谁,那是见仁见智的说法,作为负责任的自主车企,经营活动在国家相关的法律法规及行业规范的约束下是不容置疑的准则。”

The Lufeng X7 model made its debut at the Guangzhou Motor Show in November 2014, according to public sources, sparking concern over the look highly similar to the Range Rover Aurora. Jaguar land rover believes lufeng x7 is suspected of infringing its intellectual property rights; lufeng responded that \"the model is an independent high-end suv developed by jiangling holding. As for who likes it, it is a well-thought-out statement that, as a responsible autonomous car enterprise, business activities are beyond doubt under the constraints of relevant national laws and regulations and industry norms.\"

拉锯持续升级,2016年6月,捷豹路虎就版权和不公平竞争问题向北京朝阳法院正式起诉江铃控股,指控陆风X7车型涉嫌抄袭路虎揽胜极光的车型设计。

The saw continued to upgrade, and in June 2016 Jaguar Land Rover formally sued Jiangling Holdings in Beijing's Chaoyang Court over copyright and unfair competition, accusing the Lufeng X7 model of allegedly copying the Land Rover's Range Rover aurora design.

起初,双方外观专利均已被判定无效而告终,陆风X7的多项外观设计专利曾被裁决无效。与此同时,路虎极光专利也被判定无效,理由是路虎极光申请外观设计专利时间晚于其首次在华亮相一年,已超过规定期限的6个月新颖性保护。

At first, the two sides of the appearance patents have been ruled null and void, Lufeng X7 design patents have been ruled invalid. Meanwhile, the land rover's aurora patent was also ruled null and void, on the grounds that the land rover's patent for its design was one year later than its first appearance in china, and had exceeded the six-month period for novelty protection.

此后,路虎联合专利复审委员会上诉至北京市高级人民法院。2018年11月,北京市高院二审裁定,以陆风的专利设计与路虎的对比设计未具有明显区别为由,再次认定陆风专利无效。

The Land Rover Joint Patent Reexamination Board has since appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court. In November 2018, the second instance of the Beijing High Court ruled that Lu Feng's patent design and Land Rover's contrast design did not have a clear difference, and again found that Lu Feng's patent was invalid.

陆风的相关外观专利被裁定无效之后,2019年3月,北京朝阳法院遂对双方版权和不公平竞争问题的诉讼做出裁定,江铃控股生产的陆风X7汽车,有5项车型设计抄袭路虎揽胜极光设计,下令江铃控股立即停产并向路虎支付赔偿金150万元。

In March 2019, Beijing's Chaoyang Court ruled in a lawsuit over copyright and unfair competition between the two sides that five of Jiangling's Lufeng X7 cars were copied from Land Rover's Aurora design and ordered Jiangling Holdings to stop production immediately and pay compensation of 1.5 million yuan to Land Rover.

澎湃新闻注意到,最高法终审裁定载明,本案争议焦点有三:1、二审判决关于外观设计相同或者近似的判断主体认定是否正确;2、路虎公司于复审阶段提交的证据所显示汽车外观能否作为对比设计;3、二审判决认定专利与对比设计是否具有明显区别。

The press noted that the Supreme Tribunal had decided that the dispute in the case was as follows:(1) the judgment of the second instance on whether the subject of the same or similar design was correct;(2) the evidence submitted by Land Rover at the review stage showed whether the appearance of the car could be used as a contrast design; and (3) the judgment of the second instance on whether the patent and the contrast design were distinct.

二审判决认为,一般消费者应当知晓汽车的产品结构组成、主要部件的功能和设计特点,以及车身三维立体形状、各组成部分的比例和位置关系等因素对整体视觉效果可能产生的影响。最高法认为,二审判决关于外观设计判断主体即一般消费者知识水平和能力的认定并无不当。

The second instance decided that the general consumer should be aware of the composition of the automobile's product structure, the function and design characteristics of the main components, as well as the three-dimensional shape of the body, the proportion of each component and the position relationship of the factors that may have an impact on the overall visual effect. The Supreme Law holds that the judgment of the second instance on the main body of design judgment, that is, the general consumer's knowledge level and ability, is not improper.

针对路虎公司提交的证据所示汽车外观能否作为对比设计,最高法认为,江铃控股未指明证据照片中的车辆自被购买后被进行改装,故二审判决将该证据作为对比设计依据并无不当。

In view of Land Rover's evidence that the appearance of the car can be used as a contrast design, the Supreme Law held that Jiangling Holdings did not specify that the vehicle in the photo was modified after being purchased, so the second instance decided that the evidence as a basis for contrast design is not improper.

针对第三点争议,江铃控股主张,其专利的车辆前脸与对比设计的前脸相比有明显区别,且一般消费者对汽车前脸的关注度远高于汽车侧面。

In response to the third point of controversy, jiangling holding claims that its patented vehicle front face is significantly different from the contrast-designed front face, and the general consumer's attention to the car front face is much higher than the car side.

最高法对此认为,就汽车外观设计而言,整体造型以及前、侧、后等各个面的设计特征均对整体视觉效果产生影响,至于不同面对整体视觉效果的影响权重,应当根据本专利产品所属汽车类型的特点,结合设计空间和现有设计状况,权衡车身各个面对整体视觉效果的影响权重。

The Supreme Law holds that, in the case of automobile exterior design, the whole shape and the design features of the front, side and rear sides all have an impact on the overall visual effect.

最高法认为,尽管两者在车身前面的不同点使两者在视觉效果上呈现出一定差异,但由于导致视觉效果差异的区别设计特征,或为现有设计所公开或现有设计给出了相同设计手法或一般消费者不易观察到。因此,其对整体视觉效果的影响权重降低。综上,江铃控股关于两者前脸相比有明显区别的再审理由依据不足,不予支持。

According to the Supreme Law, although the difference between the two in the front of the body makes the two show a certain difference in the visual effect, because of the difference in the design characteristics that lead to the difference in the visual effect, or by giving the same design technique for the existing design or the average consumer is not easy to observe. therefore, its influence weight on the overall visual effect is reduced. To sum up, Jiangling Holdings on the two front face compared to the obvious difference between the trial by insufficient basis, not to support.

综上,最高法认为,江铃控股的再审申请不符合《行政诉讼法》第91条规定,裁定驳回其再审申请。(本文来自澎湃新闻,更多原创资讯请下载“澎湃新闻”APP)

In summary, the Supreme Law held that Jiangling Holdings'application for retrial was not in accordance with article 91 of the Administrative Procedure Law and ruled that it was rejected. (For more original information, please download the \"Surging News\" app)


欢迎转载,转载请注明出处:威尼斯人赌城app下载