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.
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.
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.\"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)