The Supreme People's Court (hereinafter referred to as "SPC")issued the Annual Report of the Supreme People's Courton IP Cases on April 23, 2020. This annual report selects 60 typical cases from the IP cases concluded by the SPC in 2019, from which the SPC summarized 67 legal application issues with certain guiding significance, reflecting the SPC's trial ideas and judgment method fornovel, difficult and complicatedIP cases.
The design infringement case MTG Co., Ltdvs Shengjiemei Beauty Instrument Factory in Baiyun District of Guangzhou and Guangzhou ShengjiemeiBeauty Technology Co., Ltd[(2019)SPC Civil Retrial No. 142] was selected into the report. Our firm represented the retrial petitioner MTG Co., Ltd in this case. Both the first instance made by the Guangzhou IP Court and the second instance by the Guangdong Provincial Higher People's Court ruled that no infringement was constituted.We filed retail petition before the SPC and the SPC decided to hear this case. In December 2019 the SPC made the retrial judgment which affirmed the infringement. In this case, the SPC pointed out that for the design infringement comparison, on the one hand, all the visual design features including the similarities and differences should beincluded in the scope of comparison. On the other hand, even if the particularity of some features makes it deserve more attention when comparing, this does not mean that other design features which have a relatively small impact on the overall visual effect should be ignored.
The design infringement case MTG Co., Ltdvs Shengjiemei Beauty Instrument Factory in Baiyun District of Guangzhou and Guangzhou ShengjiemeiBeauty Technology Co., Ltd[(2019)SPC Civil Retrial No. 142] was selected into the report. Our firm represented the retrial petitioner MTG Co., Ltd in this case. Both the first instance made by the Guangzhou IP Court and the second instance by the Guangdong Provincial Higher People's Court ruled that no infringement was constituted.We filed retail petition before the SPC and the SPC decided to hear this case. In December 2019 the SPC made the retrial judgment which affirmed the infringement. In this case, the SPC pointed out that for the design infringement comparison, on the one hand, all the visual design features including the similarities and differences should beincluded in the scope of comparison. On the other hand, even if the particularity of some features makes it deserve more attention when comparing, this does not mean that other design features which have a relatively small impact on the overall visual effect should be ignored.
Source: Beijing Wei Chixue Law Firm
Date: April 23, 2020
Date: April 23, 2020