Weekly China Brand Protection News

September 14, 2024

First instance decision overturned! The second instance court found the accused infringing product did not infringe on the copyright of the “robocar poli” artwork

Recently, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court issued a final verdict in the case between ROIVISUAL Co., Ltd. (referred to as “ROIVISUAL”) and Foshan Chancheng Yinghao Toys Co., Ltd. (referred to as “Yinghao”) and Guangzhou Xiyangdian International Trading Co., Ltd. (referred to as “Xiyangdian”) regarding a dispute over copyright reproduction and distribution rights. The court overturned the first-instance judgment.

Cited Artwork’s 3D Design	Front view of the Cited Artwork
Disputed Artwork’s 3D Design	Front view of the Disputed Product

The first-instance court had ruled that the artistic work claimed by ROIVISUAL had originality in its overall design, external shape, and line combinations, qualifying it as an artwork protected under China’s Copyright Law. The copyright registration certificate for the artwork showed its completion date as January 8, 2010, and its first publication date as May 11, 2010. Based on information from Douban (online publication platform), the animation related to the artwork aired in South Korea on February 28, 2011, establishing that ROIVISUAL held the copyright.

Xiyangdian confirmed that the Disputed Product, a small police car walker, was sold by them, and Yinghao confirmed it was manufactured by them. Both parties agreed that Xiyangdian had purchased the product from Yinghao.

The first publication date of the Cited Artwork was May 11, 2010, which suggested that Yinghao had the possibility of accessing the Cited Artwork. While the Cited Artwork was a police car from the Korean animation “Robocar Poli,” and the Disputed Product was a small police car walker, both were anthropomorphized police cars. The court noted that despite limited ways to express facial features and vehicle functionality, the design of the Cited Artwork resembled Korean police cars from the mid-1980s with its blue-and-white color scheme. The Disputed Product, designed for the mainland Chinese market, also featured a blue (sky blue) and white color scheme with similar proportions. Although there were differences in the eyes, mouth, front bumper, and seating design, these variations were minor and did not change the overall aesthetic style. Thus, the court found substantial similarity between the two. The defendants were found to have infringed upon ROIVISUAL’s reproduction and distribution rights by manufacturing and selling a product substantially similar to the copyrighted Cited Artwork without authorization.

The second-instance court found, in contrast, that the comparison should follow the principle of “access + substantial similarity” and exclude common expressions in the public domain. The Cited Artwork was an anthropomorphized blue-and-white police car, while the Disputed Product was an anthropomorphized blue-and-white children’s police car walker. Upon comparison, the court noted that the similarities were limited to the blue-and-white color scheme and the anthropomorphized front. The major differences included: the Cited Artwork featured a closed body without a steering wheel, seat, or side mirrors (“ears”), with the letter “P” on the door, police lights protruding from the roof, eagle-eye headlights, and no handle at the rear, closely resembling a scaled-down police car; the Disputed Product had an open body with a steering wheel on top, a saddle seat, side mirrors (“ears”), no doors or “P” markings, integrated police lights, round headlights, and a rear handle, clearly resembling a children’s walker.

Based on an analysis of the overall and individual characteristics, despite some similarities, the designs were deemed distinctly different. Therefore, the court concluded that the Cited Artwork and the Disputed Product were not substantially similar.

As the two were not substantially similar, the Disputed Product did not infringe on the reproduction or distribution rights of the artistic work, and Yinghao and Xiyangdian were not liable for civil damages.

Follow us on LinkedIn! Email: trademark@beijingeastip.com Tel: +86 10 8518 9318 | Fax: +86 10 8518 9338 Address: Suite 1601, Tower E2, Oriental Plaza, 1 East Chang An Ave., Dongcheng Dist., Beijing, 100738, P.R. China