涉“人体感应灯”外观设计专利侵权纠纷案

  Case Analysis

Deamak v. Yale Electric Appliance Factory

涉“人体感应灯”外观设计专利侵权纠纷案

Docket number of the case in the first instance: No. 341, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2020) Ningbo Intermediate People’s Court (浙02)

Docket number of the case in the second instance: No. 1284, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2020) Zhejiang High People's Court (浙)

一审案号：（2020）浙02民初341号

二审案号：（2020）浙民终1284号

Prefatory Syllabus

裁判要旨

As the shape generally has more impact on the overall visual effect in the appearance design of 3D products, a focus should be put on the shape when making the same or similar judgment on 3D products; in case the shape belongs to customary design or has been disclosed in earlier design, the pattern and color usually have more impact on the overall visual effect. The comparison for infringement of color design patent requesting protection should take into account the contribution proportion of shape design features or color to the overall visual effect. It can’t be directly determined that the alleged infringing design is different from or not similar to the patent involved because the colors are different or not similar, otherwise other parties may avoid patent infringement by simply replacing the colors and other means.

对于立体产品的外观设计，一般情况下形状对整体视觉效果更具有影响，故在对立体产品进行相同或近似的判断时，应以形状为重点；如果其形状属于惯常设计或已被在先设计所公开，则图案、色彩对整体视觉效果通常更具有影响。请求保护颜色的外观设计专利的侵权比对，仍应考虑形状设计特征的比重或颜色对于整体视觉效果的贡献度，不能直接以颜色不相同或不近似就认定被诉侵权设计与涉案专利不相同或不近似，否则他人即可通过简单替换颜色等方式规避专利侵权。

Basic Facts

案情介绍

Appellant (Plaintiff in the case in the first instance): Ningbo Deamak Intelligent Technology Co., LTD (Hereinafter: Deamak)

Appellee (Defendant in the case in the first instance): Yuyao Yale Electric Appliance Factory (Hereinafter: Yale Electric Appliance Factory)

上诉人（原审原告）：宁波缔美珂智能科技有限公司（简称缔美珂公司）

被上诉人（原审被告）：余姚市雅乐电器厂（简称雅乐电器厂）

Deamak is the patentee of the design patent involved named “Rotating Intelligent Body Sensor Lamp” (Patent No.: ZL201630643552.4). The design essentials of this patent are its shape and appearance, and the design requesting protection includes color. On March 12, 2018, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) issued an evaluation report on the design patent right for the patent involved. The report determined that there are no defects not meeting the conditions for the grant of a patent found in all designs. Holding the alleged infringing products produced and sold by Yale Electric Appliance Factory fell within the protection scope of its patent right involved, Deamak filed a lawsuit to the Intermediate People's Court of Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, requesting to order Yale Electric Appliance Factory to stop infringement and compensate for the loss.

缔美珂公司系涉案专利号为Z L201630643552.4、名称为“可旋转智能人体感应灯”的外观设计专利权人。该专利设计要点为其形状及造型，其请求保护的外观设计包含色彩。2018年3月12日，国家知识产权局出具涉案专利的外观设计专利权评价报告，该报告结论为：全部外观设计未发现存在不符合授予专利权条件的缺陷。缔美珂公司认为，雅乐电器厂制造、销售的涉案被诉侵权产品落入了其涉案专利权的保护范围，故诉至浙江省宁波市中级人民法院，要求判令雅乐电器厂停止侵权、赔偿损失。

In the first instance, the Intermediate People's Court of Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province ruled that, the brief description of the design patent involved makes clear the request for protection of the color, which should be regarded as the patentee defines the scope of protection of the patent right, excluding the design with the same or similar shape but different or dissimilar color from protection of the patent right. In this case, the alleged infringing product is mainly in white, which is significantly different from color stratification of the patent involved. Based on the overall observation of the design involved and the alleged infringing product according to the knowledge and cognitive competence of general consumers, there are obvious differences between the two in terms of overall color, shape and visual effect. 

宁波中院一审认为，涉案外观专利的简要说明中明确请求保护色彩，对此应当理解为专利权人对专利权的保护范围进行了限定，将形状相同或相近似但色彩不相同或不相近似的设计排斥在专利权保护范围之外。本案中，被诉侵权产品中的主要颜色为白色，其与涉案专利之间分层的颜色明显不同。以一般消费者的知识水平和认知能力对涉案外观设计与被诉侵权产品进行整体观察，二者在整体色彩和整体形状上存在明显区别，在整体视觉效果上存在明显差异。

In summary, the design of the alleged infringing product is neither the same nor similar to the design involved. The alleged infringing product doesn’t fall within the scope of protection of the patent right involved nor constitute an infringement upon the design patent right involved. Based on the above grounds, the court ruled in first instance to: dismiss Deamak's litigation request.

综上，被诉侵权产品的外观设计与涉案外观设计既不相同也不近似，被诉侵权产品不落入涉案专利权的保护范围，不构成对涉案外观设计专利权的侵犯。综上，法院一审判决：驳回缔美珂公司的诉讼请求。

Deamak refused to accept the verdict of first instance, and appealed to Zhejiang Provincial Higher People's Court.

缔美珂公司不服一审判决，向浙江省高级人民法院提起上诉。

Zhejiang Provincial Higher People's Court held in second instance: When the design requesting protection includes color, the color for which protection is requested shall be considered as one of the design features in determining the scope of protection of the design patent right, that is, in the judgment of patent infringement, it’s necessary to compare the shape, pattern, color contained in the design patent and these factors combined with those of the alleged infringing design in a comprehensive way. 

浙江高院二审认为：当请求保护的外观设计包含色彩时，应当将请求保护的色彩作为确定外观设计专利权保护范围的设计特征之一，即在专利侵权判断中，需将外观设计专利所包含的形状、图案、色彩及其组合，与被诉侵权设计相应的形状、图案、色彩及其组合进行综合对比。

In this case, according to the evaluation report on the patent involved, the main difference between it and the existing design is the overall flat cylindrical layered structure, so the shape design characteristics is its major design characteristics. From the differences between the alleged infringing design and the patent involved, both of them are flat cylindrical and divided into the upper and lower parts, each with the same number and proportion of layered structures as well as the design and position of switches and USB interfaces. The differences between the two in terms of the shape include the height of the protrusion on the top, the connection of the upper two layers and other subtle differences, which are insufficient to make a substantial difference between the two in the overall visual effect of shape. 

本案中，涉案专利的评价报告显示，其区别于现有设计的主要差异在于其呈扁圆柱形分层结构的整体形状，故形状设计特征系其主要设计特征。从被诉侵权设计与涉案专利的区别点来看，两者从形状上均采用了扁圆柱形，亦分上下两个主要部分，各部分分层结构数量和比例均相同，开关及USB接口的设计、位置亦相同，形状上的区别点仅为顶部突起高度与上部两层连接处设计等细微差别，不足以使两者形状的整体视觉效果产生实质性差异。

Although the alleged infringing design differs from the patent involved in the color selection of various layers and switches, as the two have a similar shape and a large design space for the colors of various layers and switches, the alleged infringing design only simply changes the color of each layer and switch of the patent involved into white. For general consumers, it is insufficient to make a substantial difference between the two in the overall visual effect of products. Therefore, according to the comparison principle of design patent, i.e., "overall observation and comprehensive judgment", the alleged infringing design is similar to the patent involved and falls into the scope of protection of the patent right. The first-instance court shall correct its improper determination regarding this.

虽然被诉侵权设计与涉案专利在各分层以及开关的颜色选择上有所不同，但在两者整体形状相近似的情况下，因各层以及开关颜色的设计空间较大，故被诉侵权设计仅将涉案专利各层以及开关的颜色简单替换成白色，对一般消费者而言，尚不足以使两者产品的整体视觉效果产生实质性差异。因此，按照“整体观察、综合判断”的外观设计专利比对原则，被诉侵权设计与涉案专利构成近似，落入了涉案专利权的保护范围，一审法院对此认定不当，应予纠正。

Based on the above grounds, the court ruled in second instance to: annul the first-instance judgment and order Yale Electric Appliance Factory to immediately stop infringement, and compensate for the economic loss of RMB 50,000 incurred to Deamak (including reasonable expenses).

综上，法院二审判决：撤销一审判决，雅乐电器厂立即停止侵权，并赔偿缔美珂公司经济损失（含合理费用）5万元。

Typical Significance

典型意义

This case has, based on the protection of innovation factors and from the design space, defined the protection scope of design patent claims for color requesting protection and the principle of infringement comparison, which is conducive to the protection of innovative design, and of strong typical significance for the trial of similar cases.

本案基于对创新因素的保护，从设计空间出发，对于请求保护颜色的外观设计专利权利要求保护范围的确定以及侵权比对原则进行了明确，有利于保护创新性设计，对同类案件的审理也具有较强的典型意义。

英文投稿及市场合作：

[e-mail]

18911449529（微信同号）