斐珞尔洁面仪外观设计专利侵权纠纷案
Case Analysis
Zhuhai East Kingdom & Zhongshan Kingdom v. Foreo
斐珞尔洁面仪外观设计专利侵权纠纷案
Docket number of the case in the first instance: 203, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2018) Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (沪73)
Docket number of the case in the second instance: 34, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2020) Shanghai High People's Court (沪)
一审案号：（2018）沪73民初203号
二审案号：（2020）沪民终34号
Basic Facts
案情介绍
Appellant (Defendant in the case in the first instance): Zhuhai East Kingdom Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter: Zhuhai East Kingdom), Zhongshan Kingdom Electrical Appliance Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter: Zhongshan Kingdom)
Appellee (Plaintiff in the case in the first instance): Foreo (SHANGHAI) Trading Limited (Hereinafter: Foreo)
Defendant in the case in the first instance: Shanghai Zhuokang Industrial Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter: Zhuokang)
上诉人（原审被告）：珠海金稻电器有限公司（简称珠海金稻公司）、中山市金稻电器有限公司（简称中山金稻公司）
被上诉人（原审原告）：斐珞尔（上海）贸易有限公司（简称斐珞尔公司）
原审被告：上海卓康实业有限公司（简称卓康公司）
The plaintiff Foreo is the patentee of the design patent named “Face Cleaner (II)” (Hereinafter: the patent involved). This patent was filed on January 17, 2013. The patent involved is a design that combines the shape and pattern.
原告斐珞尔公司是名称为“面部清洁器（二）”的外观设计专利（简称涉案专利）的专利权人。该专利申请日为2013年1月17日。涉案专利系形状和图案相结合的外观设计。
Upon notarization and preservation, Foreo found that Zhuhai East Kingdom and Zhongshan Kingdom sold KD308 face cleanser products on online stores at Tmall, Alibaba, JD and other online platforms (hereinafter: alleged infringing products). The alleged infringing products were sold by two defendants on online platforms including Tmall, Alibaba and JD after Zhongshan Kingdom produced and Zhuhai East Kingdom assembled the parts. 16 online stores on Tmall (including those operated by Zhuokang), 10 stores at 1688.com and eight stores on JD.com were authorized to sell the alleged infringing products. They also cooperated with several platforms, including NetEase Kaola, Taobao, Xiaohongshu, Vipshop, JUMEI, m.yhd.com, Suning, dangdang.com and Pinduoduo.
斐珞尔公司经公证保全发现，珠海金稻公司和中山金稻公司分别在天猫、阿里巴巴和京东网络平台上经营的网店销售了型号为K D308的洁面仪产品（简称被诉侵权产品）。被诉侵权产品系由中山金稻公司生产各部件并经珠海金稻公司组装后，由上述两被告在天猫、阿里巴巴和京东网络平台上销售，同时还授权了天猫网上的16家店铺（其中包括卓康公司经营的店铺）、1688网站上的10家店铺和京东网上的8家店铺销售被诉侵权产品，并与网易考拉、淘宝、小红书、唯品会、聚美优品、1号店、苏宁易购、当当网、拼多多网络平台均有合作。
Foreo filed a lawsuit with the court requesting: 1. Order three defendants to immediately stop their infringement upon the patent right involved; 2. Order the defendants Zhuhai East Kingdom and Zhongshan Kingdom to destroy immediately the molds for manufacturing the infringing products; 3. Order the defendants Zhuhai East Kingdom, Zhongshan Kingdom and Zhuokang to immediately destroy all infringing products in stock; 4. Order the defendants Zhuhai East Kingdom and Zhongshan Kingdom to jointly compensate Foreo for its economic losses and reasonable expenses of RMB 3 million, and Zhuokang to bear joint and several liability for compensation within the scope of its sales of the infringing products.
斐珞尔公司向法院起诉请求：1.判令三被告立即停止对涉案专利权的侵权行为；2.判令被告珠海金稻公司、中山金稻公司立即销毁制造侵权产品的模具；3.判令被告珠海金稻公司、中山金稻公司、卓康公司立即销毁所有库存侵权产品；4.判令被告珠海金稻公司、中山金稻公司共同赔偿斐珞尔公司经济损失与合理开支300万元，被告卓康公司在其销售侵权产品范围内承担连带赔偿责任。
In the first instance, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that the design of the alleged infringing product fell within the scope of protection of the patent right. Zhuhai East Kingdom and Zhongshan Kingdom that manufactured, sold and promised to sell the alleged infringing product shall be held liable for ceasing infringement and compensating for corresponding economic losses. As Zhuokang continued to sell infringing products after receiving the complaint of this case, and legitimate source defense can’t be formed, Zhuokang shall jointly and severally bear the compensation liability for the sales behavior after receiving the complaint with the producer. Based on the above grounds, the court ruled in first instance: Zhuhai East Kingdom, Zhongshan Kingdom and Zhuokang shall immediately stop infringement upon the patent right involved enjoyed by Foreo; Zhuhai East Kingdom and Zhongshan Kingdom shall jointly compensate Foreo for its economic losses and reasonable expenses of RMB 3 million, of which Zhuokang shall bear joint and several liabilities for compensation of RMB 50,000.
上海知识产权法院一审认为，被诉侵权产品的外观设计落入涉案专利权的保护范围。珠海金稻公司及中山金稻公司实施了制造、销售、许诺销售被诉侵权产品的行为，均应承担停止侵权、赔偿相应经济损失的责任。卓康公司在收到本案诉状后继续销售侵权产品，不能成立合法来源抗辩，其应就收到诉状后的销售行为与生产者连带承担赔偿责任。综上，一审法院判决：珠海金稻公司、中山金稻公司、卓康公司立即停止对斐珞尔公司享有的涉案专利权的侵害；珠海金稻公司、中山金稻公司共同赔偿斐珞尔公司经济损失及合理费用300万元，卓康公司对其中的5万元承担连带赔偿责任。
Zhuhai East Kingdom and Zhongshan Kingdom refused to accept the verdict of first instance, and appealed to Shanghai High People's Court. The Shanghai High People's Court ruled in the second instance that, according to the knowledge and cognitive competence of general consumers when the alleged infringing act occurred, the alleged infringing design is similar to the design of the patent involved and falls within the scope of protection of the patent right. In this case, it is more reasonable to calculate the profit from infringement by multiplying the total sales of infringing products on the market by the reasonable profit per infringing product. According to the above calculation of the profit from infringement of Zhuhai East Kingdom and Zhongshan Kingdom and taking into account the reasonable expenses paid by Foreo to stop infringement, the compensation amount of RMB 3 million claimed by Foreo is well founded. Based on the above grounds, the second-instance court ruled to: dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgement.
珠海金稻公司、中山金稻公司不服一审判决，向上海市高级人民法院提起上诉。上海市高级人民法院二审认为，以被诉侵权行为发生时一般消费者的知识水平和认知能力来判断，被诉侵权设计属于涉案专利的近似设计，落入涉案专利权的保护范围。本案采用侵权产品在市场上销售的总数乘以每件侵权产品的合理利润所得之积的侵权获利计算方式更为合理。依照上述方式计算珠海金稻公司、中山金稻公司的侵权获利，并考虑斐珞尔公司为制止侵权行为支付的合理开支，斐珞尔公司主张的300万元赔偿数额依据充分。综上，二审法院判决：驳回上诉，维持原判
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：
jane.jiang@chinaipmagazine.com
18911449529（微信同号）