FIAT AUTO S.P.A Lost a Patent Litigation in China
Le 26/03/2009
FIAT AUTO S.P.A (the plaintiff) lodged a patent litigation to Shijiazhuang
Intermediate People's Court arguing that the design of GWPERI Model launched by
Great Wall Motor Company Limited (the defendant) infringes its patent right for
automobile design (Patent No.: ZL03353217.6) which was granted by the Chinese
State Intellectual Property Office on May 19, 2004.
The court didn't confirm the legal effect of the notarized "research report on
similarity degree between the GWPERI Model and the automobile design patent"
provided by the plaintiff. The court also holds that the defendant's design of GWPERI
Model is obviously different from the plaintiff's patented design as shown in the
drawings, and it's unlikely to cause average consumer's confusion. The court
accordingly rejected the plaintiff's claims.
The plaintiff doesn't satisfy the judgment and lodged an appeal with Higher People's
Court in Hebei province on the grounds that:
1． It's wrong for the court not to confirm the legal effect of the notarized "research
report on similarity degree between the GWPERI Model and the automobile
design patent".
2． The court mistakenly concluded that the design of GWPERI Model was
dissimilar to the appellant's (the plaintiff in the first instance) design patent and
it's unlikely to cause average consumer's confusion.
The court in the second instance holds that the protection extent of the patent right for
design shall be determined by the product incorporating the patented design as shown
in the drawings or photographs. As far as this case is concerned, we can only compare
the appellee's (the defendant in the first instance) GWPERI automobile with the
appellant's patented design as shown in the drawings to determine whether there
exists the similarity. In addition, it is the relevant consumer at the average levels that
determines the similarity of designs.
As to the appellant's "research report on similarity degree between the GWPERI
Model and the automobile design patent", the research method is to compare the
online photos of GWPERI automobile with the appellant's design patent drawings. In addition, the research was conducted in supermarkets, sport courts of four cities by
randomly intercepting people who are not necessarily the relevant consumers at
average levels to fill out questionnaires, which will inevitably affect the research
result. Therefore, the notarized "research report on similarity degree between the
GWPERI Model and the automobile design patent" cannot be used to determine the
disputed issues in the case.
The appellee's design of GWPERI Model is obviously different from the appellant's
patented design as shown in the drawings and it's unlikely to cause average
consumer's confusion.
Based on the above, the court in the second instance rendered a judgment on
December 29, 2008: reject the appeal and sustain the original judgment.
Copyright reserved by LLR (China) Intellectual Property Co., Ltd. (2009-03-26)