Counterfeiting of well-known∑¥π• book design was sentenced to con≠✔↓stitute unfair competition
Release Time:2018-03-01
Recently, Haidian District People's Coδurt made a verdict a π'gainst the plaintiff Econ₩ ↔↑omic Science Publishing Hoγ use (hereinafter referred >πto as Jingke She) v. Th ±e defendant Beijing Institβ'φute of Technology Press Limited Liabil≠←γity Company (hereinafter ε↑¥referred to as Bei Li Gong Pu♠←≈blishing House) and o™ther unfair competition disp Ωutes, judgments North Polyt©♠ echnic Press has stopped publishing ∑∞★and publishing books on the bac€¶k cover of the book, which are sim≠∑≥ilar to those printed on the back cov$↔ ≠er of the books published by the S® ∏ocieties, to eliminate unfair coβ≠©®mpetition and compensate for eco×♣nomic losses and reason♠↕₹¥able expenses.
The agency claimed that since↓✔≤£ its publication in MayσΩ 2014, three books, "Financia±₹¥l Regulations and Accounting Professionε∞al Ethics", were published and publis↑φhed. It was found that ∏αthe three cover book covers of the sam♦Ω§e name published by Northern P↑₹♠olytechnic Press used It is extreme¥$ly improper to compeλ✔te for the counterfeiting of packagingε±♥ and decoration unique to thλ$φe well-known goods of the science an≠γ♠↔d technology department.σ♦$♣ Therefore, it requested the court to o♣<≤≈rder Beijing Polytechnic"¥" Press to stop the infrin"☆gement and eliminate the infl∏ ¥uence , And compensationπ₩÷ for economic losses↔' and reasonable costs.
North Polytechnic Publications argu♦∞<es that the back cover of a b★®∏εook published by it is not similar ♠ ∞to the back cover of a cover of a sciγ$ γence book.
Court hearing that the tea∑∑≠•ching materials can be identifδ✘ied as well-known commodities; boo≤✘k cover style featur↕§εes a distinctive cover, disti€×÷nctive style, with the functi¥♦ "on of different sources of good ©s, the well-known goods constitute th₽☆"e unique decoration, the b∏↕ook cover the indications on £Ωβthe overall visual effects and Very s∏ imilar. When BeiLong Publishi™&ng Company published later books o®ε↔f its kind, it should ha★ve the obligation of reasonable avo>idance, but it used the ¶φγδback cover of the cover which is ver®'y similar to that of the counsel↔÷ing materials of the societyδ≠. It obviously has the subjective i₩ ntention of free riding and h☆as behaved Constitute the unf÷'air competition to thσ₹e society.
After the verdict of the case, N£≠★←orth Polytechnic Press refused↑&γ to accept the verdict of the firs≤₹♣t instance and filed an appeal. At pr ♣∏σesent, the case is being ↓<<appealed.
Comments
Due to the high resemblance of book co™→₩→ver back cover caused unfair ♠α→competition disputes, rare in judicial∏∑∞δ practice. When the plai₽₹ ™ntiff based on China©♦'s pre-modified anti-unfa≠±$ir competition law, Article II, π♣₹Article 5, that is, the defendant€£₹'s existence of counterfe✘≥★'iting as a reason to advocateΩ× unfair competition, the court will foc↕π'∑us on the following aspect >×s of the analysis: First,© based on the evidence provided by ¶' the plaintiff Determine whethe&☆r the goods have a certain popularity¶∞, whether it has a ce© rtain visibility, that is, to d↓♠®§etermine whether the well-↔αknown goods; secondly φ♥↔determine the well-known goods ™×$and decorating by the p☆☆αlaintiff originality, the overall s♦₩δ≥tyle of the cover de ↕±↓sign, picture graphics÷Ω♣∞, book name and location Whether it ↓'★₽is different from other similar♣δ products or not, and achieves the ♣♠function of stabilizing the relati¥ onship between the books a☆¶®₩nd the plaintiff. Finally, it ju ♠dges whether the accused ♥× products are similar &>to the plaintiff's products in te∑φrms of overall style and design ¶ arrangement, which is enough to le☆★€ad to confusion among co ↑↓nsumers.
In order to avoid similar dis ↑φputes, publishers should creat¥λ✘φe their own unique and highly reco↓ gnizable cover designs.
The agency claimed that since↓✔≤£ its publication in MayσΩ 2014, three books, "Financia±₹¥l Regulations and Accounting Professionε∞al Ethics", were published and publis↑φhed. It was found that ∏αthe three cover book covers of the sam♦Ω§e name published by Northern P↑₹♠olytechnic Press used It is extreme¥$ly improper to compeλ✔te for the counterfeiting of packagingε±♥ and decoration unique to thλ$φe well-known goods of the science an≠γ♠↔d technology department.σ♦$♣ Therefore, it requested the court to o♣<≤≈rder Beijing Polytechnic"¥" Press to stop the infrin"☆gement and eliminate the infl∏ ¥uence , And compensationπ₩÷ for economic losses↔' and reasonable costs.
North Polytechnic Publications argu♦∞<es that the back cover of a b★®∏εook published by it is not similar ♠ ∞to the back cover of a cover of a sciγ$ γence book.
Court hearing that the tea∑∑≠•ching materials can be identifδ✘ied as well-known commodities; boo≤✘k cover style featur↕§εes a distinctive cover, disti€×÷nctive style, with the functi¥♦ "on of different sources of good ©s, the well-known goods constitute th₽☆"e unique decoration, the b∏↕ook cover the indications on £Ωβthe overall visual effects and Very s∏ imilar. When BeiLong Publishi™&ng Company published later books o®ε↔f its kind, it should ha★ve the obligation of reasonable avo>idance, but it used the ¶φγδback cover of the cover which is ver®'y similar to that of the counsel↔÷ing materials of the societyδ≠. It obviously has the subjective i₩ ntention of free riding and h☆as behaved Constitute the unf÷'air competition to thσ₹e society.
After the verdict of the case, N£≠★←orth Polytechnic Press refused↑&γ to accept the verdict of the firs≤₹♣t instance and filed an appeal. At pr ♣∏σesent, the case is being ↓<<appealed.
Comments
Due to the high resemblance of book co™→₩→ver back cover caused unfair ♠α→competition disputes, rare in judicial∏∑∞δ practice. When the plai₽₹ ™ntiff based on China©♦'s pre-modified anti-unfa≠±$ir competition law, Article II, π♣₹Article 5, that is, the defendant€£₹'s existence of counterfe✘≥★'iting as a reason to advocateΩ× unfair competition, the court will foc↕π'∑us on the following aspect >×s of the analysis: First,© based on the evidence provided by ¶' the plaintiff Determine whethe&☆r the goods have a certain popularity¶∞, whether it has a ce© rtain visibility, that is, to d↓♠®§etermine whether the well-↔αknown goods; secondly φ♥↔determine the well-known goods ™×$and decorating by the p☆☆αlaintiff originality, the overall s♦₩δ≥tyle of the cover de ↕±↓sign, picture graphics÷Ω♣∞, book name and location Whether it ↓'★₽is different from other similar♣δ products or not, and achieves the ♣♠function of stabilizing the relati¥ onship between the books a☆¶®₩nd the plaintiff. Finally, it ju ♠dges whether the accused ♥× products are similar &>to the plaintiff's products in te∑φrms of overall style and design ¶ arrangement, which is enough to le☆★€ad to confusion among co ↑↓nsumers.
In order to avoid similar dis ↑φputes, publishers should creat¥λ✘φe their own unique and highly reco↓ gnizable cover designs.