On the occasion of 4.26 World Intellectual Property Day, the Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People's Court recently made a final ruling on a case of infringement of the copyright of Lego building toys, upholding the judgment of the court of first instance, that is, sentencing the defendant unit L Company to a fine of 600 million yuan, sentencing the main offender defendants Chen Shu and Chen Kun to nine years and eight years in prison, and fining 20 million yuan and 15 million yuan, and sentenced the accomplice defendants Chen Xin, Chen and Zhu Hai to fixed-term imprisonment of four years to one year and six months, and imposed corresponding fines.
The 1:1 replica version of the Lego brick toy particles, instructions and outer packaging patterns, if it is not for the trademark marked on the outer packaging box is "Bole" and "Leyi", it really makes it difficult for consumers to distinguish the real from the fake.
Gao Weiping, a fourth-level senior judge of the Criminal Trial Division of the Shanghai Third Intermediate People's Court, said that after identification, the 54 building block sets produced by the defendant company constituted a copying relationship with Lego bricks, and the illegal business amount exceeded 1.1 billion yuan.
"In this case, the court of first instance imposed a fine of 600 million yuan on Company L, and sentenced the two supervisors to 9 years and 8 years' imprisonment respectively. In 2017, Company L was convicted of a civil tort by other courts, and after the sentence, it still did not repent, and moved the company's production area and warehouse to the periphery of the company in order to avoid detection, which was more subjectively vicious. Gao Weiping said.
Defendants Chen Shu and Chen Kun are brothers who once set up a company to engage in the production and sales of toys. At first, the company's business included the production of remote-controlled airplanes and toy bricks, but later due to the poor sales of remote-controlled aircraft, they saw that Lego bricks were selling well in the market, so they started the idea of counterfeiting.
Wu Xiaofeng, a fourth-level senior procurator of the Sixth Procuratorate Department of the Third Branch of the Shanghai Municipal Procuratorate, said that because there is no need for independent design and the production cost is not high, the price of infringing Lego toys is low, only a few tens to hundreds of yuan, and they are even sold abroad. "Longteng Company is equivalent to a family-owned enterprise, and the appellants are all close relatives, and there is a clear division of labor in the case. From the value of the case, it can be seen that infringing on Lego toys is a relatively profitable profit for them, and the profits are very huge. This case can be said to be the largest intellectual property case in Shanghai. ”
After the second instance trial of the court, the Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People's Court made a final ruling on this case of infringement of the copyright of Lego building toys: rejecting the protest and appeal, and upholding the original judgment!
Strengthening the protection of copyright can not only stimulate the creative enthusiasm and initiative of creators, but also effectively maintain the competitive order of the market economy and promote the optimal allocation of social resources.
Judge Gao Weiping held that in this case, the defendant unit and the defendants imitated Lego products on a large scale and sold them to the outside world for more than six years in order to obtain illegal benefits, and the amount of illegal business was particularly huge, which was a major criminal case of copyright infringement. "The sentences to the two supervisors of nine and eight years in prison are close to the maximum sentences for this crime, and reflect the Shanghai court's concept of cracking down on serious intellectual property infringement crimes severely. On the eve of the '4.26' World Intellectual Property Day, such a typical case as an example has played a deterrent role in cracking down on similar cases of serious infringement of intellectual property rights, and demonstrates the protection of independent innovation by Shanghai courts. Gao Weiping said.