Pictured: Poster comparison of two animated films. Courtesy of the court
On December 21, 2017, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court concluded the case of the appellants Blue Flame Company and Base Point Company for copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes with the appellees, Disney Company, Pixar and Juli Company, and ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
In July 2015, the domestic animation film "Autobots" was released in China. However, Disney and Pixar found that the film, from its name, animated image to promotional posters, was suspected of plagiarizing the "Cars" series of movies. Later, Disney, Pixar sued blue flame company, the film's producer, the distributor Basis Point, and The company that distributed the film on the website.
The Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court held in the first instance that the animated images of "K1" and "K2" in the movies and posters of "Autobots" were substantially similar to the original animated images of "Lightning McCuln" and "Flemish High" created by Disney Company and Pixar in "Cars 2", constituting copyright infringement. The movie name of "Racing Story" has been widely used and publicized by the rights holder to constitute a unique name of well-known goods, and the movie poster of "Auto Man Story" will be obscured by the word "person" with a "tire" graphic, which has become "Auto Story" in visual effects, which is only one word difference with "Racing Story", which is easy to make the public misunderstand, so it constitutes an act of unfair competition by using the unique name of well-known goods without authorization. The court of first instance ruled that the three defendants should stop the infringement; Blue Flame Company compensated Disney Company and Pixar for economic losses of 1 million yuan, of which Basis Point Company bore joint and several liability for compensation for 800,000 yuan; Blue Flame Company and Base Point Company jointly bore more than 350,000 yuan of reasonable expenses incurred by Disney Company and Pixar to stop infringement.
After the first-instance judgment, Blue Flame Company and Basis Point Company appealed to the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, holding that the expression of anthropomorphism was limited, and the court of first instance found that the animated images of Disney Company and Pixar's "Lightning McQueen" and "Fransgao" constituted an original expression through the combination of anthropomorphic eyes, mouth and specific colors, and did not exclude elements of the public domain, which was an error in determination. The detailed elements of the "K1" and "K2" animations of "Lightning Mackene" and "Franscoal" are different, do not constitute substantial similarities, and therefore do not constitute copyright infringement. The name of the film involved in the case is "Autobots", blue flame company and base point company have also been promoting the film as the first domestic racing film, and the name of "Autobots" is also clearly stated on the movie ticket, which will not cause confusion and misidentification of the relevant public. Even if infringement is constituted, the court of first instance repeatedly superimposes the amount of compensation for copyright infringement and unfair competition, which is wrong, and the amount of compensation awarded in the application of statutory damages is obviously too high.
After trial, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that for the judgment of substantial similarity in the determination of copyright infringement, it is necessary to consider whether the similarities between the two sets of animated images are original expressions protected by the Copyright Law. Although the anthropomorphic design of a car belongs to the category of ideas and is not protected by the Copyright Law, the specific expression of anthropomorphism belongs to the category of expression and can be protected by the Copyright Law. After comparing the similarities and differences between the animation images of "K1", "K2" and "Lightning McCulnd" and "Flemish High", the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that the animation images of "K1" and "K2" were basically the same as the animation images of "Lightning McCulnd" and "Flemish High" in the choice of specific expressions, and the degree of expression similarity had reached the standard of ordinary observers, and it would not be considered that the former of the two sets of animation images was independently created on the basis of the latter, so it constituted substantial similarity. Blue Flame, Basis Point, and Cohesion infringed copyrights on Disney, Pixar's "Lightning McKene" and "Franco Gaunt" artworks.
In addition, "Racing Story", as the name of the Disney Company and Pixar's series of movies, has a certain degree of significance and high popularity, and constitutes a unique name for well-known products. Movie posters, media reports have an important impact on the public to decide whether to watch a movie, "tire" graphics to obscure the word "people" involved in the poster is not only posted in the theater, but also used in the network and other media publicity, before the audience gets the movie ticket, the possible confusion and confusion results have occurred, the name on the movie ticket does not affect the identification of confusion. Blue Flame Company and Base Point Company had the intention of confusion in the production and use of the posters involved in the case, which actually produced the result of confusion, and their acts constituted an act of unfair competition using the unique names of well-known goods without authorization.
With regard to the amount of compensation, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court held that the copyright infringement and unfair competition in this case were independent of each other, and the results of the infringement were also different, the infringement results of the acts of unfair competition were not absorbed by the infringement results of the copyright infringement, and the amount of compensation determined by the court of first instance was relatively comprehensive and not improper.
In summary, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment. (Xinmin Evening News Xinmin Network reporter Hu Yanxun correspondent Chen Yingying)