Hennessy, a company that specializes in hennessy trademark brand products, has a high reputation around the world, and in addition to the products themselves, flat paradigm bottles are also very representative.
Yas Ennesi Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Hennessy Company") sued Carale Company and several other companies involved in production and sales to the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court and claimed RMB500,000 for allegedly plagiarizing the design of paradis bottles and infringing on the reproduction and distribution rights of their works, etc. because it believed that Guangdong Caral Liquor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Caralele Company") and other companies involved in the production and sales were infringed. According to the first-instance judgment, although the court found that the paradigm bottle was protected by the Copyright Law, the existing evidence was insufficient to prove that Hennessy Company enjoyed the copyright in the works of the Paradigm bottle in question, so it rejected Hennessy's litigation claim.
Hennessy claimed that the "paradis" bottle had been plagiarized
The "hennessy" wine brand enjoys a high reputation worldwide. Behind it is a well-known wine company Hennessy, which manufactures, sells and promotes brandy products under various hennessy brand names.
Hennessy first created the art work of Hennessy's "paradis bottles" on April 23, 2001 and published it for the first time worldwide on May 16, 2001. On January 15, 2015, the fine art work of "paradis bottle" was registered with the National Copyright Office.
The special feature of the "paradis bottle" is that the bottle body has been flattened, and the streamlined contours on both sides of the bottle body have been strengthened and the thin wings corresponding to the bottle body are protruding, and the bottle body is from bottom to top, from wide and narrow to inward arc transition to form a bottleneck, and there is an arc depression at the junction of the neck and the bottle cap, and the bottle cap is bowl-shaped, with an elegant and aesthetic design.
However, Hennessy found a "johnnys blue Johnnys Blue Brand-Cajuni xo brandy" on the market, and the bottle design of this product was highly similar to Hennessy's "paradis bottle" artwork.
The above products are produced and sold by Caral, and the product label shows that Brandy Company is the bottler of the product, Lee Company is the distributor of the product, and Ou Xiaotao Business Department is the distributor of the product. Accordingly, Hennessy Company believed that the liquor products manufactured, sold and promoted by Caral and other defendants infringed their copyright in the art works of the "paradis" bottle, and demanded that the defendants stop the infringement and compensate for losses of 500,000 yuan.
Does the "paradis" bottle constitute a work of art?
Articles with practical functions protected by the Copyright Law shall be works of art or craft designs whose aesthetic or artistic characteristics can be separated from practicality.
After trial, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that in order to achieve its practical purpose as a liquor container, the "paradis" bottle must have a bottle mouth for injecting liquor and a bottle body to contain liquor, but the overall shape of the bottle, decorative patterns, colors, etc. still have a large design space. Even if the "paradis" bottle changes the design features such as the light and thin band edges in this case, it still does not affect its practical function of storing the liquor as a container, so the artistic beauty of the "paradis" bottle can be conceptually separated from its practical function. In addition, as mentioned earlier, the overall design of the "paradis" bottle is simple and generous, and the design of the light and thin ribbon edges highlights the light and elegant style, which reflects the author's personalized expression, has strong artistry and originality, is full of beauty, and should constitute an art work protected by the Copyright Law.
In summary, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court held that the "paradis" bottle constitutes a work of art and is protected by the Copyright Law.
The copyright belongs to the designer, and there is insufficient evidence of hennessy's "paradis" copyright
In this case, although the copyright registration certificate submitted by Hennessy Company stated that the paradis bottle work involved in the case was a legal person's work and the copyright holder was Hennessy Company, the registration certificate showed that the registration time was 2014, while the design patent application submitted by Hennessy Company for the application for the paradigm bottle involved in the case was 2001. According to the patent certificate, the designer was Agnès Tiéri.
Therefore, in the absence of other evidence, the court held that the copyright in the work of the paradis bottle involved in the case belonged to Agnès Tiéri, the designer of the bottle.
In this case, Hennessy did not submit evidence to prove that the paradis bottle involved in the case was organized by its company personnel, that is, from the proposal of creation, the intention, the choice of designers and the provision of relevant creative material conditions, hennessy company personnel were led, rather than simply putting forward creative requirements. Based on the available evidence, Hennessy's claim to be copyrighted by the words "hennessy" on the bottle is insufficiently based. Even if the paradigm bottle involved in the case is a wine bottle specially designed by the author for Hennessy, in the absence of a clear contract, the copyright belongs to the author, and Hennessy Company, as the principal, only enjoys the right to use it free of charge in line with the purpose of the creation of the work.
After the trial, Hennessy submitted a Certificate of Assignment proving that Agnès Tiéry had transferred the copyright in the Paradis bottle work involved in the case to the company, but because the evidence did not perform notarization, authentication or other certification procedures, it did not contain the content of Agnès Tiéry's transfer of rights to Hennessy. The court found that the aforementioned certificate had no evidentiary effect and could not be admissible as evidence in the case.
After trial, the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court found that the existing evidence was insufficient to prove that Hennessy Company enjoyed the copyright of the paradigm bottle works involved in the case, and ruled to reject Hennessy's litigation claims in accordance with the law.
Written by: Nandu reporter Qin Chuqiao correspondent Xiao Shengcheng