In the current era of rampant counterfeiting, intellectual property protection has become the lifeline of innovative enterprises. Recently, the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment on a highly anticipated design patent infringement case, showing a "zero tolerance" sword to infringing companies - a high fine of 1.2 million yuan sends a strong signal that the judiciary will "strike hard" against malicious plagiarism.


Is it difficult to distinguish between real and fake "butterflies"? Court: Constitutes infringement!


The protagonist of this case is the highly recognizable "butterfly shaped" sunglasses of the Tyrannosaurus rex BOLON. The operator of Tyrannosaurus rex discovered that since December 2020, Le's business company and Le's design company have been selling highly similar sunglasses through online and offline channels, covering 19 provinces and cities. Their WeChat mini program even promotes having more than 900 stores.


Tyrannosaurus believes that it has legitimate design patent rights, and that the unauthorized manufacture and sale of similar products by Le Company seriously infringes on the patent rights. Le applied to the China National Intellectual Property Administration for "invalid patent", claiming that the design was customary. However, after strict examination, the State Intellectual Property Office maintained the validity of the patent and confirmed that the Tyrannosaurus rex design is a "true innovation" protected by law.


How does the court compare? The "overall visual effect" is the final say!


The focus of the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court trial is whether the two sunglasses are visually similar? Will it cause confusion among consumers?


The court strictly applied the standard of "overall visual effect judgment" and carefully compared the involved patent with the accused infringing product. It was found that the core design elements of the two were highly overlapping: both used unique "butterfly shaped" lenses with smooth lines; The front surface of the lens has wavy edges; The frame is attached to the back of the lens, with a slight curvature on the outside; The mirror bridge is in the shape of a curved bow, with the mirror legs lying horizontally in the shape of a "bow".


For ordinary consumers, these differences are insignificant and the overall visual effect is similar. The court ultimately determined that the accused infringing product fell within the scope of protection, and the two defendants jointly infringed and should bear joint and several liability.


Why was the compensation awarded 1.2 million yuan? Punitive damages are key!


Why was a fine of 1.2 million yuan imposed in this case for infringement of design patents, which usually results in low compensation? This is precisely where the greatest warning significance lies.


The court focused on the subjective malice and past misdeeds of the infringer. Le Company and Tyrannosaurus belong to the eyewear industry and have a certain scale and popularity. It is impossible to be unaware of Tyrannosaurus Design. Even worse, this is not a 'first-time offender' - as early as 2019, Le Company was ordered to cease infringement and compensate for counterfeiting another pair of sunglasses from the Tyrannosaurus rex.


Given its repeated use of old tricks, obvious subjective intent, and large business scale and wide sales scope, the court referred to punitive damages when determining the amount of compensation. Based on the final comprehensive patent type, product contribution, and infringement circumstances, a compensation amount of 1.2 million yuan (including rights protection costs) will be determined at discretion. In the second instance, the Jiangsu High Court upheld the original verdict, and the infringer must pay a heavy price for "free riding".


Judge's statement: Let 'true innovation' be 'strictly protected'


The judge of Nanjing Intellectual Property Court pointed out that this case severely punishes the behavior of "imitating appearance and rubbing against design", sending a clear signal: for enterprises that knowingly and repeatedly infringe, the law will no longer "lightly tap the wrist", but will significantly increase the cost of illegal activities through punitive damages.


This not only safeguards the legitimate rights and interests of rights holders, but also aims to purify the market environment and protect enterprises that truly invest in research and development. Only by causing pain to infringers can we force the industry to transition from "imitation and plagiarism" to "independent innovation".


Conclusion


The "Tyrannosaurus Rex" won the lawsuit and received a compensation of 1.2 million yuan, but the road to rights protection is not easy. For consumers, it is important to choose legitimate channels and reject "knockoffs" for both consumer safety and respect for originality. For business operators, this "fine" is a loud alarm: intellectual property is not a decoration, plagiarism and counterfeiting will lose reputation and face severe sanctions. In market competition, only independent innovation and honest management are the long-term development paths.