Land Rover, a well-Known British automaker, launched a five-door version of the "Range Rover Evoque"(揽胜极光) model car in February 2009, which made its debut at the 8th China (Guangzhou) International Automobile Exhibition on December 20, 2010, and entered the Chinese market on November 8, 2011.
This car adopts its own unique downward pressure roof, suspension roof, upward characteristic lines, clamshell engine cover, and vehicle contour modeling----five unique decoration designs. In 2014, Chinese automaker JiangLing company launched a car named "Landwind X7"(陆风X7). The overall appearance and visual effects of this car are almost the same as those of "Range Rover Aurora". It also has the above-mentioned five originalities of the appearance.
On November 24, 2011, Jaguar Land Rover applied for the design patent on the exterior of the "Range Rover Evoque" (No. 201130436459.3). On February 16, 2015, Jiangling Company filed an invalidation request for the patent to the Patent Reexamination Board. On June 3, 2016, the Patent Reexamination Board made Decision No. 29147, announcing the design patent rights are all invalid after comparing with the design of “Land Rover Range Rover Evoque Two-Door Edition” which was publicly exhibited at the Guangzhou International Auto Show from December 21 to December 27, 2010.
On November 6, 2013, Jiangling Company applied for the design patent for the "Landwind X7" model involved in the case (No. 201330528226.5). On June 3, 2016, the Patent Reexamination Board of China made an invalidation request review decision (No.29146). Taking the design of "Range Rover Evoque" as a comparison, the PRB concluded that there is no obvious difference between this patent and the comparative design in terms of overall visual effects, and therefore the design patent rights of Landwind X7 were declared invalid.
After "Range Rover Evoque" car’s design patent was invalidated, Land Rover filed separate lawsuits to protect its Intellectual Property right on the grounds that Jiangling Company constituted unfair competition and infringed its copyright respectively.
Anti-unfair competition case[1]
On May 27, 2021, Beijing Intellectual Property Court announced the final judgment and upheld the first-instance judgment that Jiangling company had conducted unfair competition. According to the anti-unfair competition Law, a business shall not commit the following acts of confusion to mislead a person into believing that a commodity is one of another person’s or has a particular connection with another person: Using without permission a label identical or similar to the name. packaging or decoration, among others, of another person's commodity with certain influence (Article 6). Beijing IP Court mainly focused on solving three aspects of disputes between the two Parties. (1) whether this design can be regard as a decoration with certain difference and influence; (2) Whether the design of LuFeng X7 causes confusion; (3) whether JiangLing company has used the design which is created by Land Lover company.
The IP court holds that the commodity decoration protected by the anti-unfair competition law not only refers to the words, patterns, colors and their arrangement and combination attached to the commodity or its packaging for the purpose of identifying and beautifying the commodity, but also includes the overall or partial appearance structure that belongs to the main body of the article but has the function of decoration. It’s the conspicuity of a decoration worth protecting by law rather than the novelty and creativity. In this case, the five design characteristics claimed by Land Rover enable "Range Rover Evoque" car differentiate from general car. This model has been sold for a long time in China and has a high sales volume, acquiring a certain degree of visibility and influence. When the decoration of "Range Rover Evoque" car shape was separated from Jaguar Land Rover, the relevant public still regarded it was produced by Jaguar Land Rover. It can be seen that the "Range Rover Aurora" car shape decoration has established a stable market connection with Jaguar Land Rover and has certain influence among the public.
According to the stipulation of anti-unfair competition law, an act of confusion is sufficient to mislead a person into believing that a product belongs to another person or has a specific connection with another person. Based on this, the first instance court and second instance court believe that judging whether there is confusion should refer to the possibility of confusion or misunderstanding, rather than requiring actual confusion or misunderstanding. In this case, the overall visual effects of the "Range Rover Evoque" car decoration and the "Landwind X7" car decoration are similar, and there are no significant differences towards the five unique designs. So, the IP court concludes that it’s easy for the general public to confuse the source of the two brands of cars without detailed identification.
The shape decoration of Jiangling's "Landwind X7" car is similar to that of the "Range Rover Evoque" car in terms of overall visual effect, including five specific designs, such as suspended roof, down pressed roof, rising feature line, engine cover and vehicle contour. The conclusion is that Jiangling's "Landwind X7" car uses the decoration of Jaguar Land Rover's "Range Rover Evoque".
Thus, the Beijing IP court rules that Jiangling Company shall stop the infringement and compensate Land Rover for various losses totaling 1.5 million yuan.
Copyright case[2]
Jaguar Land Rover believes that the five unique designs mentioned above are not for functional considerations, but for aesthetic considerations. These designs have even made some functional compromises for the sake of visual artistic beauty. For example, the edges and corners of the pressed roof and the front window increase the air resistance coefficient and reduce the overhead space of the rear seats. Thus, this company claims the design of the "Range Rover Evoque"(揽胜极光) model car is a kind of work of applied art at the first instance court and work of fine art at the second instance court, which should be protected by Chinese copyright law.
The Beijing Intellectual Property court held that the focus of the dispute in this case should be as follows: (1) Whether practical works of art are protected by the copyright law and the conditions for protection; (2) Whether the above-mentioned design is an art work protected by the copyright law; (3) Whether Jiangling company has infringed the copyright of Jaguar Land Rover company and their civil liabilities.
(1) The court held that although China's copyright law does not include works of applied art in the category of works, foreign works of applied art whose copyright owner is a legal person or natural person of a member state of the Berne Convention should also be protected by Chinese law. Given that there is no clear definition about this work, both the first instance and second instance court believe that “work of applied art” should be equipped with the function of practical use, not tied practicality and artistry, rich in aesthetics and high artistic level.
(2) The evidence in the case is not enough to prove that the five-point original design of the exterior of the "Range Rover Evoque" is based on the realization of functional effects. The artistic expression of the appearance of the "Range Rover Evoque" in terms of lines, shapes, colors, etc., can be separated from the practical functions. It does not belong to the situation where the practicality and the artistry cannot be separated from each other and are not protected by the copyright law. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court does not deny that the exterior of the "Range Rover Evoque" has elements of independent creation, but the specific expression is still not enough to meet the minimum requirements for the originality of art works. The general public regards it more as an industrial product rather than an artwork. Therefore, it does not constitute a work of art.
(3) Since the design in this case does not constitute a work which shall be protected by China Copyright Law, Jaguar Land Rover's claim that Jiangling infringes its copyright cannot be established, and the relevant litigation claims shall not be supported by Beijing Intellectual Property court.
[1]https://wenshu.court.gov.cn/website/wenshu/181107ANFZ0BXSK4/index.html?d...
[2]https://wenshu.court.gov.cn/website/wenshu/181107ANFZ0BXSK4/index.html?d...
The Article about the first instance of this case (the Beijing Chaoyang district court) you can find: here
The YouTube Video you can find here: https://youtu.be/G2vNSfW5DYA (German language)
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/StarkeIntellectualPropertyLtd
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/starke_ip/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/starkeip