核心提示：需要达到美术作品的标准，实用艺术品才能受到保护。

上海市第二中级人民法院民事判决书

（2008）沪二中民五(知)初字第187号

原告英特-宜家系统有限公司(Inter Ikea Systems B.V.)。

法定代表人加XX•奥尔森•斯加林(Maria Gabrielle Olsson Skalin)，常务董事。

委托代理人朱妙春，上海朱妙春律师事务所律师。

委托代理人金蔓丽，辽宁鼎晟律师事务所律师。

被告台州市中天塑业有限公司。

法定代表人陈某某，总经理。

委托代理人周显根，浙江利群律师事务所律师。

委托代理人朱美聪，浙江利群律师事务所律师。

原告英特-宜家系统有限公司与被告台州市中天塑业有限公司侵犯著作财产权纠纷一案，本院于2008年6月27日受理后，依法组成合议庭进行了审理。被告在答辩期内对管辖权提出异议，本院于2008年8月6日裁定驳回其管辖异议。被告不服，提起上诉，上海市高级人民法院于2008年9月8日终审裁定驳回上诉，维持原裁定。2009年1月16日、2009年3月25日本院对本案公开开庭进行了审理。原告委托代理人朱妙春、金蔓丽，被告委托代理人周显根、朱美聪到庭参加了诉讼。本案现已审理终结。

原告英特-宜家系统有限公司诉称：原告公司创立于1943年，是世界上最大的家具零售公司，在31个国家和地区设立了190多家专营店。玛莫特(Mammut)系列儿童家具是在与原告的指导下，由设计师莫X•谢尔斯特鲁普(Morten Kjelstrup)和服装设计师阿X•厄斯特(Allan Östgaard)代表原告设计完成。1994年，玛莫特童椅获得瑞典“年度家具”的大奖，玛莫特系列商品多年前就在商品目录和多本书籍中刊载。几年前，原告发现被告未经原告允许擅自抄袭原告享有著作权的玛莫特系列作品的设计，生产和销售了产品型号为ZTY-522、ZTY-525、ZTY-525A及ZTY525-B等儿童椅和儿童凳，并在其公司网站上展示侵权商品，侵权行为持续至今。原告早在2004年就委托律师多次致函被告要求其停止侵权行为，但被告不予理睬，反而将侵权设计申请外观设计专利，后被审查机构认定无效。原告认为，被告的生产、销售及网站宣传行为侵犯了原告享有的著作权，给原告造成了极大的经济损失。请求判令：1、被告立即停止一切侵犯原告玛莫特系列作品著作权的行为；2、被告立即收回已投入市场的侵权产品、销毁侵权商品存货和生产模具、印模，销毁带有侵权商品的包装及宣传材料；3、被告立即删除www.ztpc.cc网页中展示的侵权产品图片；4、被告赔偿原告包括合理费用在内的经济损失人民币50万元；5、被告就其侵权行为在《新民晚报》、《钱江晚报》上刊登声明，消除影响。

被告台州市中天塑业有限公司辩称：1、原告不具有本案的诉讼主体资格；2、原告没有证据证明其对玛莫特系列产品享有著作权，即使原告享有相关权利，该系列产品也不属于实用艺术作品，仅是实用工业品，因为其不具有实用艺术品应当具有的独创性和艺术性等特征；3、在原告产品设计完成之前，在动画作品中就存在与其产品基本一致的家具；4、被告生产的产品是被告的设计人员独立创作完成的，不存在侵犯他人著作权的事实。综上，请求法院驳回原告的诉讼请求。

本院经审理查明：

原告是一家成立于荷兰王国的有限责任公司，该公司成立于1983年10月31日。案外人瑞典宜家公司(Ikea of Sweden Aktiebolag)是一家注册于1960年11月21日的瑞典公司。

本案系争的玛莫特(Mammut)儿童椅和儿童凳是由两位设计师莫X•谢尔斯特鲁普(Morten Kjelstrup)和阿X•厄斯特(Allan Östgaard)(以下简称M.K+A.φ)受雇于1991年2月6日创作完成的，并于1992年1月正式将作品交付给瑞典宜家公司。根据原告与瑞典宜家公司签署的《知识产权权属问题的声明》以及M.K+A.φ于2008年6月6日发表的《关于“Mammut作品著作权”的声明》，玛莫特(Mammut)作品的相关著作权已经于1992年2月8日转让给原告。《艺术家庭》(1994年)、《大众化设计》(1995年)等杂志书籍也对系争的玛莫特(Mammut)儿童椅和儿童凳做过相关的刊载和介绍。

2006年6月10日，案外人黄某在上海市清涧路187弄11幢某号1508室，购买了三张童凳和二张童椅，付款后获得一张发票、一张名片和一本宣传册，此外，黄某还对购物地点及所购的童凳和童椅等共拍摄照片十八张。上述过程在上海市公证处公证员黄欣、公证人员丁振华的监督下进行，上海市公证处制作了(2006)沪证字第7549号公证书。上述发票上盖有“台州市中天塑业有限公司”的发票专用章，名片上印有“台州市中天塑业有限公司、李伟 上海区域经理”等字样，宣传册上印有“中天塑业”、“ZTPC”等字样。

此外，原告还提供了一张以“上海市永冠贸易有限公司”名义购买阿木童凳和阿木童椅的销售发票和一张送货清单，发票上面也盖有“台州市中天塑业有限公司”的发票专用章。

2008年4月10日，高露云(北京)知识产权代理有限公司的代理人李某某在位于北京市东城区朝阳门北大街某号首创大厦的北京市长安公证处与公证人员对于www.ztpc.cc网站上的有关内容进行证据保全并拷屏打印共34页，北京市长安公证处制作了(2008)京长安内经证字第2664号公证书。根据该份公证书，上述网站上载有原告指控被告侵权的15个型号的产品：ZTT-326、ZTT-322、ZTT-325、ZTY-534、ZTY-533、ZTY-537、ZTY-525S、ZTY-525M、ZTY-525L、ZTY-542、ZTY-536、ZTY-541、ZTY-538、ZTY-521、ZTY-535。

被告法定代表人陈某某于2004年2月10日、2004年10月25日和2005年8月8日，向国家知识产权局申请了五项外观设计专利，名称分别为：椅(阿木童)、椅(ZTY-521)、凳(ZTY-537)、凳(ZTY-536)、椅(ZTY-538)，专利号分别为：200430019946.X、200430083416.1、200430083418.0、200430083419.5、200530114174.2。其中，200430019946.X号外观设计专利于2006年8月30日被国家知识产权局专利复审委员会宣告全部无效。

经比对，在www.ztpc.cc网站上被控侵权的十五个型号产品中，儿童凳(ZTY-525S、ZTY-525M、ZTY-525L)与原告的玛莫特(Mammut)儿童凳从整体形状上看构成基本相同，儿童凳(ZTY-534、ZTY-533、ZTY-537、ZTY-536、ZTY-541、ZTT-322、ZTT-325、ZTT-326、ZTY-542)与原告的玛莫特(Mammut)儿童凳在凳面部分的形状上有所区别，但在凳腿部分的形状上基本相同，两者从整体上看构成相似。儿童椅(ZTY-521、ZTY-538、ZTY-535)与原告的玛莫特(Mammut)儿童椅在椅背部分的形状上有所区别，但在椅腿部分的形状上基本相同，两者从整体上看构成相似。此外，经比对，原告公证购买的被告产品阿木童儿童凳、儿童椅在整体外形上与玛莫特(Mammut)儿童凳、儿童椅构成基本相同。

以上事实由原告提交的经过公证认证的声明、责任协议、杂志书籍、产品宣传册、设计草图、公证书、实物证据、知识产权局网站查询结果和无效宣告请求审查决定书，以及原、被告的诉辩意见及本院审理笔录等证据予以佐证。

本院认为，本案的主要争议焦点为：玛莫特(Mammut)儿童椅和儿童凳是否属于受我国著作权法保护的实用艺术作品。

原告认为，玛莫特(Mammut)儿童椅和儿童凳具有较高的艺术性，本身又属于家具，具有实用性，属于受我国法律保护的实用艺术作品。被告认为，上述儿童椅和儿童凳在设计上根本达不到艺术创作高度，与国内外的其他椅子没有什么区别，更多是考虑家具实用功能方面的要求，因此不构成实用艺术作品。

本院认为，实用艺术作品是指具有实用性、艺术性并符合作品构成要件的智力创作成果，即实用艺术作品应当具有实用性、艺术性、独创性和可复制性。根据我国著作权法的相关规定，实用艺术作品归属于美术作品范畴而受到著作权法的保护。美术作品,是指绘画、书法、雕塑等以线条、色彩或者其他方式构成的有审美意义的平面或者立体的造型艺术作品。因此，实用艺术作品的艺术性必须满足美术作品对于作品艺术性的最低要求，才能够获得著作权法的保护。本案系争的玛莫特(Mammut)儿童椅由椅背、椅垫和椅腿三个部分组成，椅背是由一块梯形的实木和三根矩形木条组成，其中上部的梯形实木占据了整个椅背近二分之一的空间，椅垫是一般椅凳的基本结构，椅腿是由四根立椎体组成，呈上窄、下宽的形状。玛莫特(Mammut)儿童凳由凳面和凳腿两部分组成，凳面是上下均等的圆形实体，形状与一般的儿童凳无异，凳腿是四根纺锤状棒体。本院认为，本案系争的玛莫特(Mammut)儿童椅和儿童凳的设计要点主要体现在造型线条上，但从整体上看其与普通的儿童椅和儿童凳在外形上的区别不大，属于造型设计较为简单的儿童椅和儿童凳，在艺术性方面没有满足构成美术作品的最低要求，因此不属于美术作品范畴中的实用艺术作品，不受我国著作权法保护。因而，被告的上述行为不构成对原告著作权的侵犯。

综上，依照《中华人民共和国著作权法》第三条第(四)项、《中华人民共和国著作权法实施条例》第四条第(八)项之规定，判决如下：

驳回原告英特-宜家系统有限公司的诉讼请求。

案件受理费人民币8,800元，由原告英特-宜家系统有限公司负担。

如不服本判决，原告英特-宜家系统有限公司可在判决书送达之日起三十日内，被告台州市中天塑业有限公司可在判决书送达之日起十五日内，向本院递交上诉状，并按对方当事人的人数提出副本，上诉于中华人民共和国上海市高级人民法院。

                                        审 判 长 李国泉

                                        代理审判员 徐 忠

                                        代理审判员 胡 宓

                                     二○○九年八月二十二日

                                         书 记 员 张婷婷

附：相关的法律条文

一、《中华人民共和国著作权法》

第三条本法所称的作品，包括以下列形式创作的文学、艺术和自然科学、社会科学、工程技术等作品：

……

(四)美术、建筑作品；

……

二、《中华人民共和国著作权法实施条例》

第四条　著作权法和本条例中下列作品的含义：

……

(八)美术作品，是指绘画、书法、雕塑等以线条、色彩或者其他方式构成的有审美意义的平面或者立体的造型艺术作品；

……

Core tip: To protect practical artworks, it is necessary to meet the standards of art works.

Civil Judgment of the Second Intermediate people's court of Shanghai

(2008) Hu Er Zhong Min Wu (Zhi) Chu Zi No. 187

The plaintiff, Inter Ikea Systems B.V.

Legal representative: Maria Gabrielle Olsson Skalin, Managing Director.

Entrusted agent Zhu Miaochun, a lawyer from Shanghai Zhu Miaochun Law Firm.

Entrusted agent Jin Manli, a lawyer from Liaoning Dingsheng Law Firm.

Defendant Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Industry Co., Ltd.

Legal representative Chen, General Manager.

Entrusted agent Zhou Xiangen, a lawyer from Zhejiang Liqun Law Firm.

Entrusted agent Zhu Meicong, a lawyer from Zhejiang Liqun Law Firm.

On June 27, 2008, the Court accepted the case of infringement of copyright between the plaintiff Intel IKEA System Co., Ltd. and the defendant Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Industry Co., Ltd., and formed a Judicial panel to hear it according to law. The defendant raised objections to jurisdiction during the defense period, and the court ruled on August 6, 2008 to dismiss their objection to jurisdiction. The defendant objected and filed an appeal. The High people's court made a final ruling on September 8, 2008 to reject the appeal and maintain the original ruling. On January 16, 2009 and March 25, 2009, the Japanese court held a public hearing on this case. The plaintiff entrusted agents Zhu Miaochun and Jin Manli, while the defendant entrusted agents Zhou Xiangen and Zhu Meicong to attend the lawsuit in court. The trial of this case has now been concluded.

The plaintiff, Internet IKEA Systems Co., Ltd., filed a lawsuit stating that the plaintiff's company was founded in 1943 and is the world's largest furniture retail company, with over 190 specialized stores established in 31 countries and regions. The Mammut series of children's furniture was designed by designer Morten Kjelstrup and fashion designer Allan Ö stgaard on behalf of the plaintiff under the guidance of the plaintiff. In 1994, the Mamote children's chair won the Swedish "Furniture of the Year" award, and the Mamote series of products were published in product catalogs and multiple books many years ago. A few years ago, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant, without the plaintiff's permission, had plagiarized the design of the plaintiff's copyrighted Mamote series works, produced and sold child chairs and benches with product models ZTY-522, ZTY-525, ZTY-525A, and ZTY525-B, and displayed infringing products on their company website. The infringement continues to this day. As early as 2004, the plaintiff had commissioned lawyers to send multiple letters to the defendant requesting them to stop their infringing behavior. However, the defendant ignored them and instead applied for a design patent for the infringing design, which was later deemed invalid by the examination agency. The plaintiff believes that the defendant's production, sales, and website promotion activities have infringed on the plaintiff's copyright and caused significant economic losses to the plaintiff. Request for a decree: 1. The defendant shall immediately cease all acts that infringe upon the copyright of the plaintiff's Mamote series of works; 2. The defendant immediately takes back the infringing products that have been put into the market, destroys the inventory of infringing products, production molds, and impressions, and destroys packaging and promotional materials containing infringing products; 3. The defendant immediately deleted the infringing product images displayed on the website www.ztpc.cc; 4. The defendant shall compensate the plaintiff with an economic loss of RMB 500000, including reasonable expenses; 5. The defendant published statements on the Xinmin Evening News and Qianjiang Evening News about his infringement, eliminating the impact.

The defendant Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Industry Co., Ltd. argues that: 1. The plaintiff does not have the qualification of the litigation subject in this case; 2. The plaintiff has no evidence to prove that they have copyright in the Mamote series of products. Even if the plaintiff has relevant rights, this series of products is not a practical art work, only a practical industrial product, because it does not have the characteristics of originality and artistry that practical art should have; 3. Prior to the completion of the plaintiff's product design, there were furniture that were basically consistent with their products in the animation works; 4. The products produced by the defendant were independently created by the defendant's designers, and there is no infringement of the copyright of others. In summary, the court is requested to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit request.

After trial, this court has found that:

The plaintiff is a limited liability company incorporated in the Kingdom of the Netherlands on October 31, 1983. The outsider, Ikea of Sweden Aktiebolag, is a Swedish company registered on November 21, 1960.

The Mammut children's chair and stool in this case are disputed by two designers, Morten Kjelstrup and Allan Ö stgaard (hereinafter referred to as M.K+A φ) Employed to create on February 6, 1991, and officially delivered the work to IKEA in January 1992. According to the "Declaration on Intellectual Property Ownership Issues" signed by the plaintiff and Swedish IKEA, as well as M.K+A φ The "Declaration on the Copyright of Mammut Works" published on June 6, 2008, stated that the relevant copyright of Mammut's works was transferred to the plaintiff on February 8, 1992. Magazines such as "Art Family" (1994) and "Popular Design" (1995) have also published and introduced the controversial Mammut children's chairs and benches.

On June 10, 2006, the outsider Huang purchased three children's benches and two children's chairs at Room 1508, Building 11, Lane 187, Qingjian Road, Shanghai. After payment, he received an invoice, a business card, and a brochure. In addition, Huang also took 18 photos of the shopping location and the children's benches and chairs he purchased. The above process was carried out under the supervision of Notary Public Huang Xin and Notary Public Ding Zhenhua from the Shanghai Notary Public Office. The Shanghai Notary Public Office produced the (2006) Hu Zheng Zi No. 7549 Notary Certificate. The above invoice is stamped with the invoice special seal of "Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Industry Co., Ltd.", the business card is printed with words such as "Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Industry Co., Ltd., Li Wei Shanghai Regional Manager", and the brochure is printed with words such as "Zhongtian Plastic Industry" and "ZTPC".

In addition, the plaintiff also provided a sales invoice and a delivery list for purchasing Amu Tong Bench and Amu Tong Chair under the name of "Shanghai Yongguan Trading Co., Ltd.", which was also stamped with the invoice special seal of "Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Industry Co., Ltd.".

On April 10, 2008, Li Moumou, the agent of Gaoluoyun (Beijing) Intellectual Property Agency Co., Ltd., conducted evidence preservation and printed a total of 34 pages of relevant content on the www.ztpc.cc website with notaries at the Beijing Chang'an Notary Office located at the Capital Building, No. 1 Chaoyangmen North Street, Dongcheng District, Beijing. The Beijing Chang'an Notary Office produced the (2008) Beijing Chang'an Neijing Zheng Zi No. 2664 notarial certificate. According to the notarized certificate, the above-mentioned website has uploaded 15 models of products accused by the plaintiff of infringement: ZTT-326, ZTT-322, ZTT-325, ZTY-534, ZTY-533, ZTY-537, ZTY-525S, ZTY-525M, ZTY-525L, ZTY-542, ZTY-536, ZTY-541, ZTY-538, ZTY-521, ZTY-535.

Chen Moumou, the legal representative of the defendant, applied to the China National Intellectual Property Administration for five design patents on February 10, 2004, October 25, 2004 and August 8, 2005, with the names of chair (Amutong), chair (ZTY-521), stool (ZTY-537), stool (ZTY-536) and chair (ZTY-538), and the patent numbers of 200430019946. X, 200430083416.1, 200430083418.0, 200430083419.5 and 200530114174.2 respectively. Among them, the design patent No. 200430019946. X was declared invalid by the Patent Reexamination Board of the China National Intellectual Property Administration on August 30, 2006.

After comparison, among the fifteen models of products accused of infringement on the www.ztpc.cc website, the overall shape of the children's stool (ZTY-525S, ZTY-525M, ZTY-525L) and the plaintiff's Mammut children's stool is basically the same. The children's stool (ZTY-534, ZTY-533, ZTY-537, ZTY-536, ZTY-541, ZTT-322, ZTT-325, ZTT-326, ZTY-542) differs from the plaintiff's Mammut children's stool in the shape of the stool surface, But the shape of the legs of the stool is basically the same, and the two form a similar overall structure. The children's chairs (ZTY-521, ZTY-538, ZTY-535) differ from the plaintiff's Mammut children's chair in terms of the shape of the chair back, but the shape of the chair legs is basically the same, and the overall composition of the two is similar. In addition, after comparison, the defendant's product Amutong Children's Bench and Children's Chair purchased by the plaintiff through notarization are basically the same in overall appearance as Mammut Children's Bench and Children's Chair.

The above facts are supported by notarized and authenticated statements, liability agreements, magazine books, product brochures, design sketches, notarized documents, physical evidence, search results on the website of the Intellectual Property Office, and the examination decision for invalidation requests submitted by the plaintiff, as well as the defense opinions of the plaintiff and the defendant, as well as the court's trial records and other evidence.

Our court believes that the main focus of controversy in this case is whether the Mammut children's chair and stool belong to practical art works protected by China's copyright law.

The plaintiff believes that the Mammut children's chair and stool are highly artistic and belong to the category of furniture, which is practical and protected by Chinese law. The defendant believes that the above children's chairs and benches cannot reach the height of artistic creation in terms of design, and are no different from other chairs at home and abroad. They are more concerned with the practical functional requirements of furniture, and therefore do not constitute practical works of art.

Our institute believes that practical art works refer to intellectual creations that have practicality, artistry, and meet the requirements of the composition of the work, that is, practical art works should have practicality, artistry, originality, and replicability. According to the relevant provisions of China's Copyright Law, practical art works belong to the category of art works and are protected by the Copyright Law. A work of fine arts refers to a plane or three-dimensional Plastic arts work of aesthetic significance composed of lines, colors or other forms, such as painting, calligraphy, sculpture, etc. Therefore, the artistry of practical art works must meet the minimum requirements for the artistry of the work in order to obtain protection under copyright law. The Mammut children's chair in this case is composed of three parts: the chair back, chair cushion, and chair legs. The chair back is composed of a trapezoidal solid wood and three rectangular wooden strips, with the upper trapezoidal solid wood occupying nearly half of the space of the entire chair back. The chair cushion is the basic structure of a general chair, and the chair legs are composed of four upright vertebrae, in a narrow upper and wide lower shape. The Mammut children's stool consists of two parts: the stool surface and the stool legs. The stool surface is a circular entity with equal height and shape, similar to a typical children's stool. The stool legs are four spindle shaped rods. Our court believes that the design points of the Mammut children's chair and stool in this case are mainly reflected in the design lines, but overall, they are not significantly different from ordinary children's chairs and benches in appearance. They belong to the relatively simple design of children's chairs and benches, and do not meet the minimum requirements for artistic composition, so they do not belong to the category of practical art works, Not protected by China's copyright law. Therefore, the defendant's aforementioned actions do not constitute an infringement of the plaintiff's copyright.

In conclusion, in accordance with Article 3 (4) of the Copyright Law of the China and Article 4 (8) of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law of the China, the judgment is as follows:

Reject the plaintiff's lawsuit request from Intel IKEA Systems Co., Ltd.

The case acceptance fee is RMB 8800, which shall be borne by the plaintiff, Internet IKEA Systems Co., Ltd.

If the plaintiff Intel IKEA Systems Co., Ltd. is not satisfied with this judgment, the defendant Taizhou Zhongtian Plastic Industry Co., Ltd. may, within 30 days from the date of service of the judgment, submit an appeal petition to this court, and file duplicates according to the number of opposite parties, and appeal to the High people's court of Shanghai, China.

Chief Justice Li Guoquan

Acting Judge Xu Zhong

Acting Judge Hu Mi

August 22, 2009

Clerk Zhang Tingting

Attachment: Relevant Legal Provisions

1、 Copyright Law of the China

Article 3: The term "works" as used in this Law includes works of literature, art, natural sciences, social sciences, engineering technology, etc. created in the following forms:

（4） Art and architectural works;

2、 Regulations for the Implementation of the Copyright Law of the China

Article 4: The meaning of the following works in the Copyright Law and these Regulations:

（8） The term "works of fine arts" refers to the planar or three-dimensional Plastic arts works of aesthetic significance, such as paintings, calligraphy and sculptures, which are composed of lines, colors or other forms;