The Pattern Design Protects Rights, The Long-Standing Abuse Has Been Long, Where Is Difficult?

At the trial court yesterday, the bailiff showed the cloth of the plaintiff's evidence to the defendant's agent.

The people's Court of Keqiao District heard a copyright infringement dispute on the first floor of Keqiao north market.

By 2014, there were 1323 cases involving copyright infringement disputes involving textile patterns.

Pattern can be said to be the foundation of a piece of cloth.

and

As an important part of the textile industry chain, the reasonable protection of its copyright relates to the enhancement of the added value of the product.

Transformation and upgrading.

As a textile capital, Keqiao has always been involved in intellectual property cases such as copying, pattern infringement and other intellectual property rights.

From July 2008 to 2014, the Keqiao District People's Court concluded 1613 cases of civil disputes involving intellectual property rights, and the total number of cases involving copyright infringement disputes involving textile patterns was 1323, accounting for nearly 82% of the total number of intellectual property cases.

There are long-standing and long-standing difficulties in safeguarding rights and interests. What are the new phenomena?

In April 26th, when World Intellectual Property Day came, we paid attention to pattern protection again.

Unauthorized tricks "enter the room"

Yesterday, the people's Court of Keqiao District heard a copyright infringement dispute on the first floor of Keqiao north market.

The plaintiff song is a textile market operator, not only sells fabrics, she will also design patterns, the business has done a vivid and colorful.

In September 2013, she created a curtain pattern called "Su Ya Mei", the yellow background of the goose, the flowers with dense flowers, and the overall freshness and elegance. She made the work into cloth and sold it in her retail department, which is very popular.

At the same time, song applied for registration of the pattern works to the Zhejiang provincial Copyright Bureau and was approved in April 2014.

In the second half of 2014, song accidentally discovered that she had copyright patterns, without her own authorization, and apparently hung up in the Sales Department of Hu.

"I reminded Hu several times that I did not authorize him to sell him. He did this by infringement, and let him put the curtain down."

Song reminded, Hu did not mind.

"My curtains are legitimate sources. I bought them from other people."

Originally, Hu hung like.

He bought it from fabric dealer pan.

Hu felt that he didn't peep at Song's plagiarism. He paid the money and hung it upright.

Song then found fabric operator pan questioned, but did not ask a reason, so on a piece of pleading, two people and curtain fabric production companies have been brought to court.

In the court trial, song submitted to the judge the original data and copyright registration proof of the creation of the pattern.

Conclusive evidence, the case finally agreed by the two sides to conciliation, Hu and PAM compensation for economic losses of 12 thousand yuan ended.

Preemptive litigation?

Recently, the Keqiao District People's court heard the first case of malicious intellectual property litigation in the province.

Xie Mou holds the "flower of the elephant trip" flower registration certificate, and sells the printed material with the pattern to infringe her copyright.

The two sides reached an out of court settlement agreement, after Ms. Wei's compensation, Xie Mou withdrew.

Who knows, Ms. Wei later found evidence to prove that Xie Mou was not the copyright owner of the pattern works, and brought a lawsuit against Xie on the grounds of malicious intellectual property litigation.

"I thought he was a copyright owner, but I didn't expect him to be malicious."

Ms. Wei breathed a sigh of relief when she got the verdict.

From the defendant to the plaintiff, the pformation of roles and the ups and downs of mood are a vivid "intellectual property education course" for Ms. Wei.

In April 2014, Ms Wei received a summons from the court, and her own printed cloth with an elephant pattern was infringed.

Plaintiff Xie said that he created the "elephant Tour" in May 19, 2013 alone, and obtained the registration certificate of the works issued by the Zhejiang provincial Copyright Bureau in October 14, 2013.

However, Ms. Wei could not figure out her own original evidence, and the two sides reached an out of court mediation. Wei Wei compensated Xie Mou for 12 thousand yuan, and destroyed the stock cloth bearing the flower pattern.

Things do not end here.

In the following half a year, Xie himself took the "elephant trip" pattern copyright as the reason, and then sold 3 flower market operators to the court. After that, the compensation was ended by the two sides.

In November 2014, Ms. Wei learned from her friends that this type of flower was popular on the Internet before Xie's registration of elephant journey.

In the following months, Ms. Wei found the sales records of the fabric on the website such as simple net and clothing network through the Internet. The records show that as early as March 2013, this pattern has been popular on the Internet. Many people have bought the fabric with this flower pattern through the Internet. The evidence points to this flower pattern is not created by Xie.

Unexpectedly, Xie was not a copyright owner. He also told several business owners in succession that he received several compensation charges. This is not a rush for flowers and profits through litigation. This is a malicious lawsuit.

Legitimate rights or malicious lawsuits?

Under careful thinking, it was difficult to find peace. Wei then sent Xie to a court for malicious prosecution and asked Xie to refund 12 thousand yuan, and compensate for the loss of 8000 yuan.

Nearly a year later, the defendant exchanged his identity and bid farewell to Xie, who was infringed.

According to the two sides' pleading, the main focus of the dispute is: whether Xie Mou has copyright on the elephant journey, and whether the lawsuit brought before by Ms. Xie is a malicious lawsuit.

In the first instance, the court held that although he held a registration certificate, his certificate of registration was not a proof of empowerment and confirmation. It only proved that the applicant had held the work at the time of application.

And contrary evidence shows that it is not the copyright owner of the works, therefore, Xie Mou is not the real copyright owner of the elephant trip.

Malicious litigation generally refers to the situation that a party obtains illegal interests or damages the legitimate rights and interests of others through lawful litigation form, because of illegal motives and purposes.

In contrast to this case, Xie's non right person has the facts of violation of false statement, litigation and petition for compensation. Wei also has the consequences of damages for economic losses such as payment of compensation, destruction of cloth, and so on.

Xie Mou knew that he was not a copyright owner and still filed a former lawsuit, which resulted in economic loss and malicious litigation.

Then it revoked the mediation agreement, returned 12 thousand yuan and paid 8000 yuan for Ms. Wei's economic loss.

[Extension] malicious prosecution may be criminally responsible next month.

Although malicious litigation of intellectual property rights is a relatively small field, the problem will become more prominent with the increasing emphasis on intellectual property rights and the more skillful use of intellectual property rights.

Recently, the Supreme People's Court issued the "opinions on the implementation of registration system for people's courts".

According to the opinions, the case acceptance system of the people's court shall be changed from filing examination system to registration system.

Opinions will be put into effect throughout the country from May 1st onwards.

In the opinion, sanctions were imposed on illegal acts of abuse.

If a malicious collusion between the parties, or posing a lawsuit against another person, attempts to infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of others through litigation or mediation, the people's court shall reject his request and impose a fine or detention; if a crime is constituted, he shall be investigated for criminal responsibility according to law.

We should strengthen the construction of litigation integrity and standardize the exercise of litigious right.

We should promote relevant legislation, abuse false litigious action, malicious litigation, unreasonable litigation and so on, and clarify the standards of administrative punishment, judicial punishment and criminal punishment, and intensify punishments.