涉知识产权纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例

一、上诉人娱美德有限公司、株式会社传奇IP与被上诉人亚拓士软件有限公司、蓝沙信息技术(上海)有限公司侵害计算机软件著作权纠纷案

Wemade Co., Ltd. and Chuan Qi IP Co., Ltd. v. Actoz Soft Co., Ltd. and Lansha Information Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over computer software copyright infringement)

【裁判摘要】

不可分割使用的合作作品所形成的著作权共有关系是著作权共有的一种类型，共有著作权人对于不可分割使用的共有作品著作权的行使原则上应当通过协商一致的方式实现。但是，如果双方不能达成一致，将会导致合作作品不能实现其经济价值，有损于合作作品发挥作用，故在缺少正当理由的情况下，即使双方未能达成一致，任何一方不得阻止他方行使除转让以外的其他权利。与此同时，由于合作作者对合作作品共同享有著作权，故对于单方利用合作作品所得的收益应当合理分配给所有合作作者。基于此，对于不可分割使用的合作作品，合作者一方实施的许可行为并非无效。

[Judgment Abstract]

Copyright co-ownership of indivisible joint works is one kind of copyright co-ownership, under which the copyright co-owners should exercise their copyright principally by consensus. Nevertheless, a failure to reach a consensus by both parties will preclude the realization of the economic value of the joint work, and hamper the potential functions thereof. As a consequence, without sound reasons, neither party may prevent the other party from exercising its rights other than the right to transfer, even if the effort of reaching a consensus fails. Meanwhile, every co-author of a joint work is entitled to the copyright of the work, and the proceeds of any co-authors by use of the work should be distributed among all the co-authors. Therefore, even if the licensing of an indivisible joint work is approved solely by one of the co-authors thereof, it is not necessarily ineffective.

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.419693999

[CLI Code] CLI.C.419693999(EN)   

二、物美科技集团有限公司、抚州市临川区洋睿食品超市侵害商标权纠纷民事再审民事判决书

Wumei Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. Yangrui Food Market of Linchuan District, Fuzhou Municipality (civil judgment for retrial of case regarding dispute over trademark infringement)

【裁判摘要】

根据《反不正当竞争法》，经营者不得擅自使用他人有一定影响的企业名称、字号等，引人误认为是他人商品或与他人存在特定联系。实务中，经营者在店铺门头招牌使用了与他人注册商标近似或者相同的商标字样，构成近似商标，属于不正当竞争，侵害了商标专用权人的商标专用权，应当承担停止侵权及损害赔偿责任。

[Judgment Abstract]

In accordance with the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, a business should not use another person's name with certain influence such as the name (including trade names) of an enterprise without permission, which misleads a person into believing that a commodity is one of another person or has a particular connection with another person. In practice, where a business uses a trademark identical with or similar to a registered trademark of another person on its signboard, the trademark should be deemed as a similar trademark and the act of the business constitutes anti-unfair competition which infringes upon the trademark owner's exclusive right to use a trademark. In such a case, the business should cease the infringement and bear the tort liability for the damages incurred therefrom.

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.417295809

[CLI Code] CLI.C.417295809(EN)   

三、佛山市顺德区广楹自动化设备有限公司、东莞市顺心自动化设备有限公司等侵害发明专利权纠纷民事二审民事判决书

Guangying Automation Equipment Co., Ltd. of Shunde District, Foshan Municipality v. Shunxin Automation Equipment Co., Ltd. of Dongguan Municipality, et al. (civil judgment for second instance on dispute over infringement upon patent for invention)

【裁判摘要】

在判断被诉侵权产品是否构成专利侵权时，应判断被诉侵权技术方案是否落入专利权的保护范围。具体而言，应判定被诉侵权技术方案是否包含与权利要求记载的全部技术特征相同或者等同的技术特征；如至少有一项技术特征与涉案专利的相应技术特征不相同也不等同，则不构成专利侵权。由于权利要求所记载的技术特征目的在于实现特定功能和效果，故如果被诉侵权产品并不能实现相同的功能和效果，则应认定不构成相同或等同的技术特征，从而不应认定构成专利侵权。

[Judgment Abstract]

When determining whether an alleged infringing product constitutes a patent infringement, a people's court should judge whether the alleged infringing technical solutions fall within the scope of protection of patent rights. Specifically, the key is to examine whether the alleged infringing technical solutions embody any technical features identical or equivalent to those described in the claims. If one or more technical features in an alleged infringing technical solution are neither identical nor equivalent to those of the patent in dispute, it is not determined that a patent infringement is constituted. Whereas the technical features recorded in the claims are intended to accomplish specific functions and effects, if the alleged infringing product has no functions and effects identical to those of the patented product, it is determined that identical or equivalent technical features are not formed, and a patent infringement is not constituted.

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.501002189

[CLI Code] CLI.C.501002189(EN)