Thanks to the spring breeze caused by Toyota's previous advertisement-door incident, the plagiarism door case was able to speed up the progress.

Today is the day of the first-instance verdict of the plagiarism and infringement case of Suzuki v. Huaxia Automobile, and many domestic and foreign journalists and friends came to the gate of the Capital Intermediate People's Court, and everyone is highly concerned about how to pronounce the verdict on this case, which is known as the first intellectual property case after China's accession to TO.

"Stand up!"

With the arrival of the presiding judge, the case began to enter the final stage of the first trial.

In the previous court hearing, the parties engaged in heated court arguments and accused each other of invalidating each other's patents and infringing their intellectual property rights.

The case is divided into two main parts:

The first is that Suzuki sued Huaxia Light for infringing its intellectual property rights, and then Huaxia Automobile filed a counterclaim on the grounds that it had first registered a shape patent in China, accusing Suzuki of infringing Huaxia Light's shape patent.

The second is that Huaxia Automobile sued Suzuki for unfair competition and issued an open letter to the media without evidence, which seriously affected the product image of Huaxia Light, and was suspected of malicious suppression and destruction of Huaxia Light's market competitive advantage.

"After deliberation by the collegial panel, this court held that there were obvious differences between the product involved in the case, Huaxia Light, and the design patent product Suzuki agonR (the domestic version of Suzuki Changhe Hebei Douxing) after comparing the main technical features, and the two did not constitute an approximation, and the product involved in the case did not fall within the scope of protection of the patent in question. Suzuki's argument that the product in question was similar to the patent in question was not supported by the court and the court rejected the claim. ”

The presiding judge announced the first part of the verdict, making it clear that Huaxia Light did not constitute infringement, and Huaxia Automobile retreated.

Compared with the happy face of the lawyer of Huaxia Automobile, the face of the lawyer of Suzuki drooped, which is really a strong contrast.

At the same time, Huaxia Automobile's claim that Suzuki Changhebei Douxing and Huaxia Light's patents were similar to those involved in the case was rejected by this court. ”

This is an obvious result, since both parties do not constitute an approximation, there is naturally no plagiarism infringement.

I thought that the court should play 50 boards, dismiss the lawsuit, and go back to their own homes. Unexpectedly, in the second part, the verdict read by the presiding judge surprised everyone.

"Suzuki's infringement warning against Huaxia Automobile is a normal act of rights protection. However, in the absence of further evidence to prove the existence of infringement, Suzuki's expansion of the distribution of warning letters with unclear content through public media and other channels is no longer simply for the purpose of defending patent rights, but also has the effect of striking competitors and winning business partners and business opportunities.

However, if the right holder abuses the infringement warning in an improper way in order to seek a competitive advantage in the market or undermine the competitive advantage of a competitor, thereby harming the legitimate rights and interests of the competitor, it shall bear the corresponding liability. This court held that Suzuki Automobile had infringed upon Huaxia Automobile's legitimate right to operate, and sentenced the other party to compensate the other party for economic losses of 20 million yuan (including reasonable rights protection costs). ”

The court actually recognized Suzuki Automobile's infringement of unfair competition and sentenced it to pay Huaxia Automobile 20 million yuan in compensation.

Even the lawyers on both sides thought that the second part of the infringement case should be rejected by going through the process, but Suzuki not only was the infringement confirmed, but also fined 20 million yuan.

Why 20 million?

"The court considered that during the prosecution period, based on the known facts and daily life experience, Suzuki's act of publicly sending infringement warning letters to the media coincided with the hot sales period of Huaxia Light, and referring to the product cycle of similar models, there was a certain causal relationship between the decrease in sales of the cars involved in the case after the launch and Suzuki's above-mentioned acts, and it can be inferred that Suzuki's improper act of sending warning letters caused greater losses to Huaxia Automobile.

According to the statistics of market sales and bicycle profits, the court decided that Suzuki should pay 20 million yuan in compensation. ”

The presiding judge's presentation allowed the amount of money to be confirmed.

Finally, the first-instance case acceptance fee is 980,000 yuan, of which Suzuki Automobile bears 650,000 yuan and Huaxia Automobile bears 330,000 yuan.

Victory!

Suzuki Automobile dug the pit first, but buried itself, and let Huaxia Automobile get a windfall out of thin air.

The lawyer who represented Suzuki in court immediately appealed, and such a verdict was really unacceptable.

With his many years of experience in litigation, the most he could infer before the verdict was that he did not support the claims of both parties, but now Suzuki has been fined a large amount of money, which is really a shame for his career as a lawyer.

Of course, Suzuki Shu, the head of Suzuki, has said that if he loses the lawsuit, he must appeal, and he will not hesitate to fight the lawsuit to the Supreme Court.

"It's dramatic, isn't it?"

After learning the results for the first time, the reporters guarding the gate of the court sighed.

The court may not support Suzuki's request, but no one knows that Suzuki will be awarded a large amount of money.

Suzuki's representatives, who walked out of the courthouse, were surrounded by reporters waiting for him, and he was unwilling to let out cruel words.

"We are resolute in appealing and having it heard by a higher court to give us a fair and equitable verdict. ”

originally thought that the lawsuit would be a sure victory, but Suzuki lost in a mess.

As for the Huaxia Automobile lawyer group, they are full of spring breeze, and they have completed a major lawsuit that has left a name in China's legal history, which is enough to benefit for a lifetime.

"We are very grateful to the court of first instance for its fair verdict, which gave our client a clear slate. As for the issue of appeal, we will continue to respond to the lawsuit and turn the case into an ironclad case. ”

The verdict of the first intellectual property case after China's accession to TO immediately caused an uproar, and domestic and foreign media commented on it.

Suzuki lost the case and paid a large sum of money. This reminds many foreign companies intending to enter China that the protection of intellectual property rights can be a major hidden danger.

Although the Chinese government has repeatedly announced the protection of intellectual property rights, the actual implementation is far from optimistic. A foreign-funded auto executive, who did not want to be named, said that he was very worried that in the future, Chinese auto companies would copy advanced foreign models on a large scale, after all, this is an attractive shortcut. ”

The authoritative British media BBC commented.

"Suzuki lost the infringement lawsuit in China. This is a wake-up call for the business development of other Chinese automobile companies in China, and there are still many things worth improving in China's laws compared with the general rules of international trade.

It is said that Toyota Motor has also filed a lawsuit against Zhonghua Motor, and now it seems that the possibility of Toyota losing the lawsuit is very high! It has been reported that Toyota may take the initiative to withdraw the lawsuit and not file a lawsuit again. ”

A special correspondent from Japan's NHK television station immediately sent the report back to China as a matter of urgency.

On the other hand, the domestic media have affirmed the verdict that foreign capital cannot use intellectual property rights as a weapon to suppress domestic independent enterprises.

"Huaxia Automobile's victory in the lawsuit shows that our country's independent automobile brands can finally participate in market competition justifiably and are no longer afraid of patent suppression by foreign companies.

However, this lawsuit also reminds us that domestic enterprises should still attach importance to independent research and development, and strive to create products with their own characteristics.

The launch of Chung Hwa Group's new independent product 'Tang' has achieved very good market results even if it is a successful attempt of great benefit. ”

CCTV financial reporter commented.

"This case is just an ordinary civil economic dispute, and some foreign media have raised it to the level that the Chinese government intends to protect plagiarism, and that China does not protect intellectual property rights, which is a very wrong understanding.

The verdict in this case makes it very clear that neither party has committed plagiarism. Suzuki was fined because its improper way of protecting its rights constituted infringement, which is different from intellectual property protection.

Since joining the TO, the Chinese government has pledged to protect intellectual property rights from illegal infringement in line with international standards......"

The Xinhua News Agency's comments are more one-sided counters to foreign media.

The news was transmitted back to Jiangzhou, and Han Hao was very happy to learn the verdict, which means that Zhonghua Group has justifiably gotten rid of the accusation of plagiarism, and has also had a positive impact on the lawsuit with Toyota, and the process of Zhonghua Motor's listing in Hong Kong can resume soon.

"Toyota's plot should pay a certain price, even if they withdraw the lawsuit, we will fight the lawsuit to the end. ”

It can be said that Huaxia Automobile's victory, in addition to encouraging Zhonghua Group, also allows more domestic auto companies to know that they can let go of their hands and feet.

From the results of the trial, it can be seen that in order to avoid appearance infringement, domestic enterprises can start from two aspects.

One is to make harmless changes to the appearance, and the other is to increase the number of patent applications and file applications from different angles.

This is because China's current patent examination system stipulates that there is no need to conduct substantive examination of design patents. Even if a design patent looks exactly the same, as long as there is a difference in one point or line, it can be deemed to have its own patent and obtain national licensing.

First of all, Chery Automobile announced the re-launch of the improved version of "Rarity", which is like a cousin model with the QQ model, and has become a major wonder for Chery.

Drawing on the results of the trial of Huaxia Light, Chery is confident that Rarity will win the lawsuit against GM in case it sues itself.

Although Chery's Fengyun and Cowin sales were good, the failure of the Son of the East made them always want to find a best-selling model. Rarity has performed well in the past, selling an average of more than 2,000 units per month. Although it is not as good as QQ, it can also eat with you, and it can support a market independently.

There is also Chery's internal T11 project, which simulates the Toyota RAV4, which is a new fist product that they have high hopes for.

The hot sales in the SUV market make Chery hope to get a piece of the pie.

In addition, Great Wall Motor's Wei Dajun also breathed a sigh of relief, their imitation of Isuzu Axiom's H11 project can be related to the life and death of the enterprise.

The H11 is internally known as the "Haval" CUV corresponding to the "Saifu", which is a tool car that focuses on the field, and the exterior and interior are more advanced and beautiful.

The SUV market below 100,000 yuan is about to be rotten by a large group of domestic auto companies, and the advantage of Saifu is not obvious compared with them, so we can only hope that next year's Haval CUV will save Great Wall Motors.

Also, Shuanghuan Automobile, which broke out of the encirclement of 100,000 yuan SUVs, has a good life with Noble SRV.

They were worried that Honda would sue them for infringing CRV's design patents, but now they can finally relax and move forward.

It can be said that whether subjective or objective, the Huaxia Light plagiarism door case has brought a positive impact to domestic automobile manufacturers, and they have been able to take advantage of the unfinished interval of foreign automobile brand layout to obtain valuable growth period.

Imitation first and then independence, which is a very realistic and helpless road for China's independent automobile companies with poor foundations. Thanks to the relaxation of the national automobile policy in 2003, domestic independent automobile enterprises bloomed like a spark in 9.6 million square kilometers of land, becoming the spark of the national independent automobile industry.