In its decision rendered on November 18, 2021, Taiwan’s IP and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”) affirmed Nintendo’s copyright infringement claims against two local toy vendors, finding the stuffed toys sold by the defendants (see below) infringing Nintendo’s copyrighted Pokémon characters, including Charizard, Mewtwo, Dragonite, and Mega Charizard X.
At the first instance level, the court determined that Nintendo's Pokémon dolls (see below) featuring Charizard, Mewtwo, Dragonite, and Mega Charizard X are eligible for copyright protection as artistic works, and ruled that the stuffed toys supplied by the defendants are substantially similar with Nintendo’s aforesaid copyrighted works based on the overall feeling and concept test.
On appeal, the defendants argued, among the others, that the asserted copyrights are pictures of Pokémon cartoon characters (see below), so the lower court erred by comparing the Pokémon dolls against the accused stuffed toys, rather, the infringement analysis should be made between the aforesaid two-dimensional picturial works and the stuffed toys, which are three-dimensional.
The IPC Court ruled that even under defendants’ scenario, the accused stuffed toys are still substantially similar with the pictures of Nintendo’s Pokémon cartoon characters. The IPC Court reasoned that since the introduction of Pokémon cartoon characters in 1996, there have been various versions of Pokémon characters, including two-dimensional and three-dimensional works, created and adopted by Nintendo in view of the nature of medium on which these characters are featured and displayed. The IPC Court found that no matter it is video game, cartoon, stationery, doll, toy, or the so-called cute versions, the featured Pokémon characters all demonstrate the same main features, and they are all protectable under copyright. Since these copyrighted features could also be found in defendants’ accused stuffed toys, the IPC Court ruled the defendants’ stuffed toys still constitute copyright infringement.
The defendants are subject to injunction and damages liability, but may still challenge the judgment by appealing to the Supreme Court.
Source:
沒有留言:
張貼留言