On August 29, 2025, in a copyright dispute involving a public art tender for Kaohsiung Branch of Enforcement Agency of Ministry of Justice, the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (“IPC Court”) found that the supplier’s artwork infringed the copyright of the Japanese artist Mr. Kino Satoshi. The Court ordered the destruction of the infringing artwork, and awarded the artist NT$ 2 million in damages.
The disputed artwork was commissioned as public art for the new building of Kaohsiung Branch of Enforcement Agency of Ministry of Justice (see below). The tender was awarded in 2017 to the Defendant, GeFeiYaChi Visual Image Design Ltd., and the disputed artwork was installed in 2018.
The Plaintiff, Mr. Kino Satoshi, is a renowned ceramic artist whose works have received international recognitions, including awards and exhibitions featured in prominent ceramics magazines. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s public artwork infringed his 2015 ceramic piece “颪(眼)” (hereafter “Plaintiff’s work”, See below).
Based on the records, Plaintiff’s work had previously won the Recommendation Prize at Taiwan’s Ceramics Biennale in 2016, and was exhibited at the Yingge Ceramics Museum of New Taipei City that same year. The Plaintiff discovered the Defendant’s public artwork in 2022, deemed it a illegal copy, and filed copyright infringement lawsuit afterwards.
The IPC Court found substantial similarity between the disputed artwork and Plaintiff’s work, e.g., the interconnected two semicircles at the center, the flipped ribbon-like extensions on both sides, and the overall unique asymmetrical style. These shared elements, the IPC Court concluded, created a similar “overall concept and feel”.
The Defendant argued that the disputed artwork was independently created and that it had no access to the Plaintiff’s work. The IPC Court found these arguments unpersuasive:
First, the Defendant failed to provide clear and credible documentation of the creative process.
Second, the evidence submitted by the Defendant related mainly to photography, which is unrelated to ceramic art, undermining the Defendant’s claim of independent authorship.
Third, given the high degree of similarity between the disputed artwork and the Plaintiff’s work, and the fact that Plaintiff’s work was exhibited in Taiwan in 2016, there is reasonable likelihood that the Defendant had access to Plaintiff’s work before submitting its bid in 2017.
In light of the substantial similarity, the reasonable likelihood of access, and the absence of proof of independent creation, the IPC Court held the Defendant unlawfully copied Plaintiff’s work. The IPC Court ordered the destruction of the infringing artwork and awarded damages accordingly.
Source: 113-Ming-Chu-Su No. 92 (the IPC Court)
