TYGlobe

Recently, the Haidian District People's Court of Beijing released information on the public hearing of the "Suzhou Fan (Su Shan)" copyright dispute case via its official WeChat Public Account. Attorneys Zhou Tao and Yin Sisi of TYGlobe Law Firm, acting as the agents ad litem for the plaintiff, attended the court hearing and fully presented their arguments.

Original text from the Official WeChat Account of Beijing Haidian District People's Court:

On the occasion of the approaching 25th World Intellectual Property Day, with a view to raising awareness of intellectual property protection and strengthening the effectiveness of such protection, the Haidian District People's Court held a public hearing on April 15, 2025 on the dispute over copyright infringement and unfair competition between the plaintiff, a certain cultural and creative development Co., Ltd., and the defendants namely a certain handicraft store and a certain technology Co., Ltd. The case is heard by a collegial panel composed of Chen Yue, Judge of the Haidian District People's Court, as the presiding judge, and Liang Mingquan and Yuan Wei, people's assessors of the Haidian District People's Court.

During the court trial, the plaintiff alleged that it is a cultural and creative enterprise focusing on inheriting and promoting the intangible cultural heritage "Suzhou Fans", with its brand abbreviated as "Shengfeng Suzhou Fans". It lawfully enjoys the copyright of multiple fine art works featuring fan handle patterns created in the course of its creation and business operations. The plaintiff found that a certain handicraft store, without authorization, sold Suzhou fan products applying the plaintiff's fine art works *Wannianchun*, *Jiumen Tidu*, *Qingfengling*, *Qingyuling* and *Yanxing* at its store named "Moumou Fan Art" operated on a certain platform, which has infringed upon the plaintiff's right of reproduction and right of distribution. A certain technology Co., Ltd., as the operating entity of the aforesaid platform, has failed to fulfill its duty of prudent attention and taken corresponding preventive measures, and shall bear joint and several liability for the infringement.

A handicraft store pleads that the fan handle patterns claimed by the plaintiff are all elements in the public domain, do not possess originality in the sense of the Copyright Law of China, and shall not be protected by the Copyright Law of China. The patterns used on the allegedly infringing commodities have obvious differences from the patterns claimed by the plaintiff in terms of overall style, composition details, arrangement and other aspects, and do not constitute substantial similarity. It is only an ordinary small handicraft operation store, and the allegedly infringing commodities have no sales volume, which has not caused actual damage or adverse impact on the plaintiff.

A Technology Co., Ltd. contends that: First, the operator of the platform involved in the case is a third party, thus it is not the proper defendant in this case; Second, all operators of the platform involved in the case have fulfilled their duty of reasonable care, have no subjective fault, and shall not bear tort liability.

During the court trial presided over by the collegial panel, both the plaintiff and the defendant fully presented their opinions on key contentious issues, including whether the fan handle pattern claimed by the plaintiff constitutes a work of fine arts under the *Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China*, whether the plaintiff's claim that the accused act constitutes infringement is tenable, and what legal liabilities shall be borne by the two defendants. The collegial panel fully heard the claims and defenses of both parties, the facts of the case were clearly ascertained, and the whole trial process was standardized, efficient and orderly.