China News Service, December 29. According to the official official account of the Shanghai Higher People’s Court, on the morning of December 29, the “Lepin” counterfeiting “Lego” case involving a total of 330 million yuan was filed at the Shanghai Higher People’s Court (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai). The high court) gave the final judgement, and the court rejected the appeal of Li and others and upheld the original verdict.
According to the original sentence, Li was sentenced to 6 years in prison for copyright infringement and a fine of 90 million yuan; the remaining 8 defendants were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment ranging from 4 years and 6 months to 3 years, and fined accordingly. .
The picture shows the scene of the "Lego" trial (photographed by Xi Xiaoshi)
Prosecuted for counterfeiting "Lego"
In June 2011, Li founded Guangdong Meizhi Educational Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Meizhi Company) to engage in the research and development, production and sales of toys.
With his efforts, the business situation of Meizhi Company is booming, not only has developed more than 400 toys with independent intellectual property rights, but also gradually expanded its business scope to high-tech fields such as AI robots.
"In 2015, I found that a friend around me was very profitable in building toy industry, so I started to invest money in building toy industry." Li said.
However, for this new business with promising market prospects, this time, Li did not take the road of "independent research and development", but "targeted" the well-known toy brand "Lego."
Since 2015, without the permission of Lego, Li and Yan and other 8 people have purchased new Lego series toys, and established them through dismantling and research, computer modeling, copying drawings, and entrusting others to make molds. The toy manufacturer specializes in copying Lego assembled building block toy products, and then branding them under the "Lepin" brand, which is sold online and offline.
▲The picture shows the chat record of Li and others
The "good scene" is not long.
On April 23, 2019, the Shanghai Public Security Bureau seized injection molds used to replicate Lego toys, spare parts used to assemble molds, various packaging boxes, manuals, and sales of Lego toys in a factory leased by Li. Manifests, related computers, mobile phones, and copy Lego series "Lepin" toy products, etc.
Appraised by the Copyright Appraisal Committee of the China Copyright Protection Center, the toys “Great Wall of China”, “PRIMITIVE TRIBE”, “FAIRY TALE”, and “TECHNICIAN” of “Lepin” and “Great Wall of China”, “THE FLINTSTONES” and “DISNEY” of Lego The toys “PRINCESS” and “ALL Terrain Tow Truck” are basically the same, forming a copy relationship.
The album "NINJAG Thunder Swordsman" of "Lepin" is the same as the album of "NINJAGO Masters of Spinjitzu" of Lego Company, which constitutes a copy relationship.
The picture shows Lego products (left) and Lepin products (right)
At the same time, the "Accounting Appraisal Opinion" also shows that from September 11, 2017 to April 23, 2019, Li and others produced and sold more than 4.24 million boxes of infringing products, involving 634 models, totaling 300 million Yu Yuan.
On April 23, 2019, more than 600,000 boxes of infringing products for sale were seized in relevant warehouses, involving 344 models, totaling more than 30.5 million yuan.
On September 2, 2020, the Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court found that the defendant Li and other 9 persons had made a profit without the permission of the copyright owner to copy and distribute the copyrighted works of Lego. The circumstances were particularly serious. Their actions have constituted the crime of copyright infringement.
Considering that some defendants have accomplices, surrendering, making meritorious services, confessing, etc., they should be given a lighter punishment. Li was sentenced to six years in prison for copyright infringement and a fine of 90 million yuan; 8 people including Yan were sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment It ranges from four years and six months to three years, with corresponding fines.
After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, Li, Yan, Zhang, Wang, Du, and Lu filed an appeal.
Courts severely punish copyright crimes
In the trial of the second instance, both the prosecution and the defense focused on “whether the Lego company’s infringed assembled toys are works of art”, “whether the amount of illegal business operations of Li and others infringing copyright is correct”, “whether the case is a unit crime”, “whether the original sentence is appropriate”, etc. The issue was debated.
"Art works refer to paintings, calligraphy and paintings and other aesthetically significant modeling works. Lego embodies the meaning of assembly. In this case, there is no legal basis for defining assembly toys as art works." Wang's defender stated in the court hearing.
Li believes that the amount of crime determined in the first instance did not take into account the situation of sales returns and customer rebates, so he has objections.
Yan proposed that "this case should be determined as a unit crime."
In addition, the six appellants and their defenders all stated that the first instance was “too heavy” and demanded that the original judgment be revoked and the judgment amended according to law.
Is the infringed Lego toy a work of art?
After the trial, the Shanghai Higher People's Court held that, according to the relevant laws and regulations of the Copyright Law, “art works refer to paintings, calligraphy, sculptures, etc., which are aesthetically significant flat or three-dimensional plastic art works composed of lines, colors or other methods.”
In this case, a total of 663 assembled three-dimensional models were infringed. The expressions carried by these three-dimensional models were independently created by Lego. They have originality and unique aesthetic significance. Therefore, the assembled three-dimensional toys are protected by my country's copyright law. The category of art works.
▲The picture shows the right product (left) and the infringing product (right)
As for the calculation of the amount of illegal business operations, the Shanghai Higher People's Court believes that the original judgment, combined with the "Accounting Appraisal Opinion" and related evidence, found that the illegal business amount of Li and others in copyright infringement crimes of more than 330 million yuan was correct and should be confirmed.
Although Li and his defender stated that the original judgment did not consider sales returns and customer rebates, which affected the determination of the amount of illegal business operations, there was no evidence to prove it, so the court rejected it.
At the same time, according to the "Criminal Law", unit crime refers to a crime in which the illegal proceeds of a crime committed in the name of a unit are mainly attributable to the unit.
In this case, the principal culprit Li decides to reproduce the Lego toy, and each accomplice is responsible for the implementation.
From the perspective of production and sales, Lepin Toys, which counterfeit Lego Toys, are produced and operated under the name of the cancelled Lihao Toy Factory.
Moreover, from the bank account details, the income and expenditure of the production and sales of Lepin Toys were all entered and exited through the personal accounts of persons outside the case. The illegal income did not belong to the relevant unit, and the wages received by the defendant were paid in cash. Therefore, this case belongs to a group crime and does not meet the requirements. The essentials of unit crime.
As for the issue of sentencing, the Shanghai Higher People’s Court believes that according to the Criminal Law and relevant judicial interpretations, the actions of Li and others constitute copyright infringements, and are “with other particularly serious circumstances” and should be sentenced to three years or more but not more than seven years. Imprisonment and fines. The amount of the fine is generally not less than one time and not more than five times the illegal income, or determined at more than 50% but not more than one time of the illegal business amount.
Considering that this case not only caused significant losses to the right holder’s goodwill and economic interests, but also disrupted the order of the market economy, with serious social harm, and should be severely punished in accordance with the law.
The court of first instance made the original judgment based on the fact that some defendants had an accomplice, surrendered, made meritorious service, and confessed, and it was not improper.
This morning, the Shanghai Higher People's Court made a final judgment, dismissing the appeals of 6 people including Li and upholding the original judgment.