Recently, the Haidian Court of Beijing released the public hearing of the "Su Fan" copyright dispute case through its official wechat public account platform. The lawyers of our firm, Zhou Tao and Yin Sisi, participated in the trial as the plaintiffs agents and fully expressed their arguments.
Original text from the official account of Beijing Haidian Court:
On the occasion of the 25th World Intellectual Property Day, to enhance awareness of intellectual property protection and strengthen its effectiveness, the Haidian District Peoples Court publicly heard a case on April 15,2025. The plaintiff, a cultural and creative development company, sued the defendant, a handicraft store, and another defendant, a technology company, for copyright infringement and unfair competition. The case was presided over by Judge Chen Yue of the Haidian District Peoples Court, with a collegial panel comprising Peoples Assessors Liang Mingquan and Yuan Wei.
During the court hearing, the plaintiff asserted that it is a cultural and creative enterprise dedicated to preserving and promoting the intangible cultural heritage "Su Fan" (a traditional Chinese fan). Operating under the brand name "Shengfeng Su Fan", the company legally holds copyrights to multiple artistic designs of fan handles created during its creative and business processes. The plaintiff discovered that a craft store had sold unauthorized Su Fan products featuring its copyrighted designs— "Wannian Chun", "Jiumen Tidu", "Qingfeng Ling", "Qingyu Ling", and "Yanxing" —on its platform store "Moumou Shanyi". This act infringed upon the plaintiffs reproduction and distribution rights. As the platform operator, a certain Technology Co., Ltd. failed to exercise due diligence and implement necessary preventive measures, thereby incurring t and several liability for the infringement.
The handicraft store argued that the fan handle patterns claimed by the plaintiff all belong to elements in the public domain, lacking originality under copyright law and thus should not be protected. The patterns used in the accused products differ significantly from the plaintiffs claimed designs in overall style, compositional details, and arrangement methods, failing to constitute substantial similarity. As an ordinary small-scale handicraft business, the store maintained that the accused products had no sales volume and did not cause actual harm or adverse effects to the plaintiff.
A technology Co., Ltd. argued that, first, the operator of the platform involved is a third party, so it is not a qualified defendant in this case; second, the operators of the platform involved have fulfilled their reasonable duty of care, there is no subjective fault, and they should not bear tort liability.
During the court hearing presided over by the collegial panel, both parties fully presented their arguments regarding key disputed issues: whether the fan handle patterns claimed by the plaintiff constitute artistic works under copyright law, the validity of the plaintiffs assertion that the alleged actions constituted infringement, and the legal liabilities to be borne by the two defendants. The panel thoroughly heard both sides arguments, enabling a clear reconstruction of the case facts. The proceedings were conducted in a standardized, efficient, and orderly manner.
