The court held that Company A’s defense that the different appearances of the two products did not constitute infringement could not be established. Comparing the appearance of Company A's alleged infringing product with the appearance of Company **'s patented product in the patent announcement, although the two are not exactly the same, for a water dispenser, the location of the faucet and the form of the switch are similar to those of the water dispenser user. What is most concerning is that the location of the faucet and the form of the switch will bring about changes in the way of use. These places should be important parts of the water dispenser. The appearance of this part of Company A's accused infringing product is basically the same as that of Company **'s patent. In addition, from an overall observation, the appearance of the accused product is similar to that of ** Company’s patent. Therefore, the two have similar appearance designs.
According to the provisions of the "Patent Law of the People's Republic of China" and the "Civil Code", the judgment is as follows: (1) The defendant immediately stopped infringing the patent number of ** Company, which is ZL00319668. 2 Acts concerning design patent rights. (2) The defendant compensated ** Company for economic losses of RMB 50,000 in one lump sum.
The defendant was dissatisfied with the first instance judgment and filed an appeal. After hearing the case, the court of second instance made a judgment rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment.
