乐高玩具的知识产权保护在中国是如何一块一块堆砌的？

建筑玩具帝国乐高集团是如何在中国构建玩具业务的？

How is LEGO constructing a toy business in China, brick by brick?

在中国，随着中产阶级数量的增加，玩具市场的规模于2012年至2017年间也随之增长了19.9%。不仅如此，中国也是一个主要的玩具制造国，全球80%左右的玩具生产都在中国完成。

As the Chinese middle classes grow, so does the country's toy market with a growth of 19.9 percent between 2012 and 2017. Not only this, China is a major toy producer with an estimated 80 percent of global toy production occurring on the Chinese mainland.

对玩具行业而言，中国既是一个巨大的潜在市场，也是一个主要的制造基地。乐高集团在中国保护知识产权方面取得持续成功是非常鼓舞人心的。

For the toy industry, China is both a huge potential market and a major manufacturing base. LEGO's ongoing success in protecting its intellectual property in China, then, is highly encouraging.

乐高集团在中国保护其知识产权保护是一场持久战。近期乐高集团又再次取得胜诉判决，是继在2017年11月乐高集团在两件知识产权诉讼案中胜诉后所取得的进一步进展，前两起案件据称是乐高集团在中国首次对抗仿冒者提起的诉讼。

But LEGO's battle to protect its IP in China has been a long one. The recent decision in LEGO's favour follows the firm's success in two previous litigations concluded in November 2017. The earlier cases were introduced by LEGO as a first effort to fight imitators in China. 

在早前的诉讼案件中，法院认定两家中国公司的博乐（BELA）玩具产品涉嫌抄袭乐高集团产品的包装装潢。法院最终判决这两家公司不得在促销宣传中使用抄袭的产品外包装并且需停止相关不正当竞争行为。

In these early cases, the court found that two Chinese companies had copied LEGO in the design of the packaging under the BELA brand.  The court eventually ruled that the two companies must stop using copied outer packaging materials to promote their products as well as the related unfair competition acts. 

但除此之外，法院未明令禁止该博乐（BELA）品牌拼插玩具产品的生产和销售。

Despite the victory, no court order was issued to prohibit the manufacturing and distribution of the BELA branded products themselves.

乐高集团第二次维权行动瞄准了另外四家中国公司，这四家中国公司自2015年便开始生产、宣传和销售仿冒的乐高玩具。仿冒的乐高玩具广泛涵盖了乐高的系列产品，并且经常在乐高集团首次推出产品后不久就迅速出现在市场上。但是，这些仿冒产品一直以乐拼（LEPIN）作为商标，该商标至今仍处于乐高集团提出的异议程序当中。

LEGO's second claim was lodged against a further four Chinese companies which have been manufacturing, promoting and distributing copycat LEGO construction toys at least since 2015. The infringing products manufactured and distributed by the defendants cover a wide range of LEGO product lines and are often presented to the market shortly after the rollout of the LEGO original products. These duplicate LEGO toys are promoted under the trade mark LEPIN, which still remains the subject of the opposition proceeding raised by LEGO. 

据几家主要的电子商务网站数据显示，乐拼（LEPIN）玩具在中国的零售价格仅是正版乐高玩具产品价格的六分之一到十分之一。

The retail prices of LEPIN toy products, according to the major e-commerce websites in China, range from 1/6 to 1/10 of those of original LEGO products sold in China.

知识产权的保护形式是多样化的。通过判断在上述案件中被侵权的具体情形，结合乐高集团本身拥有的坚实的知识产权权利组合，意味着这家公司有诸多的方式可以和侵权者展开贴身肉搏。

IP comes in many forms, and the extent to which LEGO has been infringed in these cases, combined with LEGO's solid IP portfolio, means the company had a range of means by which to close pursue infringers.

尽管LEGO商标已被北京法院认定为驰名商标，使得乐高可以基于此在知识产权保护活动中享有更大程度的保护，但是在对抗乐拼 (LEPIN) 品牌的案件中，乐高集团并未提出商标侵权诉求，而是聚焦在著作权侵权诉求。中国与英国一样，著作权不以注册为保护前提，乐高因此须证明其对产品享有著作权。

In pursuing the LEPIN brand,  LEGO did not base its claims on trade mark infringement, although its trademark LEGO has been successfully recognised as a well-known mark in a lawsuit in Beijing which may confer a higher level of protection during enforcement actions.  In this instance, the claims focuses on the infringement of LEGO's copyright. As copyright is not protected by way of registration in China the same as in the UK, LEGO was required to prove its copyright ownership to build its case.

目前为止，值得注意的是，乐高集团主张被侵权的每件积木玩具套装产品均被法院认定为“立体造型美术作品”，美术作品属于中国《著作权法》规定的一种具体的著作权客体，其指使用线条、色彩或其他方式构成的有审美意义的平面或者立体的造型艺术作品。

At this point, it's worth noting that each of the LEGO building sets LEGO claimed were being infringed was recognised by the court as a "three dimensional works of art" . Works of art is a specific form of copyrighted provided under the Chinese Copyright Law.  It refers to two-dimensional or three-dimensional aesthetic works created in line, colours or other means. 

按照法律的现行解释，雕塑是一种典型的立体造型美术作品，很显然，基于自由裁量权法官给予了乐高拼装玩具和雕塑、雕像作品同等的法律地位。

A typical interpretation of 3D works of art provided under the law is sculpture works.  By using its discretion, the court apparently granted LEGO's construction toys the same legal position as sculptures and statues. 

中国在全球经济中正日益发挥着更为主要的作用，其法律和知识产权体系也正朝着与世界其他国家日趋协同的方向发展。中国政府、法院与企业一样，都关心中国的知识产权体系是否可倚靠之。

As China becomes an ever more central player in the global economy, so its legal and intellectual property norms are moving towards greater harmony with the rest of the world. The Chinese government and courts are as concerned as businesses are that IP in China can be relied upon.

因此，本案中法院在认定侵权后责令被告赔偿乐高集团约人民币450万元也许并不令人意外。这个数目，虽然听起来很多，却远不及乐高所遭受的损失。这也说明中国法院在侵权诉讼中对惩罚性赔偿的适用依旧持审慎态度。

It's perhaps unsurprising then, with infringement established, the court in this case demanded the defendants pay around 4.5 million RMB as damages to cover the losses of LEGO. The amount, while it sounds substantial, is incomparable to LEGO's losses, suggesting that Chinese courts remain cautious of rewarding punitive damages in infringement cases.

乐高集团的胜诉对乐高产品的其他仿冒者是否会产生实质性影响还有待观察。但是乐高集团在这些案件中所采取的著作权保护策略是值得称道的。乐高在中国知识产权保护的成功将鼓励着越来越多的外国知识产权权利人对中国仿冒者展开著作权维权行动。

While the substantive impact of LEGO's victories on other LEGO imitators remains to be seen, the copyright enforcement strategy adopted by LEGO in these cases is highly commended.  LEGO's victories should be encouraging more foreign intellectual property holders to enforce their copyrights against Chinese imitators.

乐高的案件同时还表明，对于玩具具有显著特征的外部造型，除了注册外观设计专利或图形商标之外，将其作为立体造型的美术作品进行登记和保护也是一个值得考虑的选项。

In regards to the protection of distinctive appearances of toys, LEGO's cases also suggest that a 3D works of arts could also be a considerable option in China, apart from registering them as designs or figurative trade marks.