On 13 Oct 2022, the IP and Professional Court docket issued a ruling on a entirely novel problem in Taiwanese IP litigation: copyright of interior design. Even though it remains to be seen whether or not the final decision will be appealed, it functions as a significant reference for the concern.
The situation was first brought by LDC Lodges & Resorts in 2014 towards Sheraton Taitung Resort, with regard to the inside structure of the latter’s hotel rooms. LDC argued that Sheraton Taitung’s steps constituted copyright infringement less than Taiwan’s Copyright Act and were being a violation of the Honest Trade Act.
LDC asserted that Sheraton Taitung copied the special interior styles of hotel rooms at the Palais de Chine, a five-star hotel that it owned and operated. It claimed that Sheraton’s chairman experienced stayed in the resort for two evenings, just after which Sheraton Taitung was renovated. When these alterations were being getting spot, the chairman and several personnel returned to the Palais de Chine, using photos and measurements of numerous rooms. LDC in the long run argued that interior style and design falls beneath the label of ‘architectural work’, established out in the Copyright Act.
In response to LDC’s claims, Sheraton Taitung offered 3 major arguments. Initial, the chairman only stayed at Palais de Chine to observe the inside layout, which is typical follow in the field, and that only component of the home furnishings was made use of as a reference for upcoming purchases. Next, lodge home interior style and design does not drop within just the scope of ‘architectural work’ less than the Copyright Act, as this definition refers to a building’s structure and exterior look. 3rd, it claimed that most of Palais de Chine’s room models ended up possibly imitations of overseas designs or ended up pretty common configurations in the market. Consequently, LDC’s layouts lacked originality and could be simply replicated by incident.
Previous courtroom decisions
There have been three appropriate rulings in this scenario in advance of the most modern determination:
- the 1st-occasion ruling issued by the IP and Industrial Court docket on 14 September 2018
- the 2nd-occasion ruling by the identical courtroom issued on 19 September 2019 and
- a Supreme Court ruling issued on 20 January 2021.
The 1st and 2nd-occasion rulings both of those held that the Copyright Act can in truth defend interior design and style, as this falls in the scope of what is deemed architectural perform. Even so, the two rulings attained unique conclusions with regard to LDC’s copyright claim. The initial-instance ruling held that the copyrightable imaginative do the job is the interior design and style “of Palais de Chine as a whole” – the structure of person hotel rooms can not independently qualify for copyright defense. The next-occasion ruling adopted a various view: the inside style of person hotel rooms can in reality be safeguarded as architectural get the job done. Based mostly on this, the courtroom in comparison the design and style and structure of the resort rooms and dominated that Sheraton Taitung had in truth copied and infringed the inside style and design of Palais de Chine’s hotel rooms.
Sheraton Taitung appealed this obtaining at the Supreme Courtroom, which remanded the case, stating that further investigation was necessary. It need to be famous that the Supreme Court did not disagree with the past conclusion that inside structure may well be guarded below the Copyright Act. The October 2022 ruling was an additional next-instance overview, made as a outcome of the remand.
The IP and Business Court’s choice
The Oct 2022 ruling reaffirmed that inside style and design can be shielded as architectural perform, but in this instance, the IP and Professional Courtroom adopted a new methodology to look at the hotel rooms. Household furniture, decorations, and usually viewed place arrangements would be excluded from the scope of defense. Primarily based on this method, the ruling found that even though the furnishings and decorations of Palais de Chine’s hotel rooms were initial, they were being irrelevant when considering the definition of ‘architectural work’ and so could not be guarded below the Copyright Act. Additional, the style of rooms was discovered to adhere to the regular home layout viewed all through the hotel small business, so this also did not top quality as copyrighted architectural get the job done. In sum, LDC’s promises of copyright infringement had been unfounded.
From these court rulings, it seems that the scope of what constitutes ‘architectural work’ below the Copyright Act has been broadened to contain inside design and style. On the other hand, the wide variety of strategies taken highlight that the particular methodology utilized to look at is continue to far from mature. Despite uncertainties at this phase of the dispute, the way that the comparative tactic has developed through the scenario will have considerable implications for comparable long run situations.