Well-known local hotel successfully overturns IP Court judgment on room design imitation dispute

　LDC Hotels & Resorts Group (Chinese: 雲朗觀光股份有限公司; hereinafter referred to as “LDC Hotels”) sued Gui Tian Xi Yue Hotel Co., Ltd. (Chinese: 桂田璽悅酒店股份有限公司; hereinafter referred to as “Gui Tian Xi Yue”) for economic right infringement on the ground that the room furnishings of Sheraton Taitung Hotel (owned by Gui Tian Xi Yue; hereinafter referred to as “Sheraton Taitung”) was highly similar to that of Palais de Chine Hotel (owned by LDC Hotels).  Gui Tian Xi Yue lost the lawsuit in the first and second instance proceedings and was ordered to pay TWD5 million in damages to LDC Hotels and also to remove the infringing furnishings.  Thus, Gui Tian Xi Yue appealed this case to the Supreme Court, which ultimately found Gui Tian Xi Yue’s appeal well-grounded and vacated the IP Court judgment and also remanded this case back to the IP Court for retrial.  

　LDC Hotels maintained that the furniture, decoration, and interior design of the hotel rooms of Palais de Chine Hotel are cozy, classic, and elegant and represent a creative conception characterized by a combination of the Louis XVI style and oriental style, which forms an original, artistic, and aesthetic architectural work eligible for copyright protection.  By this reason, LDC Hotels filed a lawsuit against Gui Tian Xi Yue, alleging that the room design of Sheraton Taitung was an imitation, to a high degree, of that of Palais de Chine Hotel with only minor adjustments, and Gui Tian Xi Yue displayed the room design on Sheraton Taitung’s official website and local major room booking service websites to solicit consumers.  By imitating the room design of Palais de Chine Hotel, Gui Tian Xi Yue has saved not only time in design and decoration but also a vast cost of design, which is sufficient to affect the trading order in the tourist and hotel industry.  

　To beat LDC Hotels’ allegation, Gui Tian Xi Yue made the counterarguments that the room design alleged was not a work eligible for copyright protection and lacks artistry and originality, and that Gui Tian Xi Yue had hired a designer for the hotel room design of Sheraton Taitung, and there involved no occurrence of imitation accordingly.  Moreover, Gui Tian Xi Yue explained that Palais de Chine Hotel took reference of the furniture, decoration, and furnishings preferred and adopted by the industry, and the appearance, choice and size of the furniture, the lighting and layout of its room design lack originality, which can be substantiated by such evidence as the notarial deed of the furniture catalogue, books, and rating assessment report by the Tourism Bureau, Ministry of Transportation and Communications.  

　Contrary to the IP Court’s first and second instance judgments that the room design of Palais de Chine Hotel amounted to an architectural work eligible for copyright protection, the Supreme Court overturned the IP Court judgment and found it challengeable on the grounds that the IP Court determined and sustained the room design of Palais de Chine Hotel as an architectural work eligible for copyright protection without addressing the reason why the defensive methods and evidence produced by Gui Tian Xi Yue were denied.  The Supreme Court also found it questionable that if Gui Tian Xi Yue’s imitation of Palais de Chine Hotel’s room design was sustained, the IP Court made a decision against Gui Tian Xi Yue without examining Gui Tian Xi Yue’s defensive arguments and evidence with respect to the issue whether such imitation amounted to a deceptive or obviously unfair act that was able to affect trading order.  That is to say, the IP court contravened the laws by failing to provide reasons and thus the IP Court judgment should be vacated accordingly.  (Released 2021.02.11) 

/CCS