Newsletter
The Embodiments of Interior Design are "Architectural Works" and Should Enjoy Copyright Protection
The appellant, Star Wang Co., through the introduction of the appellee, Chen Jun-fu, won the bid for a decoration project of the foreign worker dormitory building of the appellee, Advanced Semiconductor Engineering, Inc. ("ASE"), by presenting interior design graphics and completing a three-dimensional model room according to the design graphics.
However, due to the request of ASE to reduce the price, the appellant, Star Wang Co. did not complete the contract and construction work; and then the appellee, Chen Jun-fu, turned to the appellee, Sin-Lyu-Jhu International Enterprise Co., Ltd. ("Sin-Lyu-Jhu"), to complete the construction work.
Subsequently, Star Wang Co., found that the interior design structure and configuration of the completed foreign labor dormitory are remarkably similar to its interior design graphics and three-dimensional model room; thus claimed that the appellee, Chen Jun-fu and his wife, Lin Bi-jiao, Sin-Lyu-Jhu and ASE jointly infringed the copyright of its "graphical works" (interior design graphics) and "architectural works" (three-dimensional model room).
The Intellectual Property Court, the first trial, in Judgment No. Min-Zhu-Su-Zi-124 rendered in 2020, held that the interior design graphics of the dormitory and the three-dimensional model room are not "architectural works" and dismissed Star Wang Co.'s claims. Star Wang Co. then constituted the appeal.
The Intellectual Property and Commercial Court, the second trial, in Judgment No. Min-Zhu-Shang-Zi-23 rendered in 2022, reversed the case and held that "architectural works" refer to architectural designs that are embodied in any tangible media and the elements of space arrangement, configuration and design; therefore, the scope of protection of architectural works is not limited to the exterior of the building but includes the interior and exterior of the building. Moreover, the so-called "interior design" refers to decoration objects inside a building which is an attachment to the building and is part of the building; consequently, "interior design" should be deemed "architectural works" and protected by the Copyright Act.
The "three-dimensional model room" constructed by the appellant, Star Wang Co., is the tangible expression of the interior design which meets the minimal requirement of creativity and have originality; thus it should enjoy the protection as "architectural works".
The dormitory finished by the appellee, Sin-Lyu-Jhu, is almost identical to the model room completed by the appellant, Star Wang Co., which is a kind of "direct reproduction"; that is, a "three-dimensional to three-dimensional" reproduction which constitutes the "reproduce" activity prescribed in the preceding paragraph of Article 3, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 5 of the Copyright Act.
Give the above, although the appellee, Chen Jun-fu, did not provide the disputed model room to the appellee, Sin-Lyu-Jhu, for its reference; nevertheless, instructed Sin-Lyu-Jhu together with the appellee, ASE, to modify the dormitory room without notifying ASE that he has no right to use the interior design of the model room. The behavior obviously infringes Star Wang Co.'s copyright to the "model room".
As for the appellee, Lin Bi-jiao, Chen Jun-fu's wife, who did not actually participate in the operation of the firm, nor did her participate in the construction of the dormitory room; the appellee, Sin-Lyu-Jhu, did not have contact with the disputed model room, but followed the instructions of ASE and Chen Jun-fu; in addition, there is no way to determine that ASE knew from the beginning that the copyright of the disputed model room belongs to the appellant, Star Wang Co., hence the appellee Lin Bi-jiao, Sin-Lyu-Jhu and ASE did not infringe the copyright of the appellant due to an intentional act or negligence and shall not be liable for infringement.
No appeal is filed and the Judgement is concluded.