CATDOLL: Disney sues Chinese animation "Cars" for copyright infringement

Everyone must remember that the domestic animated film "Cars" was suspected of plagiarizing "Cars", right? Now Disney Enterprises and Pixar have taken Xiamen Blue Flame Film and Animation Co., Ltd. and others to court, suing them for infringement. The Shanghai Pudong New District People's Court held a public hearing on the 21st to hear the case of Disney Enterprises and Pixar suing Xiamen Blue Flame Film and Animation Co., Ltd., Beijing Jidian Film and Television Culture Media Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Juli Media Technology Co., Ltd. for copyright infringement and unfair competition disputes.

The Chinese animated film "Cars" was released in July 2015. Xiamen Blue Flame Film and Television Animation Co., Ltd. was the producer, Beijing Jidian Film and Television Culture Media Co., Ltd. was the distributor, and Shanghai Juli Media Technology Co., Ltd. provided the film to the public on the PPTV website.

The plaintiff's agent claimed that the animated characters K1 and K2 in the movie "Cars" plagiarized the animated characters "Lightning McQueen" and "Francisco" in the plaintiff's movie. The defendant also produced display boards and posters that plagiarized the plaintiff's animated characters. Posters, trailers and movies were disseminated on the PPLIVE website operated by the defendant. The name of "Cars" is extremely similar to the name of the plaintiff's movie. The words "Cars" and "Mobilization" are highlighted in the defendant's promotional posters, and the word "People" is deliberately covered, causing the general audience to be unable to recognize and confuse and misrecognize the source of the movie. The poster also prominently uses and plagiarizes the plaintiff's animated characters K1 and K2. Therefore, the defendant's actions constitute copyright infringement and unfair competition.

The plaintiff requested the court to order Blue Flame, Base Point, and Juli to cease infringement; that Blue Flame and Base Point jointly compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of RMB 3 million; and that Blue Flame and Base Point jointly compensate the plaintiff for reasonable expenses of RMB 1 million incurred in stopping the infringement.

The defendant's agent stated that the animated images of K1 and K2 in the movie "Cars" were independently created and did not plagiarize the animated images of the plaintiff's movies "Cars" and "Cars 2". The design of the K1 and K2 vehicle images in "Cars" was independently created by drawing on existing car models, and they are not substantially similar to the plaintiff's animated images. The plaintiff's claim that the defendant infringed the distinctive name of a well-known commodity is also untenable. The name of the plaintiff's movie is a descriptive name of the subject matter, which is not very significant in itself and cannot be identified as a distinctive name of a well-known commodity. The defendant has been promoting "Cars" as a domestic film, and relevant consumers will not be confused. In addition, the box office revenue of the works involved is a loss after deducting relevant taxes, film special funds, theater share, and other creation costs, and the defendant did not make any profit. The court will make a ruling on the case at a later date.