100%complete cottage!Disney's "Automotive Story" infringement

2025-01-27 11:12:09|Myriagame |source：minecraft skins

Do you still remember the domestic animated film "Automotor Story", which caused a huge sensation in July last year?Not long ago, the news that "Automotive Story Mobilization" will be released, and Disney can't sit still.

Disney Corporation and Pixar brought Xiamen Blue Flame Film and Television Co., Ltd. to the court and sued them to infringement.The People's Court of Shanghai Pudong New District opened the trial on the 21st the trial of Disney Corporation, Pixar Corporation, Xiamen Blue Flame Film and Television Co., Ltd., Beijing Base Point Film and Television Culture Media Co., Ltd., Shanghai Juli Media Technology Co., Ltd. infringed on copyright and unfair competition disputes.case.

The Chinese animation film "Automotive Story" was released in July 2015. Xiamen Blue Flame Film and Television Animation Co., Ltd. is a producer.The public provided the movie.

The plaintiff's agent said that the animation image K1 and K2 in the film "The Story of the Automotive" copied the animation image in the plaintiff's movie "Lightning McKun" and "Franka".The defendant also produced exhibition boards and posters, copying the plaintiff's animation image.On the PPLIVE website operated by the defendant, posters, trailers and movies were spread.The name of "Automotor Story" is extremely similar to the name of the plaintiff movie. The word and the chief mobilization words were highlighted in the defendant's publicity poster, which deliberately covered the word "people", which caused the general audience to be unable to recognize and confuse and misunderstand the film source.The poster also highlighted and plagiarized K1 and K2 of the plaintiff animation image.Therefore, the defendant's behavior constitutes copyright infringement and unfair competition.

The plaintiff requested the court to order that Blue Flame Company, Base Point Company, and Juli Company stopped infringement; Blue Flame Company and Base Point Company compensated the plaintiff's economic loss of 3 million yuan; Blue Flame Company and Base Point Companies compensated the plaintiff for the plaintiff to stop the infringing behavior and expending reasonable expenditure reasonable expenditure reasonable expenditure.Cost 1 million yuan.

The defendant's agent said that the K1 and K2 animation images of the "Automotive Story" movie were created independently, and there were no plagiarism of the animation image of the plaintiff's "Story of Racing" and "Story of Racing 2".The design of K1 and K2 vehicles in "Automotive Story" draws on the independent creation of existing models, which is not substantially similar to the plaintiff's animation image.The plaintiff advocated that the defendant's unique name of the well -known goods was not established.The name of the plaintiff movie belongs to the descriptive name of the subject matter category. It is not significant in itself, and cannot be determined to be a well -known product unique name.The defendant has been promoting "Automotor Story" as a domestic movie, and related consumers will not be confused.In addition, the box office income involved in the case deducts related taxes, film special funds, cinema lines, and other creative costs.The court will pronounce the case on the day.

• 

  National Service DNF Dark Ni

• 

  The new screenshot of the be

• 

  The 15th anniversary wallpap

• 

  3DM Xuanyuan Sinicization Gr

• 

  French magazine is the first

• 

  The sneak game "Republic" wi