LDC Hotels & Resorts’s victory reaffirmed in case against Sheraton Taitung for copying room design after remand

　For the case LDC Hotels & Resorts (hereinafter “LDC”) brought against Sheraton Taitung Hotel (hereinafter “Sheraton Taitung”) for the latter’s infringement upon the copyright of the interior design of the hotel rooms at the Palais de Chine Hotel, LDC received a monetary award of TWD5 million in the previous court decisions each in the first and second instance proceedings.  Sheraton Taitung appealed this case to the Supreme Court, which vacated the second-instance decision in favor of LDC and remanded this case back to the Intellectual Property and Commercial Court (hereinafter “IPC Court”).  After the remand, the IPC Court disaffirmed the occurrence of copyright infringement but sustained Sheraton Taitung’s violation of the Fair Trade Act, which is still a decision favorable to LDC.   

　The IPC Court did not sustain LDE’s copyright infringement claim on the grounds summarized as follows.  From the perspective of the overall interior design of the hotel room in question at Palais de Chine Hotel, the interior design has originality because the design and selection of furniture indeed present the uniqueness of interior artistic aesthetics and also make consumers feel the Art Nouveau style or atmosphere expressed by the designer.  However, furniture and furnishings are movable items and separable from the room structure and the artistic aesthetics formed by furniture and furnishings is not related to the nature of an architectural work.  That is to say, furniture and furnishings do not constitute an internal structure of a building or an integral and inseparable part of it, and thus, they are not eligible for protection as an architectural work.  

　Besides, in terms of the characteristics of tourism hotel industry and consumers’ trading habits, the furniture, comfort, or even the style of interior design of hotel rooms serve as not only the important criteria for evaluating a hotel but also the important factors for consumers’ choice of accommodation.  That is why all hotel owners have invested much thought and money in room design to create comfortable and unique room design so as to attract consumers.  If the rooms of two different hotels have the same interior design style presented by identical or highly similar room design and such similarity is able to cause relevant consumers to mistakenly believe that the two hotels are affiliates or have franchisee/franchisor or licensee/licensor relationships, Fair Trade Act violation may have occurred.  Therefore, in this case, the IPC Court determined Sheraton Taitung’s violation of the Fair Trade Act and dismissed its appeal.  This judgment is appealable.  (Released 2022.12.06) 
/CCS