Office Chair Infringement Sales

Office chair infringement sales refer to the act of producing and selling products that are identical or similar in appearance or technology to patented office chairs without the permission of the patent holder, constituting patent infringement.

1. Basis for Infringement Determination
   The core of patent infringement lies in determining whether the accused product falls within the scope of patent protection. Taking the case of Kehong Company vs. Lejie Home Furnishings as an example, the court compared the office chairs involved in the case with the "Swift Series" design patents held by Kehong (patent numbers ZL201930517402.2 and ZL201930517481.7) and determined that they were highly similar in key designs such as the backrest and overall structure, ultimately ruling that infringement had occurred. The scope of protection for design patents is based on the appearance of the product shown in the drawings or photographs, taking into account the shape, pattern, color, and their combinations.

2. Infringement Behavior Patterns
   In practice, infringement often exhibits composite characteristics. For example, in the Anji e-sports sofa chair case, the infringement chain involved both manufacturing enterprises and e-commerce merchants: the manufacturing enterprise imitated the patented images to produce infringing products, while the e-commerce merchant not only commissioned production but also stole images from the patent holder's online store for online sales. This "production + online sales" model requires the assumption of dual infringement liabilities for both manufacturing and sales, and the theft of promotional images may constitute additional unfair competition behavior.

3. Legal Liabilities and Consequences
   The infringing party is required to bear civil liabilities such as cessation of infringement and compensation for losses. In the Kehong case, the court ordered Lejie Home Furnishings to immediately cease selling the infringing products and to compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses for rights protection totaling 100,000 yuan; in the Anji case, the infringing party paid a compensation of 88,000 yuan through mediation and removed all infringing links. The compensation amount usually takes into account factors such as the type of patent, the scale of infringement, and the losses suffered by the rights holder, and reasonable expenses for rights protection (such as notarization fees and attorney fees) are also eligible for support.

4. Rights Protection Approaches and Recommendations
   Patent holders can seek rights protection through administrative complaints (such as at intellectual property rapid rights protection centers) or judicial lawsuits. In the Anji case, the rapid rights protection center efficiently facilitated a settlement through professional comparison and centralized mediation, shortening the rights protection cycle. It is recommended that rights holders strengthen market inspections, promptly secure evidence of infringement (such as purchasing infringing products and notarizing web page screenshots), and prioritize rapid disposal methods such as administrative mediation or pre-litigation injunctions.