CCTV Animation sued for copyright infringement of the cartoon Big Head Son and was awarded 280,000 yuan

In the field of domestic animation, "Big Head Son and Little Head Father" has its unique position, and this work is also the hardest hit area for infringement lawsuits. Recently, another lawsuit related to "Big Head Son" has received a final judgment, which involves the production and sales of peripheral products of this animation.

The cartoon character "Big Head Son" was made into dolls and sold in stores. CCTV Animation Company sued Hangzhou Big Head Son Company and the seller, Times Beauty Company, who authorized others to produce and sell dolls without authorization. On November 23, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court made a final public judgment, rejecting the appeal of Hangzhou Big Head Son Company and upholding the original judgment, that is, ordering Hangzhou Big Head Son Company and Times Beauty Company to stop infringing, and Hangzhou Big Head Son Company to compensate CCTV Animation Company for economic losses of 200,000 yuan and reasonable rights protection expenses of 80,000 yuan.

CCTV Animation Company filed a lawsuit with the first instance court, claiming that the company is the copyright owner of the 1995 version of the cartoon "Big Head Son and Small Head Dad" (referred to as the 95 version of the cartoon) and the 2013 version of the cartoon "New Big Head Son and Small Head Dad" (referred to as the 13 version of the cartoon), and legally enjoys the copyright to the animated characters such as "Big Head Son".

Without permission, Hangzhou Big Head Son Company authorized others to use the company's copyrighted characters to produce and sell derivative products; Times Beauty Company sold two "Big Head Son" dolls in its "MINISO" store. Hangzhou Big Head Son Company and Times Beauty Company infringed the company's legitimate rights and interests, causing heavy losses, so the company requested the court of first instance to order Hangzhou Big Head Son Company and Times Beauty Company to stop the infringement, and Hangzhou Big Head Son Company to compensate for economic losses of 200,000 yuan and reasonable rights protection costs of 80,000 yuan.

The court of first instance held that CCTV Animation, as the copyright owner of the 1995 and 13th versions of the animated works, had fulfilled its burden of proof in providing relevant evidence of the rights of the 1995 and 13th versions of the works. Hangzhou Big Head Son Company had the obligation to provide evidence that the image of the doll involved in the case was produced and used based on the image of the 1994 version of the stick figure prototype work owned by Liu Zedai. Hangzhou Big Head Son Company was unable to provide evidence to prove the basis of its defense claim, so Hangzhou Big Head Son Company should bear the legal consequences of failure to provide evidence.

Hangzhou Big Head Son Company used the images of CCTV Animation's works without permission, infringing the copyright of the derivative works enjoyed by CCTV Animation for the works involved, and should bear the corresponding legal responsibility. The first instance court finally supported CCTV Animation's lawsuit for stopping infringement and compensating for losses.

After trial, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the copyright of the three main characters of the 1995 version of the cartoon was registered by CCTV Animation Company on November 4, 2013.

The image in the 2013 Supplementary Agreement is not the expression of the prototype of Liu Zedai's 1994 sketch, but the image of the cartoon character in the 1995 cartoon after derivation and creation. The copyright of the derivation belongs to CCTV Animation Company. Big Head Son Company's claim that Liu Zedai's 1994 sketch prototype is the image of the 2013 Supplementary Agreement Figure has no factual and legal basis. Big Head Son Company acknowledges that the dolls involved in the case that it authorized to produce and sell are derived from the image of the character in the 2013 Supplementary Agreement Figure, and the image of the character in the figure is consistent with the image of the 1995 cartoon. Therefore, Big Head Son Company must have used the original expression in the derivation of the copyright owned by CCTV Animation Company, which constitutes infringement.

Regarding the amount of compensation, taking into account the popularity of CCTV Animation's works, the infringement of Big Head Son, subjective intent, scope of infringement and impact, etc., the amount of compensation proposed by CCTV Animation is reasonable, and the court of first instance fully supports it. Regarding reasonable expenses, CCTV Animation submitted relevant evidence materials, and the amount it claimed did not exceed its total expenses, so it should be fully supported.

In summary, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court’s final judgment rejected the appeal of Big Head Son Company and upheld the original judgment.