“The plagiarism” can be said to be a common occurrence in the automobile circle. There are two reasons for this embarrassment. First, it is difficult to conclude that unilateral plagiarism has been achieved with “pragmatic” evidence; The definition of “plagiarism” also lacks industry-recognized systems or rules.

Therefore, oftentimes, the “plagiarized” party often feels that its intellectual achievements have been “plagiarized” by a certain party. However, when it comes to genuine courtroom hearings, there are many reasons why it is impossible to define the difference between a clear reference and a complete copy, or because there is a lack of facts. The basis of the fact that it has become the losing party.

In recent days, there has been one more concrete example of the “plagiarism” theory. According to the information disclosed by the Beijing Intellectual Property Court on January 31st, Honda Technology Co., Ltd. initiated a lawsuit against Great Wall Motor Co., Ltd.'s main SUV model Harvard H6 on the grounds of “infringing on its two invention patents,” requesting Great Wall Motors’s And Harvard H6 dealer Beijing Bozhilian Automotive Sales Center stopped infringement and compensated 22.14 million yuan in losses.

"plagiarism" incident originated

According to reports, the plaintiff Honda believed that the rear door structure of the black Harvard H6 upgraded version of the vehicle with the vehicle number LGWEF4A56FF064336 in the Great Wall and the decorative structure of the car fell into the rear of the vehicle involved in the case No. 200710008273.0. "The door structure" and the scope of the patent protection of the two invention patents entitled "Decorative Structure of Vehicle Decoration" No. 200710161631.1 and the patent right of the plaintiff Honda Club was infringed.

Specifically, Honda claims that the plagiarism of the patent involved in the plagiarism mainly focused on two points: First, the rear door structure of the vehicle in the patent mainly relates to the hinged rear part of the upper edge of the opening of the tailgate of the vehicle. The door structure; Second, the decorative structure of the vehicle, the advantage of this structure is that it can provide a decorative structure of the vehicle that can flexibly change the order of the roof ornament and the window ornament installation.

In addition to the factual evidence, the plaintiff Honda also believes that the defendant Great Wall has actually engaged in manufacturing, sales, and promised sales of the Haval H6 car, and the other defendant, the Beijing Sales Co., Ltd. sales center sales, promised sales Haval The behaviors of H6 vehicles all infringe their related patent rights, and they should bear civil liabilities such as stopping infringement and compensating for losses according to law.

After the incident was revealed, related insiders of Great Wall Motors stated to the outside that after receiving the bill of complaint, they organized relevant departments to look up the history of the development of the relevant project, and claimed that they did not find that there was a problem of infringement by Honda. At the same time, Great Wall also stated that after analyzing and comparing the involved patents and models related structures mentioned by Honda with professional lawyers, it can be concluded that “there is obvious difference between the two”, and Great Wall believes that there is no violation of Honda’s Patent rights.

The doubt behind the arrogance

While both parties hold their own opinions on patent issues, the outside world's attention has indeed been largely focused on the details of the relevant incidents involving “infringement”. In fact, looking at the patent infringement itself, there are many details about the patent infringement that have been missed or gradually forgotten by the outside world.

First of all, Haval H6 is the most important sales of the Great Wall for many years. Since it was first listed in 2011, it has been the champion of the SUV segment for many consecutive years. So here we will notice a time node, that is, in fact, 7 years ago Haval H6 was already on the market. So why did Honda only think of the Great Wall today based on patent rights?

Second, the litigation did not actually happen in the recent past. According to other media reports, as early as October 5, 2017, Great Wall Motor received a complaint from the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, but it was only recently exposed. Out. So why did the incident have been widely exposed in this time node? After all, even if it was exposed at the same time, it would also cause concern to the outside world.

Again, despite the fact that there was a patent in the controversial part of the case, Honda could not provide further evidence that Harvard H6 copied the patent content in the back of the vehicle. At the same time, the relevant person in charge of Honda China had also said in an interview with the relevant media that the prosecution was actually not which product was infringing, but the technology. At present, only the patent number can be provided.

It must be mentioned that this is not the first time Honda has sued its own brand in China. On February 13, 2002, Honda Motor Co., Ltd. obtained a patent entitled "Automobile Design" granted by the State Intellectual Property Office. Honda Tech later stated that Shijiazhuang Shuanghuan Automotive Co., Ltd. started to manufacture and sell dual-loop LAIBAOS since September 2003. - The RV vehicle infringed on the above-mentioned "car" design patent rights. Since September of the same year, Honda has repeatedly issued warning letters to Shuanghuan Co., Ltd. and its distributors, alleging that Shuanghuan Automobile Products infringed its patent rights, and Asked him to stop the infringement immediately.

In June 2004, Honda Tech officially filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Higher People's Court to stop the infringing activities of Shuanghuan Automobile, stop the production and sale of "shanzhai models," and compensate for the economic loss of Honda, while other defendants took joint responsibility.

Interestingly, Shuanghuan Automobile also filed a counterclaim against Honda's tech-scientists. Shuanghuan Automobile believes that Honda’s lawsuits take place before the CR-V car is listed and at the beginning of its listing. The purpose of this is to suppress competitors and increase the visibility and influence of their products, which in turn promote sales growth. In order to obtain unfair competition profits. At the same time, this practice has also caused the sales of Shuanghuan Automotive Products to be severely hampered, the sales volume has dropped sharply, and eventually it has been forced to stop production in advance, causing huge losses.

(Left: Double Ring SRV Right: Honda CRV)

This time, Honda Motors and Shuanghuan Automobile and other units took a total of 12 years before and after the series of disputes concerning design patent rights. At the end of the dispute, they passed the second instance of the Supreme People’s Court of Hebei Province and the Supreme People’s Court to finalize the judgment in 2015. The court’s final decision dismissed Honda’s lawsuit request, and in the name of unfair competition, ruled Honda’s compensation for 16 million yuan for Shuanghuan Automobile.

Looking back at the Honda sues the Great Wall infringement that is now exposed, there are also many similarities between the two: Both are concentrated in the debate over the patent rights in the appearance of automotive products. Both are Honda unilaterally arguing that they have been “plagiarized” and are targeting in Beijing. Hebei car company sued.

Because of the many similarities mentioned above, it is inevitable that the outside world will naturally compare two cases together. “Honda could not win,” a Great Wall insider told the Auto Topline App that although he did not disclose more, he was very confident. At the same time, a large part of the industry also believes that Honda’s odds are still not very large. Well knowing that there have been previous experiences of losing money, why did Honda continue to “prefer Tiger Mountain” this time?

Exfoliate, see the cloud

When interviewed by related media mentioned the case of previous failure to defend the rights in the Chinese market, Honda China’s relevant person in charge once stated to the outside world: “To protect legitimate rights and interests, we must always act.” This is Honda’s argument.

(As of February 5, Great Wall Securities's real-time quotes)

For the Great Wall, the most intuitive effect is the Great Wall's stock price fell.

Perhaps the meticulous analysis of the impact of stock market finances is still far from ordinary people's perceptions, then the intuitive effect that can be caused by mentioning one incident is that at least many people who do not fully understand will think that independent brands represented by the Great Wall may still be in " Plagiarism refers to the stage of positive research and development. Even if it is undeniable, once the independent brand has indeed embarked on the imitative stage that it must undergo in its initial stage, but in terms of the current overall level, in fact, the self-owned brand has long been no longer the same year after years of hard work.

The rise of China's auto brands, to a certain extent, may also indicate that many foreign car brands represented by Japanese manufacturing have gradually failed to represent the “myth” status of the past. It may wait until this incident has subsided for many years and then look back. A similar lawsuit will also be a landmark event that witnessed the automotive industry's "sweeping the sea."

At the same time, it is worth noting that although Shuanghuan Automobile won the final victory of the lawsuit in 2015, after the lawsuit of Honda, its development has also been affected to a certain extent. In February 2016, in the catalogue of "Road Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Enterprises and Products (No. 281)" published by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the State Ministry of Industry, the qualifications of passenger vehicles produced by 13 companies such as Shuanghuan Automobile were even cancelled.

"Perhaps not completely rule out the possibility that the Great Wall has a certain reference and reference in this matter, but it will not rule out Honda's growing trend of seeing its own brands becoming stronger and stronger, and may inevitably be afraid of the possibility. "In response, an analyst in the automotive industry told the headline app.

In the more patent-oriented TMT industry investment, there is a large part of the investment style as a "classic", that is: to invest in the most indicted companies. Just like the Apple mobile phone at the beginning of the dispute, patent lawsuits continue to dispute, but time also proved its gradual development and growth of the outside world and its attention. At the same time, it can also be seen that if there is not the same volume, then there will be no more competition, so this may also be the best explanation for the “imitation-free” situation of Zotye and other luxury brands.

“In addition, we need to look at what Honda has recently experienced. Whether it is the “liquid level” problem or the turbulent civic, it has made Honda unable to keep a low profile. At present, it has once again issued a “patent to sued the Great Wall”. "The card" may play a role in distracting the audience, perhaps self-evident," said the analyst.

The above analysts believe that similar “litigation dividends” that can be reflected in this case may also be little known. “However, such lawsuits also carry risks. On the one hand, they may lose the intuitive loss caused by loss of compensation, and on the other To some extent, it will instead achieve an "upgrade" of the status of competitors."

However, why should opponents who do not look down on their eyes make more fuss about their body? As of press time, the "Honda sued the Great Wall infringement" case is still in the jurisdictional objection hearing stage, but also has not yet confirmed the official opening time of the case. The main factor currently causing the pending situation is the most inconsequential one of the similarities between the two cases mentioned above: Honda appealed to Great Wall Motor in Beijing, and Great Wall Motor believes that it should not be in Beijing.