标识不受版权保护？肿么办？

The development of a company logo by a graphic designer took over a year. Nevertheless, in a recent decision Frankfurt Higher Regional Court ruled that the work is not copyright protected – the “required minimum degree of aesthetic content” had not been achieved (Frankfurt Higher Regional Court, June 12, 2019, Case 11 U 51/18).

平面设计师设计一个公司标识要花一年多的时间。然而，法兰克福高等地方法院近期的一个判决中，认为该作品不受版权保护——原因是其未达到“审美内容的最低要求”（2019年6月12日，法兰克福高等地方法院，案号11 U 51/18）。

In addition, the client was granted a free, perpetual right to use the logo. The decision shows not least that companies should protect their logos differently, such as by trademark or design protection.

此外，法院准许该客户无偿、永久使用该标识的权利。这一判决说明企业可以通过不同方式保护其标识，如商标或外观设计。

Graphic design works may also obtain copyright protection. However, with a view to other protected types of work such as literature, art, and music, not every trivial, manual work is supposed to be protected by copyright. It follows from case law that certain conditions must be met: There must at least be design leeway that is used creatively by the creator. The Higher Regional Court stated that the design can, however, only establish copyright protection if its aesthetic effect is not simply derived from the purpose of use but is based on an artistic achievement.

平面设计作品也可能获得版权保护。但是，就已经获得版权保护的不同作品来说，如文学、艺术和音乐作品，并非每件不重要的、手工作品都应受到版权保护。根据判例法，必须满足一定条件：作品必须至少还有设计的余地，且创造者创造性地利用了该设计余地进行设计。高等地方法院认为，只有当设计的美学效果不仅是来自于使用目的，而是基于艺术成就时，该设计才能受到版权保护。

With respect to the logo shown above, the court held that neither the word element “match” nor the graphic design met these requirements. In the audio field, the word “match” is associated with plug-and-play devices, so that the designation is directly derived from the intended purpose. Nor does the graphic implementation achieve “the minimum degree of aesthetic content required for a work of art.” According to the court, this was supported by the fact that, among other things, a publicly available font was used that was only slightly modified for better legibility. The figurative element (two triangles) was also incapable of imbuing an artistic touch, since the symbol was known as the “fast forward key” in the audio environment. The considerable amount of work also failed to convince the judges: The fact that development and release of the logo took more than a year does not constitute proof of artistic achievement – but “only” a great deal of (skilled) work.

对于前述标识，法院认为无论单词元素“match”还是图形设计都不符合这些要求。在音频方面，“match”一词与即插即放设备相关，因此该设计直接来自于预期目的。在图形方面，该设计也没有达到“艺术作品审美内容的最低程度”。法院认为，有事实支持，其中一个事实是：公众常用字体的使用仅仅为了公众更容易辨认而进行了轻微修改。图形元素（两个三角形）也不具有艺术格调，因为此图形是音频中的“快进键”符号。设计的大量工作（的抗辩）也未能说服法官：尽管标识的设计和发布耗时一年多，但这一事实并不构成艺术成就的证据，“仅”是大量的（技术）工作。

Tip for the practice:

建议：

The judgement shows that hoping that logos are sufficiently protected by copyright against imitators could be costly. Rather, logos should additionally be protected by trademark and design registrations.

判决表明，仅凭通过版权保护标识以防止抄袭的预期，其代价可能很大。此外，标识还应从商标和外观设计等方面进行保护。

Terralex 简介

TerraLex国际律师联盟现已拥有155家会员律师事务所、19000余名律师，遍布全球100个国家，致力于为全球客户提供全方位的专业法律服务。Terralex成员在各自的地方司法管辖区和国际上都受到广泛的认可。Terralex成员之间相互了解、相互信任，能够无缝地提供及时、快速、高效的服务。

 德国SKW Schwarz律师事务所和浩天信和律师事务所都是TerraLex国际律师联盟成员。