The term of protection in China is the life of the author plus 50 years for individual authors or 50 years from the first publication of the work for legal entities, unless otherwise provided. The protection of moral rights, including the rights of publication, authorship, alteration, and integrity, is perpetual.

2D designs and texts on a product or packaging may be protected as written, pictorial, photographic, and graphic works, or even works of fine art, depending on the nature of the design elements. The situation is much more complex for product designs and 3D packaging. If the author is a foreign natural person or legal entity, the product design or 3D packaging may be protected as a foreign work of applied art under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (“Berne Convention”) for 25 years in China.

For Chinese authors or foreign authors of product designs and 3D packaging that are no longer protected under the Berne Convention, Chinese courts need to find protection under works of fine art in judicial rulings because China’s Copyright Law is still ambiguous on this issue. In the guiding case* “Crosplus Home Furnishing (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Zhongrong Hengsheng Wood Industry Co. and Nanjing Mengyang Furniture Sales Center,” issued in 2021, China’s Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) confirmed that works of applied art could be protected as work of fine arts under China’s copyright law. The SPC ruled that, for works of applied art to be protected, the following must be met:

  • the practical functionality and aesthetic value must be separable;
  • the aesthetic value must meet the high standards of fine art; and

To be specific, the SPC found the “Tang Yun Cloakroom Furniture” (see the specimen of work below) of Crosplus Home Furnishing (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. to be original and of high aesthetic value because of the designed wood texture and patterns, handmade brass accessories, and overall Chinese-style symmetrical structure. According to the SPC, any changes to the wood textures and patterns, brass accessories, and overall structure would not affect the functionality of the furniture. Thus, the practical functionality and aesthetic value were indeed separable.

*SPC’s Guiding Cases are not binding precedents but “have guiding effect on adjudication and enforcement work in courts throughout the country,” according to the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Work on Case Guidance issued on November 26, 2010.