The Supreme Court recognized that golf course designers hold copyrights related to videos that reproduce real golf courses, which Golfzon provided so users could watch the screen and play golf. As a result, Golfzon must compensate the golf course designers for damages.
The Supreme Court's First Petty Bench (presiding Justice Roh Tae-ak) on the 26th overturned the lower court's ruling that did not recognize the creativity of golf course design drawings in a damages suit filed by a U.S. golf course design company, A, against Golfzon, and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court.
Also, the Supreme Court's First Petty Bench (presiding Justice Ma Yong-ju) on the same day similarly quashed the lower court and remanded to the Seoul High Court in a suit filed by domestic golf course design companies B and C against Golfzon seeking an injunction against copyright infringement and damages, saying there is room to recognize the creativity of golf course design drawings.
Company A contracted with golf course owners and designed 11 golf courses. Companies B and C contracted with golf owners and designed 19 golf courses. Golfzon entered into usage agreements with golf course owners and put videos reproducing the golf courses into its screen golf simulation system.
The three companies filed lawsuits claiming that Golfzon infringed copyrights on golf course design drawings and seeking damages or unjust enrichment, an injunction to stop the infringing acts, and destruction of items (videos) created by the infringement.
In the first trial, the court partially ruled for the plaintiffs, ordering Golfzon to pay 420 million won to Company A, 1.1 billion won to Company B, and 1.6 billion won to Company C. The first-instance court found that the golf courses designed by the plaintiffs constitute works because the authors' creative individuality is expressed, and held that Golfzon infringed the copyrights.
On appeal, the three companies lost, and Golfzon's liability for damages was not recognized. The appellate court found that each golf course did not include creative expression beyond functional elements.
The Supreme Court said that golf courses exhibit, in combination, the facilities needed for users to enjoy golf, the overall shapes of individual holes, and the basic components that make up the holes.
It explained, "These elements, in line with the design intent of enabling users to formulate appropriate strategies depending on situations such as tee shots, subsequent shots, approach shots around the green, and putting to attack the course, while also allowing them to feel beauty in harmony with landscaping and the surrounding scenery, form an organic combination."
The Supreme Court said, "Even if the selection, arrangement, and combination of the components appearing in each golf course imitate others' works, unless they can be made the same or similar, the design drawings contain the creator's original expression," adding, "There is room to view them as having creative individuality that distinguishes them from existing golf courses."
Regarding the lower court's ruling, the Supreme Court said, "It did not examine whether the selection, arrangement, and combination of the components appearing in the golf courses possess creative individuality that distinguishes them from existing courses, and it did not determine whether creativity is recognized," and remanded the case.
Accordingly, in the remand proceedings, it appears the court will assess the level of originality of the golf courses designed by Companies A, B, and C compared with other courses to calculate the amount of damages.