E-commerce legal cases

Text: Deep Water Fish, [2004-10-29 21:19:58] Read 1516 times

(Taiwan) Riyue Science and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Happy Valley Technology Co., Ltd. Cooperation Contract Dispute Case First-Instance Civil Judgment (2004) No. 2 Zhong Min Chu Zi No. 02743

Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China

Civil Judgment

(2004) Erzhong Minchu No. 02743

Plaintiff (Taiwan) Riyue Technology Co., Ltd., domiciled in the People's Republic of China* **9th Floor, No. 88, Qiaohe Road, Zhonghe City, Taipei County, Taiwan.

Legal representative Pan Yanhong, chairman of the board.

The entrusted agent is Xu Bin, a lawyer at Beijing Capital Law Firm.

The defendant, Beijing Happy Valley Technology Co., Ltd., is domiciled in Room 308, No. 39 A, Xingfu Street, Chongwen District, Beijing, People's Republic of China.

Legal representative Wang Wei, chairman of the board.

Agent Wang Mao, male, Han nationality, born on January 13, 1973, patent agent of Beijing Gaobo Longhua Patent and Trademark Agency Co., Ltd., resident in Chaoyang District, Beijing, China Taiwan Office No. 1.

The authorized agent is Li Qingmin, a lawyer at Beijing Gaobo Longhua Law Firm.

After this court accepted the case of a cooperation contract dispute between the plaintiff (Taiwan) Riyue Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Riyue Company) and the defendant Beijing Happy Valley Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Happy Valley Company), A collegial panel was formed in accordance with the law and the trial was held in public on February 25, 2004. The plaintiff's agent Xu Bin, the defendant's legal representative Wang Wei and his agent Wang Mao all attended the court to participate in the lawsuit. The case has now been concluded.

The plaintiff, Riyue Company, filed a lawsuit stating: "Pochmouse Computer Tutorial" was independently developed by the plaintiff and is a set of professional software suitable for kindergarten computer multimedia teaching courses. On April 18, 2001, the plaintiff and the defendant signed the "Cooperation Agreement on CD-ROMs for Kindergarten Computer Teaching Courses" (hereinafter referred to as the "Cooperation Agreement"). It was stipulated that the plaintiff would provide the Pochi Mouse computer tutorial master and production technical materials, and the defendant would act as agent Produced and distributed domestically; the plaintiff gets 20% of the proceeds, and the defendant gets 80% of the proceeds; the copyright of "Porchi Mouse Computer Tutorial" is owned by the plaintiff. On August 19, 2001, the defendant entrusted a third party to copy 1,000 sets of "Porchi Mouse Computer Tutorial" and related products, and sold and distributed them to the public. The name of the defendant was signed on the sales tutorial and demonstration disk, without indicating the plaintiff as the rights holder. On August 25, 2001, the plaintiff and the defendant signed an Agreement, allowing the defendant to apply for copyright registration in its own name, but the original copyright belonged to the plaintiff. On December 12, 2001, the plaintiff's representative Xu Lichuan and the defendant's legal representative Wang Wei signed a "Memorandum", stipulating that the domestic copyright registration of the "Pochi Mouse Computer Tutorial" software should be returned to the plaintiff, and each set of "Pochi Mouse Computer Tutorial" should be owned by The defendant paid the plaintiff a royalty of RMB 700 to RMB 850. However, the defendant has not fulfilled the terms stipulated in the above-mentioned draft contract, agreement and memorandum, and has not paid the plaintiff remuneration for use. Therefore, the plaintiff issued notices of termination to the defendant in March and August 2002 respectively. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the court and requested an order: to terminate the "Cooperation Draft" and "Agreement"; the defendant to return the copyright registration certificate of the software involved; the defendant to stop producing and selling the optical disc products involved; the defendant to pay the economic losses caused to the plaintiff due to the breach of contract in RMB 500,000 yuan; the defendant shall bear the litigation costs of this case.

The defendant Happy Valley Company argued that the copyright of the software "Poch Mouse Computer Tutorial" claimed by the plaintiff should belong to (Taiwan) Heyang Technology Co., Ltd., in view of the copyright dispute between the company and the plaintiff regarding the software involved in the case. The ownership dispute is currently under trial in a Taiwanese court and the case should be suspended. The defendant owned the copyright of the 37 CD-ROMs involved in the case, "Pochi Mouse Children's Computer Multimedia Tutorial Educational Software". The products involved in the "Cooperation Agreement" were 30 computer CD-ROMs. According to the provisions of the draft agreement, the defendant used the plaintiff's "Poch Mouse Computer Multimedia Tutorial Educational Software" to "Tutorial" CD-ROM was revised and remade, resulting in changes in the content and form of the computer CD-ROM. The revised and remastered CD-ROM product contains 37 discs, and the defendant should enjoy the copyright to it. The plaintiff requires the defendant to return the "wave" of the 37 discs involved in the case. "Qi Mouse Computer Tutorial" computer software copyright registration certificate does not make sense.

The defendant performed its obligations in full accordance with the contract and there was no breach of contract. The "Cooperation Draft" and "Agreement" are still valid and should continue to be performed. The plaintiff did not provide any evidence of the defendant's breach of contract, and there was no basis for requiring the defendant to compensate it for economic losses of RMB 500,000. In summary, we request the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim.

In order to prove its claims, the plaintiff Riyue Company submitted the following evidence materials to this court:

1. A set of "Porchi Mouse Computer Tutorial" master discs (37 pieces) and the "R&D Diary" to prove that the "Boqi Mouse Children's Computer Multimedia Tutorial Educational Software" registered by the defendant was independently developed by the plaintiff;

2. The "Cooperation Draft" signed between the plaintiff and the defendant "Contract" to prove the defendant's breach of contract;

3. The "Entrusted Production Contract" signed between the defendant and Beijing Humanities Gold Label Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Humanity Gold Label Company") to prove that the defendant Entrust a third party to copy 1,000 sets of the software and related products involved;

4. The "Agreement" signed by the plaintiff and the defendant to prove the defendant's breach of contract;

5. "Computer "Software Copyright Registration Certificate" and "Comparison Report" are used to prove that the defendant registered the "Poch Mouse Computer Tutorial" independently developed by the plaintiff in its own name;

6. Legal representative of the defendant The "Memorandum" signed by Wang Wei and Xu Lichuan on December 12, 2001 is used to prove that the defendant violated the memorandum;

7. March 29, 2002 and August 16, 2002 The "Notice of Termination" is used to prove that the plaintiff has issued two notices of termination to the defendant.

In order to prove its defense claims, the defendant Happy Valley Company submitted the following evidence materials to this court:

1. "Porchi Mouse Multimedia Series CD Authorization Letter" to prove that the plaintiff Granted the defendant the rights to copyright, reproduction, revision and distribution of the Pochi Mouse multimedia tutorial;

2. The "Entrustment Contract" signed by the defendant and outsiders Xue Li and Liu Hongxia was used to prove that the defendant's interest in "Pochi Mouse" "Children's Computer Multimedia Tutorial" has been revised and created;

3. Chongminchuzi No. 1288 Civil Mediation Letter of the People's Court of Chongwen District, Beijing (2002) of the People's Republic of China, to prove that the defendant The time and quantity of getting the "Pochy Mouse Computer Tutorial" product;

4. "Pochy Mouse Computer Multimedia Tutorial Pickup List" is used to prove that the plaintiff's agent Xu Lichuan commissioned a copy of "Pochy Mouse Computer Multimedia Tutorial" "Computer Tutorial" and extracted some products;

5. Litigation materials for the copyright dispute between (Taiwan) Heyang Technology Co., Ltd. and the plaintiff, used to prove that the plaintiff does not own the "Pochice Computer Tutorial" involved in the case Copyright;

6. Notice from the Civil Division of Taipei District Court, Taiwan, with the same certification matters as above.

The defendant Happy Valley Company issued the following cross-examination opinions on the evidence materials submitted by the plaintiff:

The master disc of the plaintiff’s evidence 1, the “Comparison Report” of evidence 5, and evidence 6 We object to the authenticity of the "Memorandum" and the first "Notice of Termination" of Evidence 7, and believe that the above evidence materials have not fulfilled the notarization and certification procedures; we have no objection to the authenticity of other evidence; the "R&D Diary" of Evidence 1 is a computer The production is completed without the specific time of research and development and the signature of the developer. The software may be decompiled, and this evidence is not probative; Evidence 2, the "Draft Contract" stipulates that the "Porchi Mouse Computer Tutorial" is 30 pieces, and The defendant entrusted the reproduction and distribution of 37 pieces of "Porchi Mouse Children's Computer Multimedia Tutorial". The defendant owned the copyright to the latter and there was no breach of contract. The defendant did not receive the "Notice of Termination" on August 16, 2002 in Evidence 7.

Plaintiff Riyue Company issued the following cross-examination opinions on the evidence materials submitted by the defendant:

It has no objection to evidence 1 and 3; it has objection to evidence 2 and believes that the copyright of the software It should be the writing of the program, the narration and dubbing are not adaptations, and there is no other evidence to prove whether the contract was actually performed; Evidence 4 can prove that most of the software products involved have been taken away by Wang Wei, the legal representative of the defendant, and Xu Lichuan only took away a few Part, and Xu Lichuan was a shareholder of the defendant before October 2002, and he acted on behalf of the defendant. Xu Lichuan only transferred to the plaintiff after October 2002; Evidence 5 does not constitute a reason to suspend the case. This case is a contract dispute, and this evidence is inconsistent with It has nothing to do with this case; Evidence 6 does not have the notarization and certification procedures, and the accused is Lin Minglang personally, so it has nothing to do with this case.

Based on the cross-examination opinions expressed by both parties, this court certifies as follows:

As for the plaintiff’s evidence 1, in view of the fact that the defendant recognized the master disc of the plaintiff’s evidence 1 and the software involved in the case that the defendant commissioned to copy and publish The contents of the products are consistent, and this court confirms this fact; the defendant failed to submit contrary evidence, and this court confirms the probative power of the "R&D Diary". Since the defendant has no objection to the authenticity of the plaintiff’s evidences 2, 3, and 4, this court confirms the validity of the above evidences. Regarding the plaintiff's evidence 5, since the defendant has no objection to the "Computer Software Copyright Registration Certificate", this court confirms it; since the defendant failed to submit contrary evidence, the "Comparison Report" issued by the plaintiff itself is deemed to be its understanding of the contents of the software product involved. Comparative statement of facts. As for the plaintiff’s evidence 6, the defendant disputes its authenticity and believes that the evidence lacks the original and that the “Memo” only has a personal signature. According to the plaintiff’s claim, Xu Lichuan is still a shareholder of the defendant at this time and cannot represent the plaintiff. Therefore, The content of the "Memo" cannot be binding on both the plaintiff and the defendant, so this court does not confirm the probative value of this evidence. Regarding the plaintiff's evidence 7, the defendant did not recognize the authenticity of the first "Notice of Termination", but did recognize the authenticity of the second "Notice of Termination", although the defendant believed that it had not received the second "Notice of Termination" , but this evidence serves as a statement issued unilaterally by the plaintiff to the defendant, and this court confirms the probative force of this evidence.

As for the defendant’s evidences 1, 3, and 4, since the plaintiff has no objection to their authenticity, this court confirms the probative effect of this evidence. As for the defendant’s evidence 2, although the plaintiff disputes its authenticity, the plaintiff admits that the defendant performed narration, dubbing and some modifications to the software involved. Therefore, this court does not recognize the authenticity of this evidence, but the plaintiff admits that The above facts are confirmed. Regarding the defendant’s evidence 5, since the plaintiff has no objection to its authenticity, this court confirms the authenticity and relevance of this evidence. As for defendant’s evidence 6, since the plaintiff has objections to its authenticity, the evidence does not undergo notarization and certification procedures, and the defendant failed to provide further evidence, so this court cannot confirm its authenticity.

Based on the evidence, cross-examination, statements of the parties and the certification of this court, this court found the facts of this case as follows:

On April 18, 2001, the plaintiff Riyue Company and the defendant Happy Gu Company signed a "Draft Agreement on Cooperation". The draft agreement stipulates that the plaintiff will provide CD-ROM products for kindergarten computer teaching courses, and the defendant will be responsible for the marketing, promotion and after-sales service of the product; the content and framework of the CD-ROM product are 30 computer CD-ROMs (the content is divided into three levels), and the first level totals 60 Units, the second level has a total of 60 teaching units, and the third level has a total of 90 game units; if the language version of the CD product needs to be changed (such as Beijing dialect, etc.), the defendant should find appropriate and professional dubbing actors to assist the plaintiff in modifying The optical disc product is used to facilitate the defendant’s marketing and promotion; the defendant is responsible for sending the optical disc product to relevant units for review to comply with the relevant laws and regulations of the target market, so as to facilitate the promotion and legality of the optical disc product; the plaintiff is responsible for modifying the content of the optical disc product for appropriateness , and cooperated with the defendant's adjustment in the third instance; the plaintiff was responsible for providing the defendant with a copy of the complete master disc, icon files, superscript and subscript files, teacher teaching instructions and other original materials for the optical disc product, and handed it over to the defendant for printing, pressing, packaging and Marketing promotion; the plaintiff respects the defendant’s marketing sovereignty and grants the defendant full authority to market promotion and services; the product information and information contacted during the cooperation between the two parties must adhere to the principle of confidentiality and shall not be disclosed to third parties to protect the rights and interests of both parties. The fact of cooperation is not stipulated here; if the defendant needs the plaintiff to send relevant personnel to the defendant’s designated place to assist during the cooperation period, the plaintiff’s personnel’s relevant travel, board and lodging expenses, etc. will be borne by the defendant; the benefit agreement between the two parties is that the optical disc product (Each company) and each set of additional purchases, the defendant will receive 80% of the marketing agency income, and the plaintiff will receive 20% of the authorized income. Both parties will collect their respective incomes based on the product shipment details. The plaintiff will pay the defendant based on the defendant’s product shipment details. Request payment, and issue a certificate or invoice to the defendant based on the income; the intellectual property rights and copyrights of the optical disc product belong to the plaintiff, and the defendants should abide by relevant intellectual property laws and copyright laws; the two parties propose that the effective period of cooperation is 5 years, that is, 2001 From April 18 to April 17, 2005, any changes or modifications must be made in writing after both parties agree; the above draft terms are an outline of cooperation between the two parties, and the relevant details can be separately stated in the formal contract. Signed.

On the same day, the plaintiff and the defendant signed the "Letter of Authorization for the Porchi Mouse Multimedia Series CD-ROMs", which stipulated that the plaintiff authorized the defendant to own the copyright of the Poch Mouse Multimedia Series CD-ROMs in the authorized areas, and could use them in the authorized areas within the authorization period. Enjoy the rights to reprint, revise and distribute the game. The authorized area is mainland China. The authorization period is from April 18, 2001 to April 17, 2005.

On August 19, 2001, the defendant and Humanities Gold Label Company signed a "Commissioned Production Contract" for the Poch Mouse children's computer multimedia tutorial software, stipulating that Humanities Gold Label Company accepted the defendant's entrustment and provided the following goods and services: 1. Design the surface of the software CD with a thirty-nine pattern; 2. Design the color cover and back cover of the safety box with a thirty-nine pattern; 3. Modify and typesetting six volumes of children’s exercise books; 4. Modify and typesetting the teaching manual Four books; 5. Four designs of paper extraction boxes for large classes, middle classes, small classes, and English; 6. One design of a complete set of large packaging boxes for software; 7. One type of thirty-nine type printed film on the software CD; 8. CD master Thirty-nine editions; 9. Thirty-nine thousand software CD copies of the thirty-nine formulas; 10. Thirty-eight thousand transparent benzene rounded corner safety boxes (74 grams each). The contract also stipulates that when the defendant pays the fees listed in the attached fee schedule to Humanities Gold Label Company, he should deliver to Humanities Gold Label Company a check or cash of RMB 139,000 due before September 30 this year when signing the contract. On the 28th, the deposit of RMB 51,000 advanced by Humanity Gold Label Company to the third-party printer was paid.

On August 25, 2001, the plaintiff signed an "Agreement" with the defendant on the matter of entrusting the defendant to apply for computer software copyright in mainland China regarding the computer multimedia product - Pochimo computer multimedia teaching software. It was stipulated that: The defendant applied for copyright registration in China; the original copyright belongs to the plaintiff; the defendant acted on behalf of the plaintiff to distribute the software or related products in China during the cooperation agreement; all software or related products must be manufactured in China before being released The defendant shall be responsible for coordinating and handling the matter, but the defendant shall add the plaintiff's consent column to the power of attorney signed with the manufacturer, and shall not manufacture without authorization before the plaintiff or the plaintiff's designated agent signs it.

On September 26, 2001, the National Copyright Administration of China issued a computer software copyright registration certificate to the defendant Happy Valley Company. The software license was No. 0011120, the registration number was 2001SR4187, and the software name was Poch Mouse Children. The copyright owner of the computer multimedia tutorial education software (abbreviation: Pochice Computer Tutorial) V1.1 is the defendant. It is presumed that the software copyright owner has enjoyed the copyright of the software within the legal period since July 29, 2001.

On June 11, 2002, the People's Court of Chongwen District, Beijing City of the People's Republic of China entered into a dispute regarding the "Commissioned Production Contract" between Humanities Gold Label Company and Happy Valley Company for the Poch Mouse children's computer multimedia tutorial software. "Book" dispute was issued (2002) Civil Mediation Letter No. 1288 named Chongminchu. The main content of the mediation letter is: Before September 30, 2002, Happy Valley Company paid a processing fee of 210,000 yuan to Humanities Gold Label Company.

On June 14, 2002, Humanities Gold Label Company issued a statement on the debt issue entrusted by Happy Valley Company, listing the delivery status of Happy Valley Company to Humanities Gold Label Company’s warehouse on May 23, 2002. It shows that Happy Valley Company has actually withdrawn 748 sets of Pochimo software CDs.

The Poch Mouse children’s computer multimedia tutorial CD produced by Humanity Gold Label Company entrusted by Happy Valley Company is printed with “Authorized by Beijing Happy Valley Technology Co., Ltd.” on the outer packaging box, the CD color seal and the CD surface. "Published and distributed by China Standard Press" and "Copyright reproduction must be investigated". During the trial of this case, the plaintiff recognized that the defendant Happy Valley Company signed a publishing and distribution contract with China Standard Publishing House as the copyright holder of the Pochi Mouse Children's Computer Multimedia Tutorial, but believed that the above content was marked on the CD product without indicating the plaintiff's role. The identity of the copyright holder is a violation of the agreement between the parties. At the same time, the plaintiff believes that the copyright page of the CD involved in the case is marked with the words "Beijing Happy Valley Technology Co., Ltd. Distribution Service All Rights Reserved. Reproduction will be investigated", which is confusing.

On August 16, 2002, the plaintiff sent a fax of a "Notice of Termination" to the defendant, stating that the defendant had violated Article 2, Paragraphs 4, 6, 11 and 4 of the "Cooperation Agreement" , Article 6 and Paragraph 1 of Article 8, as stipulated in Article 6 and Paragraph 1 of Article 8, caused the loss of goodwill and economic interests of the plaintiff and Boqi Mouse software products, so it was decided to terminate the cooperation with the defendant and terminate all documents with the defendant. From this day on, the defendant shall not Any further claims or declarations about the copyright and agency rights of the Pochmouse software and any further sales of Pochmouse will be prohibited, otherwise, subsequent compensation and legal liability will be incurred.

According to the pick-up list for the Pochi Mouse Multimedia Tutorial issued by the defendant Happy Valley Company, Wang Wei, the legal representative of the defendant Happy Valley Company, withdrew Boqi Mouse Multimedia Tutorial from July 30, 2001 to September 19, 2001. There are 58 sets of CD-ROMs in the complete set of multimedia teaching of Qi Mouse Computer and 350 sets of demonstration CDs in multi-media teaching in Poch Mouse Computer; between August 28, 2001 and January 7, 2002, Xu Lichuan extracted 108 sets of CD-ROMs in the complete set of multi-media teaching CDs in Poch Mouse Computer. 101 sets of Pochimo computer multimedia teaching demonstration disks. The defendant believed that Xu Lichuan's behavior of picking up goods represented the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that Xu Lichuan was still a shareholder of the defendant during the above period, and his behavior of picking up goods represented the defendant. Xu Lichuan worked for the plaintiff after October 2002. Since the evidence "Memorandum" submitted by the plaintiff was used to show that Xu Lichuan represented the plaintiff when he signed the memorandum on December 12, 2001, the plaintiff failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove the time of Xu Lichuan's identity change.

The defendant Happy Valley Company claimed that it entrusted Humanity Gold Label Company to produce 1,000 sets of Pochice Multimedia Tutorial CD products involved in the case, and the plaintiff recognized this. However, the defendant claimed that it only received 735 sets of the optical disc product from Humanity Gold Label Company, while Xu Lichuan, the agent of the plaintiff Riyue Company, extracted more than 150 sets of the optical disc product without authorization. The plaintiff did not recognize this, and the plaintiff claimed that the defendant sold at least 1,000 sets of the optical disc product. involved in the case of optical disc products, but failed to submit corresponding evidence to prove it. So far, the defendant has approved the sale of 248 sets of this optical disc product, and the current inventory totals 546 sets, including 346 sets in warehouse inventory. There are about 200 sets of remaining samples that have not been sold in the hands of agents in various places. The market retail price of this optical disc product is 2,500 yuan. However, the actual sales price was about 1,000 yuan. The defendant failed to submit evidence to prove this. The plaintiff objected to the above-mentioned facts recognized by the defendant, but failed to submit corresponding evidence to support its objection.

In the lawsuit, the defendant Happy Valley Company claimed that the 37 optical disc products involved in the case were entrusted by outsiders to complete the narration and dubbing work, and that the 30 optical disc products agreed in the "Cooperation Draft" were modified with graphics, pictures, The structure, music, etc. are revised and produced, and it enjoys the copyright of 37 CD products. However, the plaintiff Riyue Company believes that the defendant only performed narration and dubbing work for the 37-piece optical disc product. The 30-piece optical disc product agreed in the "Cooperation Agreement" was changed to a 37-piece optical disc product by mutual agreement by both parties. The 37-piece optical disc product The copyright is still owned by the plaintiff, and he provided 37 master discs and a "Comparison Report" issued by himself to prove it. According to the "Comparison Report" issued by the plaintiff, the 37-piece master disc and the 37-piece optical disc product involved in the case are identical in other aspects except for the different installation methods and the same part when booting into the screen. There was no objection to the fact that the contents of the 37 optical discs involved in the case were consistent.

During the trial, the defendant Happy Valley Company proposed that the "Cooperation Agreement" stipulates that the plaintiff has the copyright to the Poch Mouse Computer Tutorial software, but the copyright rights are in an uncertain state because the plaintiff's "Pocchi Mouse Computer Tutorial" "The software is suspected of infringing the copyright of (Taiwan) Heyang Technology Co., Ltd., and (Taiwan) Heyang Technology Co., Ltd. has filed criminal and civil lawsuits. Although the plaintiff acknowledges the existence of this fact, it claims that the Taiwan courts have not actually accepted the case. The above facts are not relevant to this case.

After the trial, the plaintiff submitted a copy of the agreement signed by the defendant’s legal representative Wang Wei, Xu Lichuan, and Cheng Zhenwu on March 9, 2001, and the defendant’s May 2002 agreement issued by Humanities Gold Label Company. On the 23rd, a copy of the statistical table showing the quantity of the Boqi Mouse software and related products was extracted to show that Wang Wei, Xu Lichuan, and Cheng Zhenwu were shareholders of the defendant and that the defendant extracted 748 sets of Boqi Mouse software, 359 sets of Boqi Mouse demo disks, etc. However, the submission time of the above-mentioned evidence materials has exceeded the time limit for the plaintiff to produce evidence, and there is no reason to prove that the above-mentioned evidence materials are new evidence, so this court will not accept the above-mentioned evidence materials.

Separately, the plaintiff believed that the defendant Happy Valley Company entrusted the Humanities Gold Label Company to process and produce 1,000 sets of the CD products involved, with each set priced at 2,500 yuan, and all of them had been sold. Based on this, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had entrusted Humanity Gold Label Company to process and produce 1,000 sets of the CD products involved, with a unit price of 2,500 yuan each. The Cooperation Draft stipulates in the income distribution that the company will be compensated RMB 500,000, and the calculation formula is: 1000×2500×20%. The defendant did not accept this and claimed that it actually sold 248 sets and that the plaintiff's representative Xu Lichuan had withdrawn some of the optical disc products involved. Therefore, the plaintiff had actually obtained profits and the defendant should not pay the proceeds from the sale of the optical disc products involved. In addition, the plaintiff did not claim any other economic losses.

This court believes that the "Cooperation Draft" and "Agreement" signed by the plaintiff Riyue Company and the defendant Happy Valley Company are the true expressions of intention of both parties and are legal and valid. According to legal provisions, a contract established in accordance with the law is legally binding on the parties. The parties shall perform their obligations in accordance with the agreement and shall not change or terminate the contract without authorization. The defendant proposed to suspend the trial of this case on the grounds that the plaintiff had a copyright infringement dispute with a non-party (Taiwan) Heyang Technology Co., Ltd. and that the plaintiff’s identity as the copyright holder of the Pochi Mouse computer multimedia tutorial software involved in the case was uncertain. In view of this claim Lacking factual and legal basis, this court will not accept it.

The key issues in dispute between the two parties in this case are: whether the defendant violated the provisions of the "Cooperation Draft" and "Agreement" involved in the case; whether corresponding compensation should be paid to the plaintiff; whether the "Cooperation Draft" and " Should the Agreement be terminated?

First of all, there is the issue of whether the defendant violated the "Cooperation Agreement" involved in the case.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant sold the Pochimo computer multimedia tutorial CD-ROM product involved in the case and failed to pay the plaintiff the income stipulated in the "Cooperation Agreement", which constituted a breach of contract. According to the facts found in this case, the defendant entrusted Humanity Gold Label Company to produce the optical disc products involved and actually extracted 748 sets of the optical disc products. Although the defendant claimed that he had withdrawn 735 sets of the optical disc products involved in the case, he actually sold 248 sets. The sales unit price was 2,500 yuan per set. The actual sales unit price was about 1,000 yuan per set. There are still about 200 sets of the optical disc products involved in the case that are yet to be sold by overseas agents. sales, but it failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove the above statistical results. Although the plaintiff claimed that the defendant entrusted Humanity Gold Label Company to produce 1,000 sets of the optical disc products involved, and actually extracted and sold 1,000 sets of the optical disc products involved, it failed to submit corresponding evidence to prove it. In view of the fact that the defendant admitted that it had an actual inventory of 346 sets, this court deemed the defendant to have sold 402 sets of the involved optical disc products based on the evidence in this case that the defendant actually extracted 748 sets of the optical disc products involved and the actual inventory of 346 sets recognized by the defendant. Since the two parties have no objection to the terms of the Cooperation Draft, which stipulate that the profits will be obtained in proportion to the sales amount of the optical disc products involved, the defendant should pay the plaintiff the corresponding amount in the proportion agreed by both parties for the 402 sets of optical disc products it sold. Income money. Although the "Cooperation Draft" does not clearly stipulate the performance period for the defendant to pay the plaintiff's proceeds, according to the law, if the performance period is not clear, the creditor can request the debtor to perform at any time provided that necessary preparation time is left. Therefore, In view of the fact that the defendant had withdrawn 748 sets of the optical disc products involved in the case and sold them successively on May 23, 2002, the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant on August 16, 2002 that the defendant had not fulfilled its obligation to pay the proceeds and thus terminated the Draft Cooperation Agreement. 》Notice, until the plaintiff filed the lawsuit, the defendant had not paid the plaintiff the corresponding proceeds from the sale of the optical disc products involved in the case. Therefore, the defendant's above behavior should be determined to constitute a breach of contract. The defendant's claim that both parties should negotiate on the payment of proceeds and that the defendant's failure to pay the corresponding proceeds to the plaintiff does not constitute a breach of contract is insufficient and is not accepted by this court.

Secondly, regarding the above-mentioned breach of contract by the defendant, the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant should pay it RMB 500,000 in compensation is valid.

According to the facts found in this case, the plaintiff, through its representative Xu Lichuan, extracted 108 sets of the involved optical disc products between August 28, 2001 and January 7, 2002. The plaintiff claimed that Xu Lichuan did not represent the plaintiff during the above-mentioned period but represented the defendant. Xu Lichuan only had the status of representing the plaintiff after October 2002. Therefore, Xu Lichuan’s behavior of extracting the optical disc products involved during the above-mentioned period cannot be regarded as representing the plaintiff, but as a defendant. shareholders represented the defendant. However, according to the evidence 6 "Memorandum" submitted by the plaintiff, the plaintiff clearly stated that Xu Lichuan signed the "Memorandum" on December 12, 2001 on behalf of the plaintiff. It can be seen that the plaintiff claimed that Xu Lichuan only had the status of representing the plaintiff after October 2002. His statement is contradictory to his statement on Evidence 6 "Memo". Accordingly, it should be determined that the plaintiff’s claim that the period during which Xu Lichuan extracted the optical disc products involved in the case does not represent the plaintiff is untrue. The plaintiff actually extracted 108 sets of the optical disc products involved in the case. Its act of directly extracting the optical disc products involved in the case and disposing of them by itself also violated the "Cooperation Draft", which stipulates that the defendant is responsible for the marketing, promotion and after-sales service of the products. As mentioned above, the defendant actually sold 402 sets of the optical disc product involved. According to the revenue distribution ratio agreed in the "Cooperation Agreement" and the unit price of the optical disc product of 2,500 yuan, the defendant should pay the plaintiff a profit of 201,000 yuan (calculated The formula is 402 × 2500 × 20%), and the plaintiff actually disposed of 108 sets of the optical disc products involved, with an actual value of 270,000 yuan (the calculation formula is 108 × 2500). The value obtained by the plaintiff is enough to offset the defendant’s obligation to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant does not need to pay corresponding profits to the plaintiff for its sales of 402 sets of the optical disc products involved. The plaintiff’s claim in this case that the defendant had sold 1,000 sets of the optical disc product involved and that the defendant had to pay the plaintiff RMB 500,000 in lost profits due to its breach of contract lacked factual and legal basis, and this court will not support it.

Third, regarding whether the defendant’s entrustment to produce the optical disc product involved in the case violated the agreement on copyright rights in the “Cooperation Draft” and “Agreement”.

According to the ascertained facts, the "Cooperation Agreement" stipulated that the plaintiff would provide the 30-disc copyrighted Pochimo computer multimedia tutorial software and the 37-disc Pochimo computer commissioned and sold by the defendant involved in the case. The content of the children's computer multimedia tutorial software is basically the same. Except for necessary changes in narration, dubbing and other aspects in accordance with the "Cooperation Draft", the two are basically the same. The defendant claimed that it had obtained the right to modify the 30-disc Pochi Mouse computer multimedia tutorial software based on the "Authorization Letter" signed by both parties, and that it had made major changes to the software in terms of narration, dubbing, music, graphics, etc. Incorporating the defendant's creative achievements, the 37-disc Pochi Mouse children's computer multimedia tutorial product was formed, and the defendant owned the copyright to the optical disc product. However, the defendant failed to submit corresponding evidence to support its above-mentioned claims, and this court did not accept its above-mentioned claims.

According to the existing evidence in this case, on April 18, 2001, the plaintiff and the defendant signed a "Cooperation Agreement" and a "Letter of Authorization" at the same time. According to the "Letter of Authorization", the defendant was authorized by the plaintiff to own As for the copyright of this optical disc product in mainland China, the defendant has the right to reproduce, modify and distribute it during the authorization period. The "Letter of Authorization" is the concrete content of the copyright rights agreement in the "Cooperation Agreement" and clarifies that the defendant has copyright rights and interests within the scope of authorization for the optical disc product involved. On August 19 of the same year, the defendant entrusted Humanity Gold Label Company to process and produce the optical disc products involved, including copied optical discs and designs, printed packaging boxes, etc. The outer packaging box of the involved optical disc product processed and produced by Humanity Gold Label Company, the optical disc color cover and the optical disc surface are all printed with "Beijing Happy Valley Technology Co., Ltd. authorizes China Standard Publishing House to publish and distribute" and "Copyright reproduction must be There is a copyright statement with the word "Research", and the copyright page of the CD involved in the case indicates "Beijing Happy Valley Technology Co., Ltd. Distribution Service Copyright Copyright must be investigated for reproduction." It can be seen that the defendant's above-mentioned behavior is in compliance with the "Cooperation Agreement" and the "Letter of Authorization". After that, on August 25, the plaintiff and the defendant signed another "Agreement", stipulating that the defendant could apply for copyright registration in China in its own name for the Pochi Mouse computer multimedia tutorial software involved, and the original copyright of the software belonged to the plaintiff.

The "Agreement" no longer confirms that the defendant enjoys the copyright of the optical disc products involved in mainland China, and the content of the copyright rights agreement on the optical disc products involved is consistent with the "Cooperation Agreement."

As to whether the copyright statement marked on the package of the optical disc product involved in the case constitutes a breach of contract, since the defendant’s commission to produce the optical disc product with the copyright statement involved occurred before the signing of the Agreement, and after the Agreement Before the signing of the Letter of Authorization, the defendant enjoyed corresponding rights and interests based on the Letter of Authorization. During the same period, the plaintiff's representative Xu Lichuan and the defendant's legal representative Wang Wei had actually extracted some of the optical disc products involved. Therefore, the copyright statement marked on the packaging of the optical disc products involved was formed in the Agreement Before the signing of the Agreement, the provisions of the Agreement shall not be binding on the defendant's foregoing conduct. Although the above copyright description does not indicate that the plaintiff is the original copyright holder of the optical disc product involved in the case, which is inappropriate, the plaintiff recognized that the defendant applied for copyright registration of the Poch Mouse computer multimedia tutorial software involved in the case in its own name, and authorized China Standard Publishing House to publish and distribute it. The optical disc product involved in the case, therefore, cannot be directly concluded from "Beijing Happy Valley Technology Co., Ltd. authorizes China Standard Publishing House to publish and distribute" and "Copyright reproduction must be investigated" and that the defendant regards himself as the copyright owner of the optical disc product involved and violated the Agreement 》Conclusions on copyright-related agreements. Based on the above reasons, the copyright statement made by the defendant on the optical disc product involved in the case was not in violation of the Agreement signed between the defendant and the plaintiff.