The following are several recent typical cases related to intellectual property rights from the People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing, for reference only.
Reviewer: Li Dongtao (judge of Haidian District Court, Beijing, chief judge of the case)
1. Determination of authorship in the Internet environment: Chen Weihua v. Chengdu Computer Business Information Agency (1999 )
"3D Sesame Street" is the name of a personal homepage on the Internet, and the moderator is signed by "Wufang". On May 10, 1998, an article titled "Joking about MAYA" was uploaded to the personal homepage, and the author's signature was also "Wufang". On October 16, 1998, the defendant published this article (the author was signed as "Wufang") in the "Computer Business Intelligence" magazine sponsored by him.
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Beijing Haidian District People’s Court (hereinafter referred to as the court) on the grounds that the defendant had infringed its copyright. The plaintiff can change the password of his personal homepage "3D Sesame Street" and can upload and delete files.
The defendant argued that it denied the infringement, but admitted that the plaintiff was "unfair".
The court ruled that the defendant’s infringement was established.
Analysis:
Chinese law stipulates that in the absence of proof to the contrary, the person who signs the work is the author. The moderator of the personal homepage "3D Sesame Street" and the author of the article "Joking about MAYA" are both signed by "Wufang". Under normal circumstances, modification of the personal homepage password, addition and deletion of content can only be completed by the registrant of the personal homepage. The plaintiff is able to change the password of the personal homepage, upload files, and delete files. The defendant has accordingly recognized that it is "without party" and has not provided contrary evidence to prove the existence of special circumstances. Therefore, the plaintiff should be "without party." The copyright of the article "Joking about MAYA" belongs to him.
[--------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
2. In network environment Protection of business reputation: Beijing Putian New Energy Technology Development Company v. Beijing Zhongbei High-Tech Mechanical and Electrical Company (1999)
Plaintiff Putian Company and defendant Zhongbei Company are both companies that produce active speakers. Their products All are sold in the domestic market. In June 1998, Zhongbei Company sued Putian Company for unfair competition (false advertising). After court mediation, Putian Company admitted the infringement and the two parties reached a settlement agreement. After that, Zhongbei Company published news containing derogatory terms against Putian Company on the homepage of its website; at the same time, Zhongbei Company also made the indictment of the case and the court's mediation letter into a web page, linked to the homepage, time* **83 days total. The indictment contains content that has not been recognized by the court and reflects Zhongbei Company's own will, such as "the defendant (Putian Company) has blatantly violated the plaintiff's (Zhongbei Company)'s exclusive trademark rights."
The court ruled that the defendant was guilty of infringement and should publish a statement on its website homepage for 83 consecutive days to publicly apologize to the plaintiff.
Analysis:
Business reputation and product reputation are the basic guarantees for competitors to gain market competitive advantage. The defendant posted messages containing derogatory terms against the plaintiff on the homepage of its website, and spread the indictment and mediation letter from the previous case in cyberspace. During this process, although the defendant did not change the original contents of the mediation letter and the indictment, the indictment contained content that was not recognized by the court and reflected its own will, and lacked necessary evidence to support it, which was enough to damage the plaintiff's business reputation and reputation. Product reputation.
------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------
3. Originality of the homepage : Ruide (Group) Company v. Yibin Cuiping District Oriental Information Service Co., Ltd. (1999)
The plaintiff is a well-known ISP in China.
The defendant is also a small company that provides online services (compared to the plaintiff).
At the end of 1998, the plaintiff discovered that the homepage of the defendant’s website was similar to the homepage of its website (picture: left, the plaintiff’s homepage; right, the defendant’s homepage).
The plaintiff brought a lawsuit to court on the ground that the defendant had infringed its copyright.
The defendant argued that it denied infringement, but did not provide evidence to prove that the homepage whose copyright belongs to it was independently created by it or was already in the public domain.
The plaintiff also did not provide evidence to prove that there was a link problem on the defendant’s homepage.
The court ruled that the defendant’s infringement was established.
Analysis:
Although the colors, text and some icons (such as the icon "new", which can be found in the online gallery) used on the plaintiff's homepage are in the public domain, the The colors, text, and icons on the homepage are digitally combined in a specific way to give people a sense of beauty, rather than a simple arrangement of objective facts according to objective laws. It should be the embodiment of a unique idea, which is exactly the originality The core content.
------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------
4. False advertising in the Internet environment: Beijing Heming Rixin Market Development Service Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Xunhe Technology Co., Ltd. (1999)
Both the plaintiff and the defendant are companies that provide network information services. They all provide information services introducing Chinese law firms and lawyers on their respective websites. The plaintiff provided this service before the defendant.
The plaintiff published an advertisement on its website to promote that its website is "the first website on the Internet that comprehensively and intensively introduces Chinese law firms and their lawyers to the world."
The defendant also promoted the same content on its website and emphasized that its website "is currently the most authoritative comprehensive legal information site in China."
The plaintiff sued the court on the grounds that the defendant engaged in unfair competition (false advertising).
The defendant argued that it denied infringement, but did not provide evidence to prove that other websites provided such services before the plaintiff.
The court ruled that the defendant’s infringement was established.
Analysis:
The prohibition of false advertising is not only to protect the interests of competitors, but also to protect the interests of consumers. This is also true in online space. The defendant, without any factual basis, used decorative advertising terms such as "first" and "most authoritative" on its webpage, alluding to the service quality of other websites that provide such services, including the plaintiff, thus misleading the public. Violates the legitimate competition rights of others.
--------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
5. In network environment Counterfeiting: Beijing Jinhongen Computer Company v. Beijing Huist Technology Development Center (2000)
Both the plaintiff and the defendant are providers of stock market software.
In 1999, the plaintiff completed the development of its main product "Stock God" software, which was mainly used for stock market management. Due to the high performance of the product, the plaintiff also conducted advertising in China, and soon after the product was put on the market, it ranked among the top 10 in sales rankings.
The two Chinese characters "Stock God" are also the plaintiff's registered trademarks (Class 9) and are used for computer hardware.
Since the beginning of 2000, the defendant began to sell its own stock trading software "Stock Market Classic" under the name "Stock God 2000". The defendant used "Stock God 2000" on product packaging and as a link logo to promote "Stock Market Classic" on the website.
The contents of the two software are not consistent, and the fonts of the two "stock gods" are also different, but their pronunciation is the same.
The court ruled that the defendant’s infringement was established.
Analysis:
The plaintiff’s “Stock God” software has become a well-known commodity. The word "Stock God" used by the defendant is different in font from the "Stock God" used by the plaintiff, but there is no difference in pronunciation. The defendant changed the name of the "Stock Market Classic" software to "Stock God 2000", and in the two professional software The connection and comparison between the products was established, misleading consumers, and reducing the product reputation of the plaintiff's "Stock God" software and the ability of the "Stock God" registered trademark to identify products when entering the market.
--------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
6. Use of search engines ：Ye Yanbin v. Beijing Sitong Lifang Information Technology Co., Ltd. Copyright Dispute Case (2001)
In January 2000, Tianjin Xinlei Publishing House published the book "The Feeling on the Road", and the author was signed by Ye Yanbin , the plaintiff in this case.
Thereafter, the plaintiff used the search engine of the defendant's Sina website and entered the keyword "Feeling on the Road Ye Yanbin" and retrieved the work located on a third-party website.
2001 On January 3, 2018, the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant, requesting the defendant to stop uploading "Feeling on the Road" on Sina website without its consent, but the defendant refused.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for copyright infringement.
The defendant argued that it denied infringement.
The court ruled that the plaintiff’s claim of copyright infringement by the defendant could not be established.
Analysis:
Provide keyword search engine services, similar to putting fish nets, the information searched is the fish in the net; without determining whether the fish in the net are poisonous (infringement) Before, we should not tear the fishing net. In other words, in this case, such search services are not equivalent to the use of works. If the plaintiff fails to clarify the legal nature of uploading its works on other websites, the plaintiff should not assume that the defendant’s behavior constitutes infringement. by holding the defendant accountable.