Yu Zhengs infringement refused to apologize to Qiong Yao, the courts compulsory execution of the newspaper.

category:Global
 Yu Zhengs infringement refused to apologize to Qiong Yao, the courts compulsory execution of the newspaper.


In April 15, 2014, in an open letter to the General Administration of radio and television published by micro-blog, Qiong Yao reported that Yu Zhengs palace lock city plagiarized plum flower branding and cited several cases of Yu Zhengs plagiarism as evidence. She pleaded with the General Administration of radio and television to stop broadcasting Yu Zhengs new drama palace 3 and appealed to the audience not to look at the drama. In April 28, 2015, Qiong Yao formally sued Yu Zheng for infringement, while he was also responsible for the broadcasting unit Hunan satellite TV. In December 25th, the third intermediate peoples Court of Beijing declared the case. The court decided that palace lock city violated the adaptation of the plum flower brand, and Yu Zheng was asked to make an open apology to Qiong Yao, and the total of the five defendants was 5 million yuan. Yu Zheng then appealed. The Beijing High Court ruled after the second instance: dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment. The Beijing high court WeChat public number Beijing law network the document introduced, the Beijing third center in January 2, 2018 formally accepted the case accepted Chen Zhe (Qiong Yao) applied for the implementation of the Levy (Yu Zheng) infringement copyright case. The application executive Chen Zhe (Qiong Yao) requested that the main content of the judgment be published in the Legal Daily, and the cost will be borne by the executor Yu Zheng (Yu Zheng). According to the article, according to the requirements of the implementation of this case, we should publish an apology statement on Sina, Sohu network, music network and phoenix net in ten days from the date of the decision, and make an apology to Chen Zhe publicly, eliminate the influence and fail to fulfill the time. The third intermediate peoples Court of Beijing will publish in the Legal Daily. The main contents of the decision are to be borne by the rest. The Beijing law network introduced the execution process of the court in detail. The article said that after the court decision, the executive judge of the Third Hospital of Beijing repeatedly called the rest of the contact telephone, but both indicated that the other party had already turned off. In order to actively facilitate the applicant to carry out the content of the decision, the executive team mailed the notice and the summons to the registered permanent residence and the habitual residence after the call failed, but the relevant judicial post was returned. The article introduced that in January 25, 2018, the executive team informed micro-blog about the execution of the case through the remainder of the case, but did not receive any response. After that, the executive team went to the company to find and deliver the relevant legal documents. The companys front desk refused to accept the service on the grounds that it was not in the company and could not receive legal documents for it. The article said that until March 2018, Yu Zhengcai commissioned an agent to accept the first talk in the third hospital. During the second conversation, the agent said he had not fulfilled his obligation to apologize, but he was in contact with Chen Zhe for reconciliation. Chen Zhes agent told the third chamber of commerce that he did not accept the terms of the execution conciliation put forward by the other side, and demanded the third central hospital to enforce it. The above article introduced that in April 26th, the third intermediate court of Beijing published the case in the fourth edition of the Legal Daily in the fourth edition of the Legal Daily. The source of this article: surging news editor: Li Tian Yi _NN7528