In the circle of friends at random? You can be infringed if you dont keep your mind

category:Global
 In the circle of friends at random? You can be infringed if you dont keep your mind


Minefield 1 Public number replicating articles A barbers claim to millions of claims Mr. Lee is a barber in Jiangxi. Because he wants to buy wardrobe at home decoration, he goes to the local furniture market. A shop claims to sell formaldehyde free furniture, and some of the plates used are the most environmentally friendly in the market. Mr. Li was very moved. He asked the store to design and put forward many requests. Finally, because of the price beyond the psychological scope, Mr. Lee gave up buying. The shop assistant was dissatisfied with a few sarcastic remarks. Mr. Lee felt very embarrassed and his pride hurt. After that, he listened to a carpenter, saying that the custom furniture was not as good as the merchant said. No formaldehyde was deceptive. He copied the articles related to the sheet products on the Internet, and published it in his personal name. Nearly a year later, he published another similar article, which eventually attracted the attention of a company in Beijing. The company said the company is the largest supplier of zero formaldehyde straw sheet production in China. The product has passed the worlds most stringent zero formaldehyde certification in the United States and Japan, and through the ten ring certification of the original national environmental protection department, it is an environmental protection board that truly meets the national ecological requirements. The article maliciously denigrated its product performance and quality, resulting in a large number of unidentified buyers accusing and demanding refunds, resulting in a sharp decline in product sales and a sharp decline in the commercial reputation of the plaintiff in the industry, making a claim for millions of yuan. In the trial, Mr. Li said that only 35 people were concerned when he published the article in the public address. He never thought he would have an impact on the plaintiff. He apologized, but he did not agree with the compensation. He thought the decline in the companys performance had nothing to do with his article. After the trial, the court held that Mr. Li had copied and copied the articles on the network by his WeChat public number, rather than through an in-depth investigation. At the same time, the contents of Mr. Li would have made a bad impression on the product of the plaintiff, thus making a certain impact on the goodwill of the plaintiff, so it should be liable for tort liability. . Accordingly, the court decided that Mr. Lee deleted the article and issued an apology statement on his public account, which would compensate the plaintiff for notarization fees and attorney fees for a total of 32 thousand yuan. Minefield 2 The same behavior as plagiarism dog Constitute unfair competition The A company, which is engaged in the service of studying abroad, launched an article in the companys WeChat public number, accusing the company of B as plagiarism, guilty conscience and deceive the customers. This article is widely read and is also widely forwarded. B company believes that as an intermediary colleague of studying abroad, A company widely disseminating and disseminating falsely false facts and maliciously slander its plagiarism, in order to borrow the high reputation and good reputation of the company to study in the intermediary industry of studying abroad, in order to achieve its unfair competition and bring great economic losses. To this end, the other party is requested to stop infringement and compensate for economic losses of 400 thousand yuan and a reasonable cost of over 10 yuan. But A said that the company only told the truth to the public, and all clarifications and words were objective and moderate. Even because of the improper use of some language because of anger, it is entirely the simple emotion of the general public. It is completely understandable that this is essentially different from the unfair competition act stipulated in the law. According to the court, As speech is a subjective assumption that is out of fact. It is an overreading of real situation, highly offensive rather than ordinary peoples simple emotions. The act constitutes a commercial slander for B company, which belongs to unfair competition. Accordingly, the defendant was ordered to stop infringement, apologize and compensate for economic losses of 20 thousand yuan and a reasonable expenditure of 20 thousand yuan. A judges hint Main evidence for infringement Tan Naiwen, a judge of Chaoyang Court, said that in recent years, WeChats public number and know how Internet has sprung up from the media. However, different from the traditional media of the more stringent release and supervision mode, the media often lack of pre - supervision, and the intellectual property disputes involving the media have increased. Among them, the enterprise public number can not only infringe on the reputation right of others, but also may constitute a commercial slander in unfair competition. Many enterprises, when operating micro signals from the media and publishing their friends circles, may infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of others due to improper publication. WeChat public number operators need to raise their duty of care to release information, stop issuing false statements, conduct commercial slander or unfair competition. The infringed company and individual should improve the consciousness of self protection and rights protection, pay attention to the preservation of the evidence and, when necessary, carry out proof by means of notarization process and credible time stamp, and safeguard its own rights and interests according to the law. Minefield 3 Unauthorized publication of pictures of others Be sentenced to 6000 yuan Many people encounter beautiful and interesting photography pictures or animation art works will be kept in hand, these works often do not know the source and the author, in the circle of friends freely uploaded. As a matter of fact, a small picture may also lead to copyright infringement risks. An image technology company in Beijing sued that it was the only authorized agent in China, the worlds largest picture supplier, the United States, the worlds largest image supplier. The Hengdian film and television Limited by Share Ltd, without permission, used the copyright photography of the company in its Hengdian film and television and Hengdian film and television city by the WeChat public. The right to spread the information network of its photographic works. The company has repeatedly requested the Hengdian company to authorize the use of documents or stop infringement and compensate for economic losses, but it has been rejected. For this reason, the prosecution requires the other party to stop the infringement immediately and compensate for the economic losses and safeguard the right expenses by twenty thousand yuan. Finally, under the mediation of the court, the two sides reached an agreement to pay the plaintiffs royalties 6000 yuan. A judges hint Unidentified images are not uploaded as much as possible. For the fingertip family, when uploading pictures to publish a circle of friends, we should do it: the pictures of unknown sources should not be uploaded as far as possible; the rights holders should be authorized to publish the pictures of others; the author and the source should be indicated in the reasonable use of the pictures of others; the notice of receipt of the infringement should be deleted in time. The business number is sentenced to compensation The Chongqing company believes that the WeChat public number operated by the company is designed to provide learning for its employees, and its work is from Sohu. In addition, the companys WeChat public number has been suspended for only two months, and has been deleted immediately after receiving the complaint. The court found that the defendant had not been permitted to carry the works in the WeChat public, which had been operated by the defendant without permission, and infringed the plaintiffs right to transmit the information network to the work, and the decision was made to compensate 500 yuan. Minefield 5 Micro merchants were sentenced to infringement Active in WeChats circle of friends, often in the form of graphic and marketing methods for commercial promotion. However, it is important to note that the use of registered trademarks must comply with the law, otherwise it will easily lead to litigation. The cosmetics brand company claims that the company has the right to register the trademark concerned, and it has never licensed Ms. Wang to sell related products. The other partys sales behavior in WeChats friends circle violated its trademark right without the companys consent. In the trial, Ms. Wang could not prove the legitimate source of the cosmetics sold. In addition, the products sold are not authentic. After hearing, the court finally decided that Ms. Wangs behavior infringed the trademark rights of the plaintiff and ordered him to compensate for the corresponding economic losses. The judge prompts the micro merchants to insist on the honesty without bullying the judge Tan Naiwen. According to the trademark law, the sale of the goods that infringe the exclusive right of the registered trademark is an act of infringing the exclusive right to use the registered trademark; the sale is not known as a commodity that infringes the exclusive right of the registered trademark, and it can prove that the commodity is legally acquired and provided by itself. The person who does not bear the liability for compensation. In this reminding, to engage in micro business, one is to adhere to the integrity of the non bullying, to achieve regular channels of purchase; two is to retain the relevant vouchers, in order to prepare the legal source of goods when necessary. Source: Beijing Morning Post editor in charge: Xun Jianguo _NN7379 The cosmetics brand company claims that the company has the right to register the trademark concerned, and it has never licensed Ms. Wang to sell related products. The other partys sales behavior in WeChats friends circle violated its trademark right without the companys consent. In the trial, Ms. Wang could not prove the legitimate source of the cosmetics sold. In addition, the products sold are not authentic. After hearing, the court finally decided that Ms. Wangs behavior infringed the trademark rights of the plaintiff and ordered him to compensate for the corresponding economic losses. A judges hint The micro business should adhere to honesty and integrity without bullying In this reminding, to engage in micro business, one is to adhere to the integrity of the non bullying, to achieve regular channels of purchase; two is to retain the relevant vouchers, in order to prepare the legal source of goods when necessary.