Hot search first!Well -known actors claim 1.01 million

Hot search first! The well -known film and television actor Gong Jun brought Fengchao to court.

Relevant civil ruling shows that the plaintiff Gong Jun complained that the defendant Fengchao Company placed a variety of pictures containing the portrait of Gong Jun in the "Fengchao" express cabinet display interface across the country. The collection fee to the outside world has obvious commercial profit, and violates the plaintiff's right to name and the right to portrait. The plaintiff requested the court to order the defendant to apologize and compensate the plaintiff's economic loss and rights protection expenditure of 1.01 million yuan.

Subsequently, the topic of#随 随 随 随 随 随 随 随 随#quickly rushed to the hot search.

Regarding Gong Junfang's allegations, Fengchao Company responded that preparing to deal with the disputes of the lawsuit, all the court's final rules shall prevail.

Gong Jun brought Fengchao to court

On September 20, the civil ruling disclosed by the Beijing Court Judgment Information Network showed that the plaintiff Gong Jun claimed that starting at least from October 30, 2021, the defendant Fengchao Company's "Fengchao" express cabinet display screen interface across the country Put a variety of pictures containing Gong Jun's portraits, and the words "Gong Jun" and "Teacher Gong" are marked next to the portraits.

In addition, after further investigation, the defendant put a large number of pictures containing the plaintiff's name and portrait in Dongcheng District, Xicheng District, and Haidian District in Beijing. At the same time, it was not limited to Beijing. Municipal, Haikou City and many other cities have been put in large areas and used the above content.

The plaintiff Gong Jun is a well -known film and television actor, and has starred in many popular film and television works such as "Sword Dazz", "Drunk and Exquisite", "Peerless Thousands of Gold", "To Our Sweet Little Four", "Shanhe Ling". There are endorsements and cooperative relationships with many well -known brands at home and abroad.

The plaintiff's name and portrait have a certain public recognition and high commercial use value. The plaintiff believes that the defendant will put a photo containing the plaintiff's name and portrait on a large scale to the "Fengchao" cabinet display across the country. The purpose of propaganda is to use the plaintiff's popularity, influence and commercial value to attract traffic to its brand. To achieve the effect of advertising, at the same time charging investment fees at the same time, it has obvious commercial profitability. The "false endorsement" method is good at using the plaintiff's name and portrait to infringe the right to name and portrait of the plaintiff.

The screening service needs to be reviewed by manual review

It is understood that the defendant Shenzhen Fengchao Technology Co., Ltd. "I want to dominate the screen" section with the official registration and operation of the WeChat public account "Fengchao Smart Cabinet" (WeChat: HIVEBOX) provides a paid -to -screen service to the public. After the user uploads the picture to select the screen time, and the target "Fengchao" cabinet that is expected to cast the screen can be paid, you can pay it. After the completion, the defendant will be approved by the defendant's review and pass the screen.

Figure: Fengchao Smart Cabinet Public Account

The plaintiff Gong Jun pointed out that according to the process of advertising in charge of the defendant, users need to be manually reviewed by the defendant after uploading related pictures. Therefore, the launch of such a large number of infringements of the plaintiff has passed the manual review of the defendant.

The plaintiff's image has a high popularity in China, and its name and portrait have high commercial value. In the case of the defendant's unauthorized use of the plaintiff's name and portrait without the plaintiff's permission, the defendant was also greatly disrespectful to the plaintiff, which caused a serious economic loss to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the court requested that the defendant ordered the defendant to apologize and compensate the plaintiff's economic loss and rights protection expenditure of 1.01 million yuan.

Fengchao's objection to jurisdiction

Dedicated by the court

During the submission of the defense, the defendant objected to the jurisdiction. He believed that the network infringement of the name of the name and the right to portrait the right to portraits was actually a user of the Internet users who used the Internet products and services provided by the Internet users in the process of using the defendant's network products and services provided by the defendant. Acts, including the ordering and performance of online products and services, and the disputes arising from this occur on the Internet. According to relevant regulations, this case shall be tried by the Beijing Internet Court.

The plaintiff applied for the explicit objection proposed by the defendant and did not agree with the application of the jurisdiction.

In the end, the People's Court of Chaoyang District, Beijing believes that the lawsuit filed by the infringement was under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the infringement or the place where the defendant rested. The place of infringement, including the place where the infringement was implemented and the infringement results occurred.

The People's Court of Chaoyang District of Beijing pointed out that Internet infringement disputes mainly rely on the Internet, and the evidence is mainly generated and stored on the Internet. In this case, the plaintiff believes that the defendant's behavior on the physical "Fengchao Smart Cabinet" constituted infringement, and for the fact that the facts were taken offline to obtain evidence. Although the behavior of choosing and submitting the picture is completed in the network space, the final result is presented in physical space. The results of the plaintiff's photos were not allowed to display on the "Fengchao Smart Cabinet" on the Internet. The "Fengchao Smart Cabinet" is widely used in various places. The plaintiff is reasonable in the background of the new crown epidemic.

In summary, the People's Court of Chaoyang District of Beijing confirmed that Beijing Chaoyang District is a place of infringement, so the court has jurisdiction over the case. The defendant rejected the defendant Shenzhen Fengchao Technology Co., Ltd.'s objection to the jurisdiction of the case. The case acceptance fee is 50 yuan, which is borne by the defendant Shenzhen Fengchao Technology Co., Ltd.

Source: China Fund News

- END -