reported on August 30, , in the early morning of the 30th, according to a court judgment, Feng Xiaogang had previously taken a Vitiligo Hospital in Hebei to court. Obviously, the hospital used Feng Xiaogang’s condition for publicity and profit. This behavior violated Feng Xiaogang's legitimate rights and interests.
The verdict shows that a Vitiligo Hospital, as the plaintiff, published an article in a certain self-media that "Don’t be more sad than Feng Xiaogang, you have vitiligo on your body". The article used multiple portraits of Feng Xiaogang and inserted them in the article. The advertisement of the hospital. Obviously, the Vitiligo Hospital used Feng Xiaogang's portrait for commercial promotion.
Feng Xiaogang won the case. As the defendant, the Vitiligo Hospital must publicly apologize and compensate Feng Xiaogang for various economic losses totaling 410,000 yuan.
Wonderful barrage, all on the client side &xe61d;
Feng Xiaogang’s latest update was to attend Song Dandan’s birthday party, and it looks good. Full text of the
ruling:
, the plaintiff Feng Xiaogang, alleged that the defendant published an article titled "Don't be more sad than Feng Xiaogang, you can't afford the vitiligo on your body" on the WeChat public account "Baoding Huaren Vitiligo Hospital HR". The defendant used multiple portraits of the plaintiff in the article without the authorization of the plaintiff, and implanted prominently in the article "The 3D skin CT introduced by Huaren Vitiligo Hospital is based on the principle of optical focusing, using computer 3D Three-dimensional tomographic imaging technology, intuitive, real-time and dynamic observation of the occurrence, development and skin lesions of patients with vitiligo and other skin diseases advanced detection equipment" and other advertising slogans and telephone, WeChat QR code and other commercial promotional information. The defendant used the plaintiff’s social reputation to attract people’s attention to promote its brand and medical services. This action has obvious commercial attributes, and it is easy for many viewers and consumers to mistakenly believe that the plaintiff and the defendant have a certain cooperative relationship. However, this was seriously inconsistent with the facts and caused the plaintiff to suffer many misunderstandings from the outside world. The defendant's infringement facts are clear, and he shall bear corresponding legal liabilities according to law. Therefore, the appeal to the Beijing Internet Court requires: 1. Order the defendant to publicly apologize to the plaintiff in a nationally distributed newspaper. The request: the content of the apology should include the case number and main content of the judgment in this case, and the content of the apology must be confirmed by the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s agent The apology page should not be smaller than 9.0cm*14.0cm; 2. ordered the defendant to compensate the plaintiff with 400,000 yuan for economic losses and 10,000 yuan for reasonable expenses such as rights protection costs. The above items totaled 410,000; 3. the defendant was responsible for the case Litigation fees .
The defendant Baoding Huaren Vitiligo Hospital filed an objection to the jurisdiction during the submission of the statement of defense, saying that the infringement in this case is under the jurisdiction of the people’s court at the place of infringement or where the defendant is domiciled.The defendant's residence in this case is Lianchi District, Baoding City, and the place of infringement is also Lianchi District, Baoding City. Therefore, the court is requested to rule in accordance with the law to transfer the case to the People's Court of Lianchi District, Baoding City for trial.
Upon review, this court found that this case was a dispute over online infringement liability. In accordance with Article 28 of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" and Article 24 and Article 25 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China", the infringement was filed The litigation of the lawsuit shall be under the jurisdiction of the people’s court at the place of infringement or where the defendant is domiciled. The place of infringement includes the place where the infringement is carried out and the place where the result of the infringement occurs. In information network infringement cases, the place where the infringement result occurs includes the domicile of the infringed person. According to the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts, the Beijing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou Internet Courts shall have the jurisdiction of the municipality where the Internet courts have centralized jurisdiction. The first-instance case of disputes arising from rights. In this case, the plaintiff Feng Xiaogang alleged that the defendant was the operator of the WeChat public account "Baoding Huaren Vitiligo Hospital HR", and the defendant used pictures of the plaintiff's portrait in the WeChat public account, infringing the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests. Therefore, this case can be applied to the above-mentioned regional jurisdiction regulations on information network infringement cases. Feng Xiaogang’s domicile is located in Xicheng District, Beijing. As the party claiming the infringement, his domicile can be regarded as the place where the infringement result of this case occurred, so this court has jurisdiction over this case.
In accordance with Article 28, Paragraph 1 of Article 127 of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China", Article 24 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China", Article 25. Article 2 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts ruled as follows:
rejected the defendant Baoding Huaren Vitiligo Hospital's objection to the jurisdiction of this case. The
case acceptance fee of 70 yuan was borne by the defendant Baoding Huaren Vitiligo Hospital.
If you disagree with this ruling, you may submit an appeal letter to this court within ten days from the date of service of the ruling, and submit copies according to the number of the other parties or representatives, and appeal to the Fourth Intermediate People's Court of Beijing.
(responsible editor: Chen Shaojie_b6952)
