Original title: When short videos put on the cloak of "justice"
Comics: Mu Yi
Comics: Mu Yi
When short videos put on the cloak of "justice", they suppress competitors and win in the name of "exposing the shady story" At the same time, it will bring bad reputation to the opponent. In the traffic economy, is such “exposed” behavior considered an infringement? Recently, the defendant, a company in Shanxi Province, released a short video "Exposing the Shady Story of Dual-Purpose Bows" on an online platform operated by it. It quoted a promotional video clip of the plaintiff's rights and made the following statements: "passing off fakes as inferior ones" and "imitations can only Negative comments such as "relying on low prices to gain attention". The plaintiff, a company in Shandong Province, believed that the video content released by the defendant had damaged its product reputation and business reputation and constituted commercial defamation. It requested the Shizhong District People's Court of Jinan City, Shandong Province to order the defendant to stop the infringement and compensate for losses -
in the name of "justice" He flagged down his opponent
, "Today's video is for justice." "All the villains on the market are trying to imitate him." "Authentic products are genuine after all, and imitations are always imitations. Imitations can only rely on low prices to gain attention." ... In 2022, a company in Shanxi uploaded a video "exposing the shady secrets of dual-purpose bows" on an account operated by an online platform. The video was divided into two parts. The main content of the first part of the video is to explain and compare whether compound bows can be air-laid, and explain the principle of air-laid compound bows. This part of the content quoted video clips from the account authorized by Chen, a person outside the case, to promote a company in Shandong. In the description of the above-mentioned video clip, a company in Shanxi used the so-called "justice" description in the video. After the first part of the
video ended, the second part of the video first stated: "Some people have lost their conscience and use fake products as inferior products." "Do you think you should buy a few high-end laminated bow blades from Leng Bing Wang?" , if you find a small workshop, what you make will be called the 'Challenger' second generation." Later, the video released a screenshot of the chat record. The main content of the screenshot was that a consumer asked about purchasing "Challenger" compound bow accessories. The consumer stated that he purchased a compound bow product from a company in Shandong and explained the product model. After taking a screenshot of the chat, the video stated, "Some people are always like this, doing things without conscience." The video ended here, and people in the comment area who did not know the truth were incited to "speak ill" of a company in Shandong. Is the publisher of
video infringing?
A company in Shandong filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Shizhong District, Jinan City on the grounds that the content described in a video released by a company in Shanxi damaged the reputation of its products and business reputation and constituted unfair competition. A company in Shandong claimed that its company is a leading enterprise in the compound bow industry and has been rated as the "Executive Director Unit" of the Shandong Sports Industry Federation, and has won multiple national, provincial, and municipal awards in this field. After a company in Shanxi released the above-mentioned video, it was widely played, forwarded, collected, and commented on. It was disseminated widely and had a negative impact on it. Request the court to order the defendant to stop unfair competition and delete the video involved in the case; the defendant eliminates the impact of the infringement facts and publicly apologizes to the plaintiff in the form of a video to clarify the facts; the defendant compensates the plaintiff for economic losses of RMB 300,000.
A company in Shanxi believes that it does not engage in unfair competition behaviors such as malicious distortion or slander. The "Challenger" compound bow is deeply loved by the majority of compound bow enthusiasts and has a certain reputation in the domestic compound bow market. The plaintiff, knowing the influence of the product, sold products that were highly similar to the "Cold Soldier King Challenger" compound bow at low prices on the Internet platform in the name of "Challenger Dual-purpose Compound Bow". This behavior confused consumers. This leads to consumers being unable to provide after-sales service through reasonable channels after purchase. Based on this, the defendant released relevant videos on the online platform to inform consumers of the truth, which was not inappropriate. Moreover, the defendant company believed that the plaintiff had no evidence to prove the losses it claimed and should bear the consequences of being unfavorable in producing evidence. In summary, we request the court to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim in accordance with the law.
Traffic economy cannot deviate from the rule of law.
The City Central District Court held after trial that the business contents of the plaintiff and defendant companies were related to compound bows, so there was a competitive relationship between the two companies.
The judge said that commercial defamation does not require the perpetrator to specify the name of the target, only that the specific target can be identified. Although the narrator in the video involved in the case did not clearly identify the target as a company in Shandong, the processed video content and chat screenshots cited in the video can allow viewers of the video to directly infer that the target of the video is a company in Shandong. company, therefore the content of the video involved should be considered an evaluation of a Shandong company and its statements.
According to the content of the video involved in the case, the explanation and interpretation of the principle of air release of the compound bow in the video involved is only an objective explanation by a company in Shanxi to the statement of air release in the video of a company in Shandong, and no expressions that may cause other people to misunderstand are used. Therefore, the case is involved. This part of the video does not constitute unfair competition. However, the name of the video involved in the case is "Exposing the shady secrets of dual-purpose bows", and after explaining the principle of air release of compound bows, he made "Today's video is for justice", "Air release is a funny joke", "So some people can't even understand the principle. They don’t even know how to use it as a marketing gimmick.” Expressions such as “Genuine products are genuine after all, imitations are always imitations, and imitations can only rely on low prices to attract attention.” These expressions are obviously negative and emotional, and they are obviously guiding. The purpose of video viewers making negative evaluation conclusions about the content of the quoted video part. Regarding the issue of whether the statement in the video of a certain company in Shandong is objectively inappropriate, during the trial, a certain company in Shanxi did not submit corresponding evidence. Therefore, the above statements in the video of a certain company in Shanxi constituted unfair competition that lowered the reputation of a certain company in Shandong. .
Both the original and defendant companies recognized that some of the products sold by a Shandong company were from the manufacturer of the "Challenger" compound bow claimed by a Shanxi company. Therefore, in the video, "Some people have lost their conscience. Expressions such as "Take fake products and pass them off as inferior ones" and "Do you think you can buy a few high-grade laminated bow blades from Leng Bingwang and then find a small workshop and make something called Challenger II?" etc., which lowers Shandong's reputation. The content of a company’s product reputation and business reputation constitutes unfair competition. A company in Shanxi announced that the products of a company in Shandong were counterfeit products, and its behavior itself constituted unfair competition that reduced the reputation and business reputation of a company in Shandong.
In summary, the court finally ruled that the video involved in the case released by a Shanxi company constituted unfair competition that damaged the business reputation of a Shandong company, and the Shanxi company should be responsible for stopping the infringement and compensating for losses.
Observation and Thought
Let’s work together to create a clean and upright online business environment.
Short video publishers should objectively evaluate other people’s products, services or other business activities based on the principle of good faith and recognized business ethics requirements. Without the relevant state agencies making a negative identification of competitors' products and services, short video publishers only spread negative comments about competitors in the video based on certain factual basis, mislead the public, and damage the business reputation of competitors. Damage should be deemed to constitute commercial defamation. Although the perpetrator did not specify the name of the subject of negative comments in the short video, the video content or quoted pictures are enough for the public to identify the specific subject of negative comments, and the subject can be determined to have constituted infringement.
short video has many advantages in marketing, such as being new, neat, short, fast, simple, direct, dynamic and flexible, making product promotion faster and more down-to-earth. There is nothing wrong with attracting fans and bringing in goods by producing and publishing short videos. However, as a short video publisher, you cannot deviate from the factual basis in order to gain traffic, disparage competitors, and confuse people who do not know the truth. If such behavior is tolerated, people will be frequently deceived, the marketing advantages of short videos will disappear, and an honest business environment will no longer exist.
The proper handling of this case is a heavy blow by the court against the producers and publishers of such videos, and it is also a help to optimize the legalized business environment. The fundamental way to solve the problem is to strengthen the supervision of such infringements, increase the illegal costs of producers and publishers, so that those who promote false information cannot obtain economic benefits, or even bear adverse economic consequences.To jointly create a clean and upright online business environment, we cannot rely solely on the strong supervision of supervisors. It also requires various video producers, short video platform operators and the market entities behind them to self-discipline, strengthen management, and work together to achieve success. Let the online business environment flourish. (Li Xiang)
(People's Court Daily)
