14 new media infringement cases in the last three months! The total claim amount is 72 million!

For example, the case that the media "coldplay Lab" infringed on "Baidu's reputation right" was recently pronounced, and the Haidian District People's Court of Beijing ruled that the media "coldplay Lab" compensated Baidu 1.4 million. And need to continue to apologize publicly at the main location of its official WeChat account.

For most media, a one-time payment of 6.5438+0.4 million yuan in cash is a considerable amount.

3. How to avoid this pit from the media?

1

1, "Iqiyi" sued "Marketing Qipa Theory"

20 18, 10 In June, iQiyi sued the video program "On Marketing Chips" and the main company "Beijing Ling Xue Network Technology Co., Ltd." which founded the official WeChat account.

It is said that Ling Xue Company seized the popularity of the program "Seven-Eight Talk", asked it to stop using the words "Seven-Eight Talk" and claimed 2 million yuan.

For most media companies, 666,000 yuan is basically an astronomical figure, or at least a huge fine.

Why did the court judge this?

Because iqiyi has obtained the license to use the trademark number. 16260 183, which enjoys the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of this trademark.

People from the media must check whether their official WeChat account name /LOGO/ company name is the same as others.

2.Aauto sued Baidu faster.

65438+10.4, according to the Haidian court website.

Beijing dajia internet information technology co., ltd and Beijing outlets technology co., ltd.

Take Shenzhen Mabang Network Co., Ltd., Beijing Baidu Netcom Technology Co., Ltd. and Yulong Computer Communication Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. to court.

The plaintiffs Dajia Company and Aotekuai Company claimed that Dajia Company was the owner of the "Fast Shadow" trademark, and then licensed the "Fast Shadow" trademark to Aotekuai Company for use. However, they found that in the "Baidu Mobile Assistant Platform" operated by Baidu Company and the "Cool Application Market" operated by Yulong Company, a photography app "Quick Hand and Quick Picture" developed and operated by Shenzhen Mabang Company was promoted.

From the icon, the APP of Shenzhen Mabang Company is exactly the same as their APP icon, and its name is "Quick Hand and Quick Shadow", which infringes on the exclusive right to use trademarks registered by Dajia Company and A Auto Fast Company and is also unfair competition.

Shenzhen Mabang Company should bear corresponding civil liabilities. Baidu and Yulong respectively launched the "Quick Hand and Quick Map" APP in their mobile phone application platforms, so they should also bear corresponding civil liabilities.

At present, the case is under further investigation.

I think the defendant of Baidu was shot lying down.

At the same time, it should be noted that if your APP name partially overlaps with someone else's APP name, and someone else has registered a name trademark, it may also be suspected of infringing trademark rights.

3. "Tencent" sued "WeChat Food Company"

On 20 18 12 14, Beijing Intellectual Property Court publicly pronounced an unfair competition case that infringed the trademark right of WeChat.

The first trial found that "WeChat" was a well-known trademark, and ordered WeChat Food Company to stop using the enterprise name, change its name in time and compensate Tencent Company 10 million yuan.

The court found that WeChat Food Company was established after the above two well-known trademarks involved in the case were quite well-known, and registered the "WeChat" prominently marked in the above table as the main part of the company name, which easily confused the relevant public with the sources of goods or services, violating the principle of good faith.

This is the whole story.

A person registered the WeChat trademark of food and transferred the trademark to WeChat Food Company.

However, in addition to the WeChat trademark, this person has registered more than 300 trademarks, such as Khaqiya, AMIGAA, Coach TORP, Jieyiya, Sicily and other well-known trademarks.

Violation of the principle of good faith and the situation of "obtaining registration by other improper means" as stipulated in the first paragraph of Article 41 of the Trademark Law.

Therefore, the food WeChat trademark was invalidated, infringing the trademark right of Tencent WeChat.

2

Defamation infringes on the right of reputation.

"Youku" sued the media for "whipping cattle"

654381On the evening of October 9, the media "BiaNews" released a message in official website, saying that today's headlines had reached the acquisition of Youku.

According to the article, a person familiar with the matter revealed that today's headlines have reached an acquisition of Youku and are docking with watermelon video.

65438+1October1October, Youku announced that it had sued the network for spreading false information from the media "BiaNews".

"BiaNews" infringed on Youku's goodwill, claiming 6,543,800 yuan, and demanding that the other party publicly apologize through official channels to eliminate the negative impact caused by its dissemination of false information.

There are two key points here:

First, I didn't ask Youku and today's headlines for verification.

Second, after Youku publicly denied the rumor, it still failed to modify or delete the relevant false information in time.

"BiaNews" is a well-known self-media in the field of science and technology. It stands to reason that the "gossip" obtained by insiders has certain credibility. However, this time Youku fully sued. It seems that 100% of the insider's "gossip" is false.

three

1, "Iqiyi" sued "Today's Headlines"

According to the judgment, iQiyi enjoys the exclusive right to spread the TV series "Old Nine Gates" on the Internet, but today's headlines uploaded some episodes of the drama and attracted traffic with the title of "watch first", so iQiyi sued today's headline operator "ByteDance" and demanded compensation of 6,543,800 yuan.

2. "Tik Tok" sued "Baidu" for making a small video.

Baidu said in court that the vibrato short video does not express ideas independently, is not original, does not constitute a work and should not be protected by copyright law.

20 18 February 26th, 18, Beijing Internet Court formally pronounced a judgment on the case of "Shaking Short Video" v. Baidu "Small Video with Partners" infringing the right of information network communication.

① The Tik Tok 15 second short video involved in the case belongs to "electric works" and is protected by copyright law.

③ Tik Tok's claim was rejected in the first instance.

four

1, "Baidu" sued from the media "Coldplay Lab"

2065438+August 2008, many articles related to Baidu were published from the media "Coldplay Lab" and were sued by Baidu, claiming 5 million yuan. This incident caused a sensation in the media circle.

Xiao Gongju observed that most of the articles in Coldplay Lab talked about Baidu through some derogatory terms, not Baidu's own products.

In my opinion, it makes sense to say that the product is not good, but saying that the company is not good involves reputation. You can't hack for the so-called political correctness in the network.

The Haidian District People's Court of Beijing ruled that the related actions of "Cool Play Lab" and its operating entity "Beijing Fun Alpha Technology Co., Ltd." have constituted a violation of Baidu's reputation.

Since the media "Cool Play Lab" needs to compensate Baidu for its economic losses and reasonable expenses * * * totaling 6.5438+0.4 million yuan, and continues to publicly apologize at the main position of its official WeChat account.

Up to now, the self-media "coldplay Lab" has not posted an apology article on the official WeChat account.

3.Tik Tok sued Baidu.

February 3, 20 18 18 Haidian court. Com reported that "entertainment is not a fool's pleasure" published an article entitled "Tik Tok sliding door reappears, a man and a woman interact in the amusement park water, netizen: moral decay" on Baijia platform, and made up a short video with Tik Tok, and a pornographic video named "sliding door" appeared.

4. "Tik Tok" sued "Sina"

Due to "Headline News" and other Weibo accounts on the Weibo platform, the "Couple buys a car and shoots Tik Tok with three 80,000 mahjong tiles! Content blocked by sales staff.

Beijing Weibo Vision Technology Co., Ltd. (the main company in Tik Tok) sued the publishing platforms Beijing Sina Internet Information Service Co., Ltd. and Beijing Wei Meng Chuangke Network Technology Co., Ltd. to the court on the grounds of infringement of reputation rights.

From the above cases, we will find that today's headlines have civil disputes with many Internet giants such as iQiyi, Baidu and Sina.

five

On February 27th, 2065438+0818, Haidian District People's Court of Beijing made a first-instance civil judgment on the dispute between Ge You and Taixin Fund Management Co., Ltd.

Taixin Fund was sued by Ge You for using the "Ge You Lie Expression Pack" on the official WeChat account.

The court awarded 9500 yuan for this WeChat article, which was clicked 23 times and liked 1, with an average click cost of 4 13 yuan, which was regarded as a sky-high click in the media.

The whole story goes like this.

Taixin Fund once published an article with a picture of "If Grandpa Ge also stocks ...", which also contained several slogans: "I expected this wave of market", "This is definitely a bull stock", "I want to make up my position, don't stop me" and "It's a pity that I didn't buy this stock". ......

Ge You thinks:

Taixin Fund has implanted a large number of advertisements in its portraits, which are closely related to the business of Taixin Fund. The advertising language made the official account of WeChat mistake Ge You as an enterprise user of Taixin Fund, which violated the right of portrait and demanded compensation for related losses totaling 3 10000.

Taixin Fund believes that:

Wechat articles have little influence, with only 23 readings, including those browsed by company employees, and deleted in time. Ge You's claim for compensation is too high, and there is no legal basis, so he does not agree to this claim.

In the end, the court held that:

② However, Ge You did not submit evidence to prove the property losses caused by infringement of personal rights and interests or the benefits obtained by Taixin Fund.

③ Considering that "Ge You Lie" is a hot topic in the society when this article is pushed, the behavior intention of Taixin Fund is more prominent in the hot topic, which keeps the interesting and vivid form of the article pushed by WeChat official account and the timeliness of the push of WeChat official account.

④ From the analysis of the content of the article and the pictures containing Ge You's portrait, the general public will not think that Taixin Fund uses Ge You's popularity to advertise its business operation, nor will they think that Ge You is the commercial spokesperson of Taixin Fund.

There is no need to pay for the last 300,000 yuan, only less than 1000 yuan. The official account of WeChat needs to publish an article to apologize.

1. Without authorization, celebrity portraits shall not be used for commercial promotion.

2. Making and publishing audio-visual programs containing names that may infringe upon the trademark rights of others.

3. The official account name of WeChat is consistent/partially consistent with the registered trademark of others, which may be suspected of infringing the trademark rights of others.

5. Unconfirmed information should not be released by the media at will.

6. Don't defame or insult others or companies with articles from the media.

The copyright of this article belongs to the author.