Hangzhou Internet Court Releases Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases
In 2018, Hangzhou Internet Court (Hangzhou Railway Transportation Court), guided by Xi Jinping's Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, deepened the implementation of the "Eight-Eight Strategy." To further serve intellectual property judicial protection work, create a good internet business environment, and fully utilize the demonstration and guidance role of typical cases, it concluded a number of typical and representative cases. Based on the intellectual property cases handled by our court in 2018, ten cases of typical significance have been selected from the effective intellectual property cases for publication.
Contents
1. Case One: "Business Navigator" Big Data Product Unfair Competition Case
Taobao (China) Software Co., Ltd. v. Anhui Meijing Information Technology Co., Ltd. Unfair Competition Dispute Case
2. Case Two: "Blockchain Electronic Evidence" Infringement of the Right of Information Network Dissemination of Works Case
Hangzhou Huatai Yimedi Culture Media Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Daotong Technology Development Co., Ltd. Infringement of the Right of Information Network Dissemination of Works Dispute Case
3. Case Three: "Peppa Pig" Copyright Infringement Case
Entertainment One UK Limited and Entertainment One UK Limited v. Shantou Ju Fan E-commerce Co., Ltd., Shantou Jiale Toy Industry Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd. Copyright Infringement Dispute Case
4. Case Four: "Simulated Wood Grain" Copyright Infringement Case
Lami (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd. v. Hangzhou Xiaobanma Decoration Materials Co., Ltd. Copyright Infringement Dispute Case
5. Case Five: "Customer List" Infringement of Trade Secrets and Unfair Competition Case
Zhejiang Lantian Environmental Protection High-tech Co., Ltd. v. Ren Moumou and Chen Mou Infringement of Trade Secrets and Unfair Competition Case
6. Case Six: "Hatsune Miku" Trademark Infringement Case
Shanghai Xinchuang Hua Culture Development Co., Ltd. v. Hangzhou Zhai Dian She Trading Co., Ltd. Trademark Infringement Dispute Case
7. Case Seven: "Intercepting Video Ads" Unfair Competition Case
Youku Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v. Hangzhou Shuowen Software Co., Ltd. Unfair Competition Dispute Case
8. Case Eight: "Triple-Play Convergence" Infringement of the Right of Information Network Dissemination of Works Case
Jicheng Huashiwangju (Changzhou) Culture Media Co., Ltd. v. Sichuan Changhong Electric Co., Ltd., Huashu Media Network Co., Ltd., and Youku Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. Infringement of the Right of Information Network Dissemination of Works Dispute Case
9. Case Nine: "Film and Television Special Effects Works" Copyright Infringement Case
Hangzhou Time Coordinate Film and Television Media Co., Ltd. v. Liu Mou and Chengdu Lunsou Technology Co., Ltd. Copyright Infringement Dispute Case
10. Case Ten: Counterfeiting "GUCCI" and "LV" Registered Trademarks Case
Criminal Case of Defendants Zhao Moumou and Zhang Moumou for Selling Goods with Counterfeit Registered Trademarks
Case Details
Case One: "Business Navigator" Big Data Product Case
Taobao (China) Software Co., Ltd. v. Anhui Meijing Information Technology Co., Ltd. Unfair Competition Dispute Case
Case Index
First Instance: (2017) Zhejiang 8601 Minchu 4034
Second Instance: (2018) Zhejiang 01 Minzhong 7312
Reasons for Selection
Currently, the big data industry has become a burgeoning new industry in the new round of technological revolution and industrial transformation, but legislation concerning data rights is lacking, and the rights and obligations of relevant entities are uncertain. This case is the first new type of unfair competition case involving the development and application of data resources and ownership determination. The judgment in this case clarifies the responsibility of network operators for the security protection of user behavior trace information, and for the first time, through judicial precedent, preliminarily divides the rights boundaries of various relevant entities to data resources. It also grants data product developers a new type of right, "competitive property rights," confirming that they can use this as the basis for rights to obtain protection under the Unfair Competition Law, providing a reference for the improvement of relevant legislation. This case was rated by the People's Court Newspaper as one of the top ten civil and administrative cases of the People's Courts in 2018, one of the 50 typical intellectual property cases of Chinese courts in 2018, and one of the top ten intellectual property cases of Zhejiang courts.
Brief Case Facts
The data content of the data product involved in the case developed by Taobao (China) Software Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Taobao Company) is based on the original data generated by collecting user browsing and transaction behavior trace information, and is refined and integrated through specific algorithms to form index-type, statistical-type, and predictive-type derivative data presented in the form of trend charts. Anhui Meijing Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Meijing Company) helps others obtain the data content in the data product involved in the case by providing remote login to the computers of users who have subscribed to the data product involved in the case, and profits from it.
Taobao Company believes that both the original data and the derivative data in the data product involved in the case are its intangible property; the alleged behavior has substantially replaced the data product involved in the case, constituting unfair competition. It therefore requests the court to order the defendant to stop the alleged behavior and pay compensation of 5 million yuan. Meijing Company believes that the data product involved in the case privately collects and publicly uses user information, infringing on users' right to privacy and users' property rights to user information, and is illegal.
Court Judgment
After trial, the court found that the focal points of the dispute in this case are: 1. Whether Taobao Company's collection and use of user information and development of the data product involved in the case are legitimate; 2. How the rights boundaries of the various entities involved in the data product involved in the case should be divided, and whether Taobao Company enjoys statutory rights to the data product involved in the case; 3. Whether Meijing Company's alleged behavior constitutes unfair competition.
Regarding the first point of contention. The basic materials of the data product in question all originate from user online browsing and transaction behavior trace information. This information does not have the possibility of independently or in combination with other information identifying the personal identity of a specific natural person. According to the relevant provisions of the Cybersecurity Law, it belongs to non-personal information. For the protection of non-personal information, according to Article 22 of the Cybersecurity Law, the standard of "explicitly indicating the function of collecting information + user consent" should be implemented. However, for member users who have already left identity information on a certain website, the risk of their behavior trace information on that website being linked to their identity information is very high, and once exposed at the same time, it will endanger personal privacy. Because there is a service contract relationship between the network operator and the user, the network operator has a contractual obligation to pay close attention to the protection of the user's reasonable concerns about personal privacy. Therefore, the network operator's collection and use of behavior trace information provided by non-member users who have not left identity information is only controlled by the provisions of Article 22 of the Cybersecurity Law on the protection of non-personal information; while the network operator's collection and use of behavior trace information provided by member users, except for information that has been publicly disclosed by the user, should be strictly regulated in accordance with the rules of "limited to the necessary scope + explicitly stating the rules for collecting and using information + user consent" stipulated in Articles 41 and 42 of the Cybersecurity Law regarding personal information protection. After review, Taobao Company's collection and use of user information and the development of the data product in question comply with the requirements of the above-mentioned provisions of the Cybersecurity Law and are justified.
Regarding the second point of contention. First, the user information involved in this case is the user's online behavior trace information. If this information is used alone, its economic value is very limited. Therefore, in the absence of legal provisions or special contractual agreements, users have no property rights to speak of for their single piece of user information. Second, since the original data only performs digital record conversion on user information, the content of this unprocessed original data does not deviate from the scope of the original user information, and the network operator can only enjoy the right to use the original data based on its agreement with the user. Finally, the data product has been invested with a large amount of intellectual labor by the network operator, and the data content finally presented to consumers is independent derivative data that has no direct correspondence with user information and original data. Although the data product is manifested as an intangible resource, it can be actually controlled and used by the network operator and bring economic benefits. The network operator should enjoy independent property rights to the data products it develops.
Regarding the third point of contention, data products can bring commercial benefits and market competitive advantages to developers, and the property rights enjoyed by data product developers for data products are competitive property rights. Meijing Company, without permission, used the data product in question as a tool to obtain commercial benefits, which violates generally accepted business ethics and constitutes unfair competition.
In summary, the first-instance judgment ordered Meijing Company to immediately stop the alleged acts and compensate Taobao Company for its losses of 2 million yuan. Later, Meijing Company appealed, and the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Case Two: "Blockchain Electronic Evidence Preservation" Case
Hangzhou Huatai Yimedi Culture and Media Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Daotong Technology Development Co., Ltd. Infringement of Works Information Network Dissemination Rights Dispute Case
Case Index
(2018)浙0192民初81号
Reasons for Selection
This case is the first case in China to determine the legal validity of blockchain electronic evidence preservation, and it was selected as one of the top ten typical cases of the 2018 Internet Legal Conference. This case provides a review approach for the judicial determination of electronic evidence of new types of technological evidence preservation, and clarifies the review standards: For electronic data that is preserved and fixed using blockchain and other technical means, an open and neutral attitude should be adopted for case-by-case analysis and determination. Specifically, it should be based on the legal standards for reviewing electronic evidence, combined with the technical principles of blockchain technology used for data storage, and when the following four elements are confirmed, the legal validity of the electronic evidence can be determined. 1. Examine the authenticity of the source of the electronic data, that is, whether the technology for generating the electronic data is reliable and the path is traceable; 2. Examine the reliability of the storage of the electronic data, that is, whether the blockchain technology as a method of storing electronic data has the characteristics of being difficult to delete or tamper with; 3. Examine the integrity of the content of the electronic data, including whether the electronic data initially uploaded to the chain is the electronic data corresponding to the infringing document in question and whether the electronic data corresponding to the case in each blockchain is consistent; 4. Examine the correlation between the electronic evidence and other evidence.
Brief Case Facts
The plaintiff, Hangzhou Huatai Yimedi Culture and Media Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Huatai Yimedi Company), in order to prove that the defendant, Shenzhen Daotong Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Daotong Company), published works with copyrights owned by the plaintiff on its operated website, used a third-party evidence preservation platform to automatically capture the infringing webpage and identify the source code of the infringing page, and uploaded the hash value calculated from the compressed package formed by these two items and call logs to the Factom blockchain and the Bitcoin blockchain. The plaintiff, Huatai Yimedi Company, believes that the defendant Daotong Company's actions infringe on its right to disseminate information on the network.
Court Judgment
The court believes that for electronic data that is preserved and fixed using blockchain and other technical means, an open and neutral attitude should be adopted for case-by-case analysis and determination. To confirm the validity of this blockchain electronic evidence preservation, the following review should be conducted:
(1) Examination of the authenticity of the source of electronic evidence
The court believes that the third-party evidence preservation platform is deployed on a general Alibaba Cloud server and has obtained a Level 1 website security certification certificate, etc. Except for contradictory evidence to the contrary, it should be determined that this website has a safe environment for generating electronic data. The third-party evidence preservation platform automatically calls the puppeteer and curl programs to capture webpages and identify source codes from target links. This type of evidence preservation system has openness and universality, and its operation process is automatically completed by machines according to preset programs. The possibility of human tampering with the entire process of evidence collection and preservation is relatively small, and the credibility of the electronic data generated in this way should be considered higher.
(2) Examination of the reliability of electronic data storage
As a decentralized database, a blockchain is a chain of data blocks generated using cryptographic methods, each block containing information about a network transaction, used to verify the validity (anti-counterfeiting) of its information and generate the next block, making it difficult to tamper with or delete. Specifically, a node on the blockchain network will package the data generated within a period of time to form the first block, and synchronize this block to the entire blockchain network. Other nodes verify and add the received block. Other nodes also add in the same way, forming a blockchain where blocks are connected to each other. Therefore, unless there is extreme computing power, it is difficult to modify the data in the blockchain. Therefore, the court believes that blockchain as a method of maintaining content integrity is reliable.
(3) Examination of the integrity of the content of electronic data
Blockchain technology itself can only ensure the integrity of electronic data that has been uploaded to the blockchain. When multiple blockchains are involved, each blockchain should be examined one by one to see if the data saved is one-to-one correspondence. On the one hand, numerical calculations are performed to confirm that the electronic data initially uploaded to the chain is the electronic data corresponding to the infringing document in question, and that the data is complete and unmodified; on the other hand, it should be examined whether the electronic data corresponding to the case in each blockchain is consistent. In this case, the content stored in the FACTOM blockchain and the CHAINID, block height, etc., are verified against the content stored in the Bitcoin blockchain, and the numerical values are consistent, which means that the content stored in each blockchain is complete and has not been modified.
(4) Examination of the correlation between electronic evidence
The court held that the electronic evidence automatically collected through a third-party evidence preservation platform clearly reflects the source, generation, and transmission path of the electronic data. The correlation of its contained information with other evidence and the logical relationship with the timestamp information reflected in the blockchain evidence can further verify the authenticity of the electronic data. In this case, the infringing page information reflected in the automatic collection program, the URL pointed to by the webpage source code, and the statements of the parties can reflect the authenticity of the infringing link. The time difference reflected in the automatic collection program between the start and completion of the collection, and the time difference between data generation and upload to the blockchain (both a few seconds), can verify the reliability of the evidence preservation method, thus forming a relatively complete chain to determine the legal effect of the electronic evidence.
In summary, the court held that the blockchain electronic evidence effectively proves the infringement. Based on this, a judgment was made ordering Dao Tong Company to compensate Huatai Yimedi Company for its economic losses. After the judgment, neither party appealed, and the case has become effective.
Case Three: The "Peppa Pig" Case
Copyright Infringement Dispute between Entertainment One UK Limited and Shantou Ju Fan E-commerce Co., Ltd., Shantou Jiale Toy Industry Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd.
Case Index
First Instance: (2018)浙0192民初5227号
Second Instance: (2018)浙01民终7396号
Reasons for Selection
In recent years, due to the development of international economic and cultural exchanges, the regional nature of intellectual property rights has been unprecedentedly impacted, and intellectual property legal relations have become increasingly internationalized. The protection of foreign-related intellectual property rights has become a core issue in international trade. Both the UK and China are member states of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Entertainment One UK Limited's relevant copyrights (including the right of information network dissemination) to "Peppa Pig" are protected by China's Copyright Law. This case is a copyright infringement case brought by Entertainment One UK Limited against the authorized merchants of "Peppa Pig". The court, upholding the principle of equal protection of the legitimate rights and interests of domestic and foreign parties, accurately applied the law and made the first successful judgment in the "Peppa Pig" case, effectively protecting the legitimate rights and interests of foreign parties. This was called a "milestone judgment in China's intellectual property protection" by The Times. This case was included in the 2018 Supreme People's Court work report.
Brief Case Facts
Entertainment One UK Limited applied for copyright registration of "Peppa Pig" in the United States on August 19, 2005, and obtained a registration certificate. Subsequently, they applied to the National Copyright Administration of the People's Republic of China for copyright registration of "Peppa Pig, George Pig, Daddy Pig, Mommy Pig" and obtained work registration certificates.
Entertainment One UK Limited discovered that Shantou Ju Fan E-commerce Co., Ltd. was selling toys with the images of "Peppa, George, Daddy Pig, and Mommy Pig" in its Taobao store "Ju Fan Youpin 1", and the manufacturer was listed as Shantou Jiale Toy Industry Co., Ltd. The details of the product used an image with the characters "Peppa, George, Daddy Pig, and Mommy Pig". Entertainment One UK Limited believed that Ju Fan Co., Ltd., without permission, sold the infringing products, and Jiale Co., Ltd., without permission, produced and sold the infringing products, both seriously infringing on their copyrights. Taobao, as a network service provider, did not proactively review whether the products listed by merchants were suspected of infringement and should bear the legal responsibility of stopping the infringement. The plaintiff requested the court to order: 1. Ju Fan Co., Ltd. and Jiale Co., Ltd. to immediately cease infringing the plaintiff's copyrights, immediately remove, stop production, stop sales, stop use, and destroy all infringing products and images; 2. Taobao to immediately delete the infringing product web links; 3. Ju Fan Co., Ltd. and Jiale Co., Ltd. to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of 400,000 yuan (including reasonable expenses incurred by the plaintiff to stop the infringement); 4. Ju Fan Co., Ltd. and Jiale Co., Ltd. to bear all litigation costs.
Court Judgment
After trial, the court held that: First, Jiale Co., Ltd.'s production and sale of the infringing products exceeded the authorized product types and channels stipulated in the authorization letter, and the infringement occurred outside the authorization period. Second, Ju Fan Co., Ltd. failed to provide evidence that the source was "legitimate," i.e., authorized by the copyright holder of the artwork, and did not provide sales contracts, payment vouchers, or delivery vouchers to prove that it obtained the infringing copies through legitimate channels. Ju Fan Co., Ltd.'s sale of the infringing products and display of an image of the infringing products online infringed on the right of distribution and the right of information network dissemination. Third, the court, based on the evidence already determined in this case and considering the nature of the artwork, the degree of originality, the popularity, the normal profit margin of the toy industry, the contribution rate of the artwork to the product profit, the degree of subjective fault of the two defendants, the circumstances of the infringement, and the reasonable expenses incurred by the plaintiff to stop the infringement, and referring to the market price and sales volume of the infringing products, reasonably determined the amount of compensation. In summary, including the reasonable expenses incurred to stop the infringement, the court reasonably determined that Ju Fan Co., Ltd. should compensate Entertainment One UK Limited 30,000 yuan, and Jiale Co., Ltd. should compensate 120,000 yuan, and ordered Ju Fan Co., Ltd. and Jiale Co., Ltd. to immediately stop the infringing acts of production and sales.
After the judgment, the defendant Jiale Co., Ltd. appealed, and the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Case Four: The "Simulated Wood Grain" Case
Lami (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd. v. Hangzhou Xiaobanma Decoration Materials Co., Ltd. Copyright Infringement Dispute Case
Case Index
First Instance: (2018)浙8601民初43号
Reasons for Selection
This case is the first case in China to provide a detailed explanation of whether simulated wood grain patterns constitute works of art, and it has reference value for similar cases involving imitation natural object patterns. This case focuses on the substantive meaning of copyright protection of original expression methods, holding that simulated wood grain patterns are formed through processes such as sampling, copying, designing, splicing, and making existing natural wood grain patterns. This process is a design idea and a technological method, not the subject of copyright protection. The creation of splicing and adjusting tree wood grain patterns has a high degree of overlap between its expression form and its ideological content, and it still belongs to the ideological category. Furthermore, the determination of the originality of a work should consider the type of work. The artistic expression of simulated wood grain patterns is too simple, and the originality of the expression form is minimal, lacking the higher artistic aesthetic sense that works of art should have. Therefore, it is considered that simulated wood grain patterns do not constitute works of art in the sense of copyright law.
Brief Case Facts
Lami (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd. believed that the simulated wood grain patterns it exclusively used in China under authorization from the Spanish Lami Company constituted works of art in the sense of copyright law, while Hangzhou Xiaobanma Decoration Materials Co., Ltd., as a peer operator, sold decorative paper substantially similar to that of the Spanish Lami Company, constituting infringement.
Xiaobanma Company argued that the simulated wood grain pattern does not constitute a work of art, and that the color and graphic structure of the accused infringing product differ from the decorative paper for which Rami Company claims copyright, thus not constituting infringement.
Court Judgment
The court, after hearing the case, found that the point of contention was whether the simulated wood grain pattern constitutes a work of art protected under copyright law.
On the one hand, copyright law protects original expressions, not ideas themselves. In this case, the design concept of using naturally existing tree grain patterns for decorative paper and the corresponding technological methods are not unique to Rami Company. The design concept and technological methods themselves are not protected by copyright law. Rami Company cannot monopolize the corresponding design concepts and technological methods through copyright, otherwise it would violate the legislative intent of copyright law and hinder the progress of literature, art, and science, as well as the diversity of works. Others can use the same design concepts and technological methods to design and produce similar products, but they cannot plagiarize original expressions.
Furthermore, the wood grain image that already objectively exists in nature does not belong to Rami Company's original creation. If only the naturally existing tree grain patterns are copied or formed into a simulated wood grain pattern through simple or basic processing and adjustment, the form of expression and the content of thought are highly overlapping, still belonging to the category of thought and not protected by copyright law. However, if it is given a specific aesthetic meaning through a specific way of shaping expression, it should be protected.
On the other hand, to determine whether a work is original, the category of the work needs to be considered. Article 4, paragraph (8) of the "Copyright Law Implementation Regulations" stipulates: "Works of art refer to paintings, calligraphy, sculptures, architecture, etc., which are plane or three-dimensional sculptural art works formed by lines, colors, or other means with aesthetic meaning"; the Supreme People's Court (2012) Minshen Zi No. 1329 civil ruling also points out: "For works of art, their originality requires the embodiment of the author's unique creativity and ideas in the field of aesthetics", that is, works of art should have aesthetic meaning or aesthetic expression, this kind of aesthetic meaning refers to the level of artistic expression of the work, which can be shown through lines, colors, lighting effects, layout and contrast, etc., to show the degree to which the artist's aesthetic realm has reached. Therefore, the less information in the picture, the higher the requirement for the author's unique style in expression, so as to meet the minimum requirement of creativity.
In this case, the design key points of the simulated wood grain pattern mainly lie in the visual sense of the wood grain. By combining, splicing, and arranging the original wood grain style materials, and processing their surface, including adding, deleting, repairing, or filling the grain and knots, and then carrying out a series of operations such as polishing, coloring, whitening, brushing, and oiling to adjust the color effect and gloss effect, in an attempt to reflect the natural and smooth wood grain effect. However, the characteristics of this design itself lie in splicing, filling, and modification. By making subtle adjustments to the picture effect, the wood grain pattern becomes more natural, still reflecting the pattern form of the original wood grain in nature. The artistic expression itself is too simple, the originality of the form of expression is very small, does not reflect the artist's unique views and special creativity, and lacks the higher artistic aesthetic feeling that works of art should have. Therefore, the court believes that the simulated wood grain pattern does not constitute a work of art in the sense of copyright law, and made a judgment dismissing all the claims of the plaintiff Rami Company. After the verdict, neither party appealed, and the case has become effective.
Case Five: "Customer List" Case
Zhejiang Lantian Environmental Protection High-tech Co., Ltd. v. Ren Moumou and Chen Mou Infringement of Trade Secrets and Unfair Competition Case
Case Index
(2017) Zhejiang 8601 Minchu 3760
Reasons for Selection
This case is a dispute over trade secrets and unfair competition arising from a company's business operator using his or her position to transfer business opportunities originally belonging to the company to a specific related party. In the absence of sufficient evidence to prove that the customer information involved meets the characteristics of confidentiality and secrecy to constitute trade secrets, this case actively explores whether the alleged behavior constitutes unfair competition. Although the "Anti-Unfair Competition Law" does not explicitly list this behavior as unfair competition, the alleged behavior is a dishonest act committed by the two defendants in collusion, which is unfair and blameworthy; it directly intercepted the transaction opportunities and business interests that originally belonged to the plaintiff. The defendants' behavior of enriching themselves at the expense of others is clearly contrary to the principles of fairness, good faith, and generally accepted business ethics, harming the legitimate interests of competitors in the same industry and disrupting the normal market competition order. It should be regulated in accordance with Article 2 of the "Anti-Unfair Competition Law", and the alleged behavior is determined to constitute unfair competition. According to the principle of strict protection, the court ordered the defendants to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of 2 million yuan, providing sufficient and effective relief, which is conducive to maintaining a fair and orderly market competition order, and also provides a new judicial protection path for market entities to protect their competitive rights in terms of customer information resources.
Brief Case Facts
Zhejiang Lantian Environmental Protection High-tech Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Lantian Company") and Beijing Beiji Electromechanical Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Beiji Company") have a long-term trading relationship for product 1301, and also have trading relations with Qingdao Loushan Factory and Shenyang Xianfeng Factory for product 1301. Hangzhou Hairun Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Hairun Company") was founded by the mother of Ren Moumou, the main operator of Lantian Company's sales of product 1301, and Chen Moumou, one of the current shareholders, is Ren Moumou's husband. Lantian Company discovered that Hairun Company purchased product 1301 at a low price from it and sold it to Beiji Company at a high price. Lantian Company believes that Hairun Company obtained and used trade secrets controlled by Ren Moumou, intercepting business opportunities that should have belonged to Lantian Company, constituting infringement of trade secrets and unfair competition. Since Hairun Company has been cancelled, it requests that the two defendants be held jointly and severally liable for compensation. The two defendants argue that Hairun Company established business relationships with the above three enterprises through normal channels, and does not constitute infringement of trade secrets and unfair competition.
Court Judgment
After hearing the case, the court held that: Regarding whether the alleged behavior constitutes infringement of trade secrets, the existing evidence is insufficient to determine that the business information claimed by Lantian Company constitutes special customer information among trade secrets, nor is it sufficient to determine that Lantian Company has taken reasonable confidentiality measures for the business information involved. Therefore, its claim of infringement of trade secrets based on the business information involved as the basis of its rights is not supported.
Regarding whether the alleged conduct constitutes unfair competition. First, Lantian Company is a large-scale manufacturer of Product 1301 and has had long-term product transactions with Beiji Company. Hairun Company is a newly established small trading company with no historical transactions with Beiji Company. Compared to the price at which Lantian Company sold Product 1301 to Hairun Company, the price at which Hairun Company sold it to Beiji Company was significantly higher. Comparing the business scope, scale, sales price, and relationship with Beiji Company of Lantian Company and Hairun Company, Lantian Company has a clear competitive advantage in the competition for trading opportunities when Beiji Company resumed purchasing Product 1301 in Hangzhou. Secondly, the previous two shareholders of Hairun Company are related to Ren Moumou. Ren Moumou is the person in charge of Lantian Company's sales of Product 1301 to Beiji Company, familiar with the business channels and procedures. When Beiji Company resumed purchasing Product 1301 in Hangzhou, Ren Moumou, as the former person in charge of Lantian Company and a specific related person of Hairun Company, should have known this. Given that Ren Moumou concealed Beiji Company's purchasing intention from Lantian Company and has a special interest relationship with Hairun Company, there is reason to believe that Ren Moumou transferred this trading opportunity to Hairun Company. Ren Moumou's actions seriously violated the proper professional ethics. Hairun Company, using its specific relationship and interest connection with Ren Moumou, intercepted the trading opportunity that originally belonged to Lantian Company through Ren Moumou's actions. The self-serving behavior of Ren Moumou and Hairun Company is clearly contrary to the principles of fairness and good faith and generally accepted business ethics, harming the legitimate interests of Lantian Company, a competitor in the same industry, and disrupting the normal market competition order. It is unfair and culpable and constitutes unfair competition according to Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Given that Hairun Company has been deregistered, and the existing evidence is insufficient to determine that Chen Mou is liable for the company's debts, Ren Moumou should bear the liability for compensation. First-instance judgment: Ren Moumou shall compensate Lantian Company for economic losses of 2 million yuan. After the judgment, all parties involved did not appeal and completed the execution.
Case Six: The "Hatsune Miku" Case
Shanghai Xinchuang Hua Culture Development Co., Ltd. v. Hangzhou Zhai Dian She Trading Co., Ltd. Trademark Infringement Dispute Case
Case Index
First Instance: (2017) Zhejiang 8601 Min Chu 3709
Second Instance: (2018) Zhejiang 01 Min Zhong 4099
Reasons for Selection
This case fully considers the business operation model of the animation market, clarifying the consistency of the popularity between the pre-existing successfully developed animation image name and the subsequently registered trademark, and their mutual inheritance and mutual radiation, which has enlightening and reference significance for the trademark management and rights protection of animation enterprises. When determining the similarity of trademarks, for the purpose of maintaining the reputation and distinctiveness of commercial marks, combined with the characteristics of the elasticity of the protection scope, the stronger the distinctiveness and the higher the market popularity of the registered trademark, the wider and stronger the protection it is given. That is, when the popularity of the trademark claiming rights is far higher than that of the accused infringing trademark, if the core part reflecting the most significant and essential characteristics of the trademark's popularity and identification is similar, it should be considered similar, so as to encourage the winners of market competition, purify the market environment, and curb unfair piggybacking and imitation behaviors. When determining the amount of compensation, adhere to the market value of intellectual property rights as a guide, conduct a comprehensive evaluation and mutual correction through the levels of rights information and infringement information, standardize the exercise of discretionary power, and finally determine the statutory compensation amount in this case to be 600,000 yuan. Considering the efforts of the plaintiff's agent lawyer in this litigation, the reasonable cost of rights protection of 100,000 yuan is supported.
Brief Case Facts
The plaintiff, Shanghai Xin Chuang Hua Culture Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xin Chuang Hua Company), sued that the registered trademark "Hatsune Miku" is a classic two-dimensional image. This trademark has strong distinctiveness through long-term and continuous investment and operation, and has repeatedly become the image ambassador of major events. "Hatsune Miku" as a whole has high commercial value and reputation. The defendant, Hangzhou Zhai Dian She Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Zhai Dian She Company), used "Snow Miku," "Snow Hatsune Miku," and "Hatsune" and other similar marks to "Hatsune Miku" in the title and product introduction page of the goods involved in its online store, infringing its exclusive right to use the registered trademark.
The defendant, Zhai Dian She Company, argued that the trademark it used was its own registered trademark "Snow Miku," which is neither identical nor similar to the plaintiff's "Hatsune Miku" trademark and will not cause consumer confusion.
Court Judgment
After trial, the court held that the determination of whether trademarks are identical or similar should be based on the standard of general attention of the relevant public. It is necessary to conduct a comprehensive comparison of trademarks and a comparison of the main parts of trademarks. The comparison should be carried out separately in the isolated state of the comparison objects, and the distinctiveness and popularity of the registered trademark should be considered. For registered trademarks with stronger distinctiveness and higher market popularity, a wider and stronger protection should be given. That is, when the popularity of the trademark claiming rights is far higher than that of the accused infringing trademark, the main part can be compared to determine whether it is similar.
In this case, because "Hatsune Miku" coexists as an animation image and a trademark, the popularity obtained by the use of the animation image and the trademark is unified, inseparable, and mutually inherited and radiated. The "Hatsune Miku" text is a coined word, which itself has strong distinctiveness and recognition. Through more than ten years of continuous and extensive commercial use, it has specifically referred to the image of a girl with green hair in animation, and is a popular online celebrity name loved by the public, with high commercial value and reputation. Relevant public, based on their familiarity with the mark and their understanding of the animation image, are very likely to have an associated understanding of the image source and mark source. Therefore, when it was applied for trademark registration, it already had strong commodity distinction function and identification function. At the same time, the "Hatsune Miku" trademark, after being approved for registration, has been used in a large number of ways on the goods used for determination, and has also accumulated high popularity. Therefore, the "Hatsune Miku" trademark is a trademark with high popularity and strong distinctiveness, and should be given strong protection. Therefore, when comparing the accused infringing mark and the trademark involved, the main part can be compared to make a similar judgment. Based on the specific market demand, consumption methods, consumer groups, and unique identification methods formed by the two-dimensional animation characteristics of "Hatsune Miku", which are different from other industry categories, the similarity should be judged. As a music model, "Hatsune" summarizes and represents the most significant and essential characteristics of this singing style, and is easier to be recognized and familiarized by the relevant public (especially for specific market groups). Therefore, "Hatsune" is the "core main part." The trademarks "Hatsune" and "Snow Hatsune" used by Zhai Dian She Company are identical to the core main part of the trademark involved, and the relevant public, with general attention, are very likely to misrecognize or confuse them. The trademarks involved and the accused infringing marks use the same goods or services. The behavior of Zhai Dian She Company constitutes trademark infringement. Therefore, the court ruled that the defendant should stop the infringement and compensate the plaintiff for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 700,000 yuan.
After the first-instance judgment, the defendant, Zhai Dian She Company, appealed. The Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Case Seven: The "Intercepting Video Ads" Case
Youku Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v. Hangzhou Shuowen Software Co., Ltd. Unfair Competition Dispute Case
Case Index
First Instance: (2017) Zhejiang 8601 Min Chu 928
Second Instance: (2018) Zhejiang 01 Min Zhong 231
Reasons for Selection
This case is the first in Zhejiang Province to involve a dispute over the use of software to intercept video advertisements. Currently, video advertisements remain an important engine for profit in the video industry. Due to the immaturity of whitelist mechanisms and advertising models other than pre-roll ads, blocking video advertisements lacks rationality. This case is the first to determine that if the developers and operators of software that blocks video advertisements have a clear indication of infringement and clear step-by-step guidance, and utilize network users to commit infringing acts, this constitutes direct infringement. This behavior affects the long-term interests of video operators and consumers; such damage is not a natural attribute of market competition but transcends the boundaries of fair competition. Different operators will inevitably have some mutual interference and influence during the competition, but this interference and influence should be within the scope of the law, resulting from fair competition and meeting market development needs; it should not be promoted under the banner of "protecting consumer interests" by using technical means to disrupt the normal business activities of others. The determination of infringement by those who block video advertisements is a rational choice based on China's national conditions, and its significance in guiding internal competition in the video industry is greater than the disruptive impact of blocking advertisements.
Brief Case Facts
The plaintiff, Youku Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Youku"), is the operator of Youku video. The download page of a certain software developed by Hangzhou Shuowen Software Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Shuowen") displays "The only effective way to intercept ads from popular apps across the network (Youku Tudou...)." After users download the software, when watching Youku video ads, they will skip the pre-roll ads. Therefore, Youku filed a lawsuit. The defendant, Shuowen, argued that there is no competitive relationship between Youku and Shuowen, that its actions are technologically neutral, and that they benefit consumers.
Court Judgment
The main points of contention in this case are: 1. Whether there is a competitive relationship between Youku and Shuowen; 2. Whether the "free video + advertising" business model claimed by Youku has legitimate rights and interests protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law; 3. Whether the act of Shuowen developing and providing the software is justified, and whether this act constitutes unfair competition.
Regarding the first point of contention, the court believes that the target group of Youku is users who watch Youku videos, while one of the main functions of the software is to block pre-roll ads on major video websites such as Youku. Both parties serve network users with a certain demand for online videos. Shuowen's actions have in fact expanded the market for the software, so the two have a competitive relationship regulated by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Regarding the second point of contention, the court believes that if the actions of an operator in business activities comply with the law, the legitimate rights and interests obtained based on legitimate business activities should be protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. In this case, Youku provides users with free videos while playing advertisements at the beginning of the videos for a certain period of time, and the advertising fees received are an important source of its operating income. Youku's business model does not violate the principles and prohibitions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Under this business model, the combination of advertisements and video programs allows website operators, internet users, and advertisers to get what they need, forming an orderly distribution and circulation of interests. The commercial interests obtained by Youku should be protected by law and constitute suable interests.
Regarding the third point of contention, the court believes that Shuowen's targeted graphic and textual publicity and step-by-step guidance clearly knows the user's mentality of not wanting to watch ads or pay to watch videos, and the potential damage to Youku's business interests caused by blocking video ads, and uses users as a vehicle for implementing video ad blocking. Therefore, Shuowen's actions are directly linked to blocking Youku video ads, and Shuowen should naturally bear the corresponding legal responsibility.
Regarding Shuowen's defense of technological neutrality, the court believes that technological neutrality in intellectual property generally refers to the fact that if a technology has a substantial legitimate use, then the provider of the technology is not liable for infringement because users use it for infringing purposes, unless the provider knows and takes no action. However, any invention and creation of technology inevitably reflects the subjective will of the developer. Shuowen subjectively knew that Youku's legitimate interests were being harmed and allowed the harmful consequences to occur, and objectively there was the fact of inducing others to use the software to block Youku video ads, and it failed to prove that the software had a non-substantial infringing use. Regarding Shuowen's defense of public interest, the court believes that at present, the software allows consumers to watch videos for free without watching ads, but in the long run, consumers may turn time costs into economic costs.
The court believes that the essence of the internet economy is a competitive economy. Different operators will inevitably have some mutual interference and influence during the competition, but this interference and influence should be within the scope of the law, should be conducive to the development and stability of the online market and consumer interests, and should be the result of fair competition and meeting market development needs; it should not be promoted under the banner of "protecting consumer interests" by using technical means to disrupt the normal business activities of others. With the development of internet market competition and the improvement of video consumer demand, website operators will inevitably continuously improve their business models and service quality, gradually moving towards benign competition, and ultimately forming a new type of internet market that takes into account the interests of website operators, software developers, and consumers, promoting the orderly development of the internet industry and increasing consumer benefits.
In summary, the court believes that Shuowen's actions constitute unfair competition and ruled that Shuowen should compensate Youku for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 320,000 yuan. Shuowen appealed, and the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Case Eight: "Three-Network Convergence" Case
Jicheng Huashiwangju (Changzhou) Culture Media Co., Ltd. v. Sichuan Changhong Electric Co., Ltd., Huashu Media Network Co., Ltd., and Youku Information Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. Infringement of the Right of Information Network Dissemination of Works Dispute Case
Case Index
First Instance: (2017)浙0192民初361号
Reasons for Selection
This case clarifies the legal status of various entities in information network dissemination under the background of "three-network convergence," explores the essential characteristics of various behaviors, and thus accurately defines behaviors, which has certain reference significance for the trial of similar cases. The technology of "three-network convergence" is complex and generally involves multiple entities such as television manufacturers, integrated platform operators, and content platform operators, and there may be overlaps. Taking the strict grasp of the definition of the right of information network dissemination in Article 10 of the Copyright Law as the review standard, we first lock on the "provision" behavior, analyze the nature of the behavior of each entity from the source of determining the direct infringer, and examine whether it has legal attributes such as joint infringement and indirect infringement. When determining joint provision behavior, we can combine webpage annotation information, fee sharing, and promotion information to comprehensively determine whether it has a cooperative relationship with the direct infringer. When determining indirect infringement, it should be examined whether the behavior has incited or assisted the direct infringement, and whether there is subjective fault. In addition, the purpose and actual control ability of the technology provider should be considered together.
Brief Case Facts
Jicheng Huashiwangju (Changzhou) Culture Media Company (hereinafter referred to as Jicheng Company) legally enjoys the right to disseminate the work "The Father's Colorful Years" online. On March 6, 2017, a notarized preservation certificate proved that the "Changhong 43A1 TV" platform could provide online playback services for the work to the public via the internet. Sichuan Changhong Electric Company (hereinafter referred to as Changhong Company) is the manufacturer of internet TVs, Huashu Media Network Company (hereinafter referred to as Huashu Company) is the operator of the internet TV platform, and Youku Information Technology (Beijing) (hereinafter referred to as Youku Company) is the content provider of the work. Youku Company and Jicheng Company signed two "Cooperation Agreements", stipulating that Youku Company can use the right to disseminate the work online on its company and affiliated company's network platforms (i.e., youku.com, youku.net, and its subordinate subdomains, etc., self-operated software and hardware clients, excluding cooperative platforms). During the period of the alleged infringement, Youku Company did not obtain authorized permission. Jicheng Company believes that the three defendants' actions jointly infringed on its exclusive right to disseminate information online, and therefore requests that the three defendants immediately cease infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 50,000 yuan.
Court Judgment
After trial, the court found that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether the three defendants constituted infringement.
Regarding whether Youku Company constituted infringement. Youku Company's self-admission, member purchase page, and notarized packet capture data evidence show that Youku Company stored the work on its server and disseminated the work to the public via the internet and collected fees. From October 30, 2016, to September 30, 2017, Youku Company used the work without legal authorization, which constitutes a direct infringement of Jicheng Company's right to disseminate information online beyond the authorized period and should bear the corresponding compensation liability.
Regarding whether Huashu Company and Changhong Company constituted infringement. Jicheng Company did not provide evidence to prove that Huashu Company alone implemented the infringement, nor did it provide evidence to prove that Huashu Company promoted or profited from the playback of the work, which could be considered as joint infringement with Youku Company. Huashu Company is the license holder of the internet TV platform involved in the case. The evidence in the case can prove that Huashu Company provides viewing channels and displays them externally through links. Therefore, Huashu Company is considered a network service provider. In this case, there is no evidence to prove that it implemented information network dissemination or assisted or incited information network dissemination. Changhong Company is a TV hardware manufacturer, and the work is not stored in the TV hardware. Changhong Company neither has the ability to control the playback content of the internet TV platform nor is there evidence to prove its participation in joint infringement. According to the law, Jicheng Company's relevant lawsuit requests against Huashu Company and Changhong Company should be rejected.
In summary, the first-instance court ordered Youku Company to compensate Jicheng Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 18,000 yuan. After the verdict, none of the parties filed an appeal, and this case has taken effect.
Case Nine: "Film and Television Special Effects Works" Case
Hangzhou Time Coordinate Film and Television Media Co., Ltd. v. Liu Mou and Chengdu Lunsou Technology Co., Ltd. Copyright Infringement Dispute Case
Case Index
First Instance: (2018)浙0192民初6743号
Second Instance: (2018)浙01民终8789号
Reasons for Selection
This case is the first to conduct an in-depth analysis of whether film and television special effects videos constitute works, their types, and copyright ownership, and has reference significance for similar cases of film and television special effects videos. This case analyzes the definition of "works" and the provisions on copyright ownership in current laws and regulations, and believes that film and television special effects videos are in the form of a series of images produced on a certain medium and disseminated through appropriate devices or other means. The type of work belongs to the works created by methods similar to film production as stipulated in the "Implementation Regulations of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China". Whether copyright can be exercised independently for film and television special effects videos should be determined based on whether the expression can be separated from the originality of the film and television work itself. If the film and television special effects video is used together with consecutive images in the film and television work, it does not belong to the "works that can be used independently" in Article 15 of the "Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China", and the author of the film and television special effects video cannot exercise copyright independently.
Brief Case Facts
Hangzhou Time Coordinate Film and Television Media Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hangzhou Time Coordinate Company) signed a computer special effects production contract with Shanghai Juku Company, with Hangzhou Time Coordinate Company producing computer special effects for the TV series "Ancient Love Poetry". The contract stipulates that after Shanghai Juku Company pays all the production costs, all the completed shots belong to it. Hangzhou Time Coordinate Company believes that Liu, operating the "VJ Master Network" at Chengdu Lunsou Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Chengdu Lunsou Company), publicly sold a video file named "Fairyland", infringing on its copyright of the film and television special effects video produced for "Ancient Love Poetry", and sued Liu and Chengdu Lunsou Company for their infringement liability.
Court Judgment
The court believes that the focus of the dispute in this case is whether Hangzhou Time Coordinate Company is a qualified plaintiff in this case.
First, regarding whether the film and television special effects video involved in the case is a work protected by copyright law. The film and television special effects video involved in the case is a continuous shot from 12 minutes 24 seconds to 12 minutes 26 seconds in the tenth episode of the TV series "Ancient Love Poetry", consisting of mountains, trees, waterfalls, clouds, mist, and birds. This video is formed by combining single landscape photos with dynamic videos of waterfalls, clouds, mist, and birds. Its originality is reflected in the shooting of individual materials, the arrangement of the overall structure, and the design of the camera's angle of advance, which meets the provisions of the "Implementation Regulations of the Copyright Law" regarding works created by methods similar to film production. Therefore, the court determined that the film and television special effects video involved in the case is a work created by methods similar to film production.
Secondly, regarding whether Hangzhou Time Coordinate Company has the right to exercise copyright over the film and television special effects video involved in the case. The TV series "Ancient Love Poetry" is a work created by methods similar to film production. According to the law, the copyright of this type of work is enjoyed by the producer. Hangzhou Time Coordinate Company claims that the film and television special effects video involved in the case is an independent work separate from the completed shots and can independently claim copyright. The court believes that "independent use" in copyright law refers to the use of scripts, music, and other works separately from films or works created by methods similar to film production. The film and television special effects video involved in the case and the segment of the TV series "Ancient Love Poetry" are indistinguishable in terms of originality and belong to the same work. The use of the film and television special effects video involved in the case also uses consecutive images in the TV series, thus using the TV series "Ancient Love Poetry" itself, rather than the "independent use" of the special effects video segment. Therefore, the special effects segment involved in the case does not belong to the works that can be used independently in works created by methods similar to film production.
It should be pointed out that, according to the statement of Hangzhou Time Coordinate Company, the film and television special effects video of "Ancient Love Poetry" it produced, in addition to being published through the public release of the TV series "Ancient Love Poetry", has not been published through other channels, and the engineering files used to produce the film and television special effects video have not been publicly published. Therefore, the public has no other way to directly obtain the film and television special effects video used to synthesize the completed shots of "Ancient Love Poetry" except through the TV series "Ancient Love Poetry". Therefore, even if the computer special effects production contract does not stipulate the copyright ownership of the special effects video, according to the relevant provisions of the Copyright Law, Shanghai Juku Company also enjoys the copyright of the special effects video in "Ancient Love Poetry".
In summary, the film and television special effects video in question does not constitute a work that can be used independently in a film work. Therefore, Hangzhou Time Coordinate Company is not qualified as the plaintiff to exercise its right of action in the name of the copyright holder, and the court ruled to dismiss the lawsuit of Hangzhou Time Coordinate Company. Hangzhou Time Coordinate Company appealed, and the Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court upheld the ruling.
Case Ten: Counterfeiting "GUCCI" and "LV" Brands
Criminal Case of Defendants Zhao Moumou and Zhang Moumou for Selling Goods with Counterfeit Registered Trademarks
Case Index
(2018) Zhejiang 8601 Criminal Initial 35
Reasons for Selection
The trademarks counterfeited in this case are the internationally renowned brands "GUCCI", "Burberry", "Fendi", and "LV".
The number of counterfeit goods was large (1915 pieces), and the amount was high (valued at 370,100 yuan). This case determined that purchasing goods with counterfeit registered trademarks for the purpose of sale, like purchasing shoddy products for the purpose of sale, is a socially harmful act. When this social harm reaches a serious level, it constitutes a crime. From the process of selling goods with counterfeit registered trademarks, the act of purchasing, etc., for the purpose of selling goods with counterfeit registered trademarks, is a common and necessary component of the sales act and should be regarded as having begun to implement the crime; when the perpetrator purchases goods with counterfeit registered trademarks with a huge value for the purpose of sale, and is seized before sale, it is due to reasons beyond the perpetrator's will that the crime was not successful, and the provisions of Article 23 of the Criminal Law on attempted crimes should be applied, and criminal responsibility should be investigated for the crime of selling goods with counterfeit registered trademarks. In other words, for goods that are not shoddy but bear counterfeit registered trademarks seized in the perpetrator's warehouse, residence, or other hiding place, with a value of more than 150,000 yuan, as long as there is evidence to prove that the perpetrator has the intention to sell, it can be dealt with according to the crime of selling goods with counterfeit registered trademarks (attempted) and the punishment can be mitigated or reduced according to the completed crime. The establishment of this judicial rule in this case has certain reference significance for the trial of similar cases.
Brief Case Facts
In October 2017, the defendants Zhao Moumou and Zhang Moumou purchased a batch of handbags and leather goods bearing the trademarks "GUCCI", "Burberry", "Fendi", and "LV" at a low price from others and sold them at stall No. 518, Area B, Huamo Shoe City, Jianggan District, Hangzhou. On January 31, 2018, when the Jianggan District Market Supervision and Administration Bureau of Hangzhou City inspected the stall, they seized a total of 1915 bags bearing the trademarks "GUCCI", "Burberry", "Fendi", and "LV" at the stall and warehouse No. 1215 in the basement of Bubugao Shoe City. According to the identification of the registered trademark holder and the Hangzhou Jianggan District Price Certification Center, all the above-mentioned goods are goods with counterfeit registered trademarks, with a total value of 370,100 yuan.
After being arrested, the defendants Zhao Moumou and Zhang Moumou truthfully confessed their crimes.
Court Judgment
The court held that the defendants Zhao Moumou and Zhang Moumou sold goods with counterfeit registered trademarks, and the sales amount was huge, and their actions constituted the crime of selling goods with counterfeit registered trademarks. The charges of the public prosecution organ were established. The defendants Zhao Moumou and Zhang Moumou had begun to sell goods with counterfeit registered trademarks, but had not succeeded due to reasons beyond their will, which constituted an attempted crime, and their punishment could be mitigated according to the completed crime. After being arrested, the defendants Zhao Moumou and Zhang Moumou truthfully confessed their crimes, and were given a lighter punishment according to the law. Based on the criminal circumstances and repentance of the defendants Zhao Moumou and Zhang Moumou, probation could be applied according to the law. The court adopted the defense opinions of the defense lawyers for the two defendants requesting the court to mitigate the punishment. The sentencing suggestion of the public prosecution organ was appropriate. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China and other laws, the defendant Zhao Moumou was sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment, suspended for four years, and fined 185,050 yuan; the defendant Zhang Moumou was sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended for three years, and fined 185,050 yuan; the infringing goods involved were confiscated.
After the verdict, neither of the two defendants appealed, and the first-instance judgment has taken effect.
Source: Hangzhou Internet Court (Hangzhou Railway Transportation Court)
