|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| First Group of Model Cases Involving Internet Published by the Supreme People's Court | | 最高人民法院发布第一批涉互联网典型案例 |
| (August 16, 2018) | | （2018年8月16日） |
| Table of Contents | | 目录 |
| 1. Chongqing Alibaba Petty Loans Co., Ltd. v. Chen Zhuangqun (Case about disputes over a petty loan contract) | | 1. 重庆市阿里巴巴小额贷款有限公司诉陈壮群小额借款合同纠纷案 |
| 2. Xu Ruiyun v. Jing Ziqiao and Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd. (Case about disputes over an online shopping contract) | | 2. 徐瑞云诉敬子桥、浙江淘宝网络有限公司网络购物合同纠纷案 |
| 3. Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd. v. Xu Wenqiang et al. (Case about disputes over a network service contract) | | 3. 浙江淘宝网络有限公司诉许文强等网络服务合同纠纷案 |
| 4. Wang Bin v. Wang Fan, Zhou Jie, and Shanghai 5pao Network Technology Co., Ltd. (Case about disputes over a contract on the transfer of an online shop) | | 4. 王兵诉汪帆、周洁、上海舞泡网络科技有限公司网络店铺转让合同纠纷案 |
| 5. Pang Lipeng v. China Eastern Airlines Co., Ltd. and Beijing Qunar Information Technology Co., Ltd. (Case about disputes over right of privacy) | | 5. 庞理鹏诉中国东方航空股份有限公司、北京趣拿信息技术有限公司隐私权纠纷案 |
| 6. Xie Xin v. Shenzhen Lanren Online Technology Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Chuangce Technology Co., Ltd., et al. (Case about disputes over infringement upon the right communicate works to public over information networks) | | 6. 谢鑫诉深圳市懒人在线科技有限公司、杭州创策科技有限公司等侵害作品信息网络传播权纠纷案 |
| 7. Shangkequan (Beijing) Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. v. The Poem For You (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd. and Shoushan (Beijing) Cultural Industry Co., Ltd. (Case about disputes over unauthorized use of the unique name of well-known services) | | 7. 尚客圈（北京）文化传播有限公司诉为你读诗（北京）科技有限公司、首善（北京）文化产业有限公司擅自使用知名服务特有名称纠纷案 |
| 8. Nanjing Shangju Decoration Engineering Co., Ltd. v. Nanjing Feiriqiang Decoration Engineering Co., Ltd. (Case about disputes over infringement upon copyright and false publicity) | | 8. 南京尚居装饰工程有限公司诉南京飞日强装饰工程有限公司著作权侵权、虚假宣传纠纷案 |
| 9. Guangdong Branch of Ping An Property Insurance Company of China v. Wu Chuntian and Beijing Yixin Yixing Automotive Technical Development Service Co., Ltd. (Case about disputes over insurer's subrogation) | | 9. 中国平安财产保险股份有限公司广东分公司诉吴春田、北京亿心宜行汽车技术开发服务有限公司保险人代位求偿权纠纷案 |
| 10. Case about Application of Shenzhen Player Cultural Dissemination Co., Ltd. for Enforcement | | 10. 深圳市玩家文化传播有限公司申请强制执行案 |
| 1. Chongqing Alibaba Petty Loans Co., Ltd. v. Chen Zhuangquan (Case about disputes over a petty loan contract) | | 1.重庆市阿里巴巴小额贷款有限公司诉陈壮群小额借款合同纠纷案 |
| Basic Facts | | 基本案情 |
| On July 25, 2015, Chongqing Alibaba Petty Loans Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Alibaba Petty Loans Company”) and Chen Zhuangqun concluded online a My Loan Contract, which stipulated loans and rights and obligations of the relevant parties. In particular, it was specially stipulated in the Contract that with respect to disputes arising from the Contract, the judicial organ may serve legal documents through such modern means of communication as SMS or e-mail; the mobile phone number or e-mail for receiving legal documents as specified by Chen Zhuangqun was that bound with his Alipay account with Alipay passwords entered in the conclusion of the Contract; Chen Zhuangqun consented to the judicial organ's adoption of one or several means in the service of legal documents and the time of service was subject to that of the earliest service among all means of service; Chen Zhuangqun confirmed that the aforesaid means of service were applicable to all judicial phases, including but not limited to first instance, second instance, retrial, enforcement as well as procedure of urging debt payment; and Chen Zhuangqun ensured the accuracy and effectiveness of the address for service of legal documents. If the provided address was inaccurate or Chen Zhuangqun failed to notify Alibaba Petty Loans Company of the altered address in a timely manner, causing failure to serve legal documents or service of legal documents not in time, he would assume the legal consequences that may arise therefrom. After the conclusion of the Contract, Alibaba Petty Loans Company issued a loan, but Chen Zhuangqun failed to repay the principal and interest as agreed. Therefore, Alibaba Petty Loans Company filed this lawsuit. | | 2015年7月25日，重庆市阿里巴巴小额贷款有限公司（以下简称阿里小贷公司）与陈壮群在线签订《网商贷贷款合同》，约定借款及相关双方权利义务。其中，合同特别约定：对于因合同争议引起的纠纷，司法机关可以通过手机短信或电子邮件等现代通讯方式送达法律文书；陈壮群指定接收法律文书的手机号码或电子邮箱为合同签约时输入支付宝密码的支付宝账户绑定的手机号码或电子邮箱；陈壮群同意司法机关采取一种或多种送达方式送达法律文书，送达时间以上述送达方式中最先送达的为准；陈壮群确认上述送达方式适用于各个司法阶段，包括但不限于一审、二审、再审、执行以及督促程序；陈壮群保证送达地址准确、有效，如果提供的地址不确切，或者不及时告知变更后的地址，使法律文书无法送达或未及时送达，自行承担由此可能产生的法律后果。合同签订后，阿里小贷公司发放贷款，但陈壮群未依约还款付息，故阿里小贷公司提起诉讼。 |
| In the trial, through the litigation service platform of 12368, the Railway Transport Court of Hangzhou City sent such litigation documents as the notice of response to litigation, the notice of proof, and the summons to the mobile phone number bounded with defendant Chen Zhuangqun's Alipay account and it was displayed on the platform system that such documents were sent successfully. Without any justifiable reasons, Chen Zhuangqun refused to appear in court to participate in litigation and the Railway Transport Court of Hangzhou City proceeded with the trial by default according to the law. | | 审理过程中，法院通过12368诉讼服务平台，向被告陈壮群支付宝账户绑定的手机号码发送应诉通知书、举证通知书、开庭传票等诉讼文书，平台系统显示发送成功。陈壮群无正当理由拒不到庭参加诉讼，法院依法缺席审理。 |
| Adjudication | | 裁判结果 |
| On June 25, 2017, the Railway Transport Court of Hangzhou City (the present Internet Court of Hangzhou City) entered a civil judgment (No. 943 [2017], First, Civil Division, 8601, Zhejiang) that Chen Zhuangqun should repay Alibaba Petty Loans Company the principal of the loan, the interest, the fine, and the legal fees, CNY587,158.25 in total. After the judgment of first instance was pronounced and served, neither plaintiff nor defendant appealed and the judgment has come into force. | | 杭州铁路运输法院（现为杭州互联网法院）于2017年6月25日作出（2017）浙8601民初943号民事判决：陈壮群返还阿里小贷公司借款本金并支付利息、罚息、律师费等共计587158.25元。一审宣判并送达后，原、被告均未提出上诉，该判决已发生法律效力。 |
| Significance | | 典型意义 |
| “Difficulty in service” is always one of the problems confronting the trial work. It has seriously affected judicial efficiency and lowered the judicial credibility. In judicial practice, the root of many “difficulties in service” was the addressee's avoidance of litigation and refusal to cooperate with the service of the people's court. Under such circumstance, it is obvious that “difficulty in service” cannot be solved by only depending on the letter of confirmation on service address entered during litigation. The pre-litigation agreement on service complies with the interests of both parties and it should be absorbed by the service address confirmation system. It enriches the forms of the service address confirmation system and mutually complements the letter of confirmation on service address entered during litigation, and becomes an effective form for efficiently solving “difficulties in service.” | | “送达难”一直是困扰审判工作的问题之一，严重影响司法效率，降低了司法公信。司法实践中，许多“送达难”问题产生的根源是受送达人躲避诉讼、拒不配合法院送达。在此种情况下，依靠诉中填写送达地址确认书，显然无法解决“送达难”问题。诉前约定送达符合双方当事人利益，应该被送达地址确认制度所吸收，丰富送达地址确认制度形式，与诉中填写送达地址确认书相互补充，成为高效解决“送达难”的有效形式。 |
| In this case, in the conclusion of a contract, upon consensus, the parties agreed on the use of electronic service after a lawsuit was filed due to contractual disputes, the address for electronic address, the scope of applicable procedures, the method for altering the address, and the legal consequences of service failure due to a fault. Such agreement was specific and both parties could predict the legal consequences if a lawsuit was filed arising from the clause of service. With the essential elements of a letter of confirmation on service address, it had the effect of the letter of confirmation on service address. Although the clause on pre-litigation agreement on service was inconsistent with such forms as the uniform print form entered under the guidance of the court during litigation, as long as it satisfied the essential elements and could effectively solve the problem of “difficulties in service” on the premise of safeguarding the parties' rights of action, it was a more convenient and efficient service. Therefore, it was confirmed in this case that where the parties have reached specific agreement on the manner of electronic service, electronic service address as well as legal consequences in the relevant contract before action, such agreement had the effect equivalent to that of a letter of confirmation on service address. During litigation, the people's court may directly serve litigation documents excluding judgments, rulings, and mediation documents to the electronic service address agreed before litigation by applying the manner of electronic service. | | 本案中，当事人在签订合同时经合意约定了因合同纠纷成讼后，可使用电子送达方式及电子送达地址、可适用的程序范围、地址变更方式、因过错导致文书未送达的法律后果等内容，内容明确、具体，双方对送达条款均能够预见诉讼后产生的法律后果，该约定具有《送达地址确认书》的实质要件，具有相当于《送达地址确认书》的效力。诉前约定送达条款虽然与在诉中由法院引导填写、统一的印制格式等形式不尽相符，但是只要其满足了实质要件，能够在保障当事人诉权的前提下有效解决送达难题，是一种更便捷、高效的送达。因此，本案例确认，当事人在诉前相关合同中对电子送达方式、电子送达地址及法律后果做出明确、具体约定的，该约定具有相当于《送达地址确认书》的效力。人民法院在诉讼过程中可以直接适用电子送达方式向诉前约定的电子送达地址送达除判决书、裁定书、调解书以外的诉讼文书。 |
| 2. Xu Ruiyun v. Jing Ziqiao and Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd. (Case about disputes over an online shopping contract) | | 2.徐瑞云诉敬子桥、浙江淘宝网络有限公司网络购物合同纠纷案 |
| Basic Facts | | 基本案情 |
| Xu Ruiyun bought milk powder imported from Russia from the online shop operated by Jing Ziqiao on Taobao. In accordance with the provisions of the Measures for the Safety Administration of Imported and Exported Food, a registration system was applied to the overseas food production enterprises exporting food into China. Upon inquiry into the Special Columns for Registered Overseas Food Production Enterprises of Imported Food issued by the Certification and Accreditation Administration, “Russia” was not in the “list of registered overseas production enterprises of imported dairy products” and Jing Ziqiao failed to provide all necessary inspection and quarantine materials for imported food. Xu Ruiyun alleged that the aforesaid food sold by Jing Ziqiao was food without undergoing inspection and quarantine formalities. In the meantime, as a network service provider, Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Taobao Company”) failed to review the commodities sold on its platform and was at fault in the regulation of its transaction service platform. Therefore, Xu Ruiyun filed a lawsuit with the Railway Transport Court of Shanghai Municipality and requested the Court to order that: (1) defendant Jing Ziqiao should repay plaintiff the payment for goods of CNY5,043.50; (2) defendant Jing Ziqiao should compensate plaintiff CNY50,435; and (3) defendant Taobao Company should assume joint and several liability for defendant Jing Ziqiao's aforesaid compensation. | | 徐瑞云在敬子桥经营的淘宝网络交易平台网店中购买了俄罗斯进口奶粉。根据《进出口食品安全管理办法》的规定，对向我国境内出口食品的境外食品生产企业实施注册制度。经查询我国国家认证认可监督管理委员会发布的《进口食品境外生产企业注册专栏》，在“进口乳品境外生产企业注册名单”中未查见“俄罗斯”，敬子桥也无法提供进口食品应具备的全部检验检疫等资料。徐瑞云认为敬子桥销售的前述食品系未经检验检疫的食品，同时，淘宝公司作为网络服务提供者未对进入其平台销售的商品进行审核，对交易服务平台的监管存在过错，故诉至法院，请求：1、判令被告敬子桥向原告退还货款5，043.50元；2、判令被告敬子桥向原告赔偿50，435元；3、判令被告浙江淘宝网络有限公司对被告敬子桥的上述赔偿承担连带责任。 |
| Adjudication | | 裁判结果 |
| On September 11, 2017, the Railway Transport Court of Shanghai Municipality entered a civil judgment (No. 318 [2017], First, Civil Division, 7101, Shanghai) that defendant Jing Ziqiao should repay plaintiff Xu Ruiyun the payment for goods of CNY5,043.50 and compensate him CNY50,435. After the judgment of first instance was pronounced, neither party appealed and the judgment has come into force. | | 上海铁路运输法院于2017年9月11日作出（2017）沪7101民初318号民事判决，判令被告敬子桥退还原告徐瑞云货款5，043.50元及赔偿50，435元等。一审判决后，双方当事人均未上诉，本案判决现已生效。 |
| Significance | | 典型意义 |
| Food safety concerns people's lives and health and it has significant impacts on social stability and economic development. in the field of food safety. Major food safety incidents occur frequently, which has seriously harmed the public health, caused threats to the building of a harmonious society, and made China face severe food safety issues. With the trade globalization and China's economic and social development, imported food has become an important food source for Chinese consumers. Especially through network marketing, a large number of imported foods in various categories have been delivered to consumers. The safety of imported food cannot be ignored, either. Imported food must comply with the China's national standards for food safety. Where an operator sells imported food in violation of the national food safety regulations, he, she or it should assume corresponding legal liability. It is specified through this case that imported food should comply with China's national standards for food safety, pass the inspection conducted by the entry-exit inspection and quarantine institution of the state in accordance with the laws and administrative regulations related to the inspection of imported and exported commodities, and be accompanied by inspection certificates as required by the entry-exit inspection and quarantine institution of the state. As an operator, defendant Jing Ziqiao must ensure the safety of food source. In this case, the milk powder imported from Russia that was sold by Jing Ziqiao online was not food China allows access at present and he failed to provide all necessary materials for imported food including the relevant documents for customs declaration of imported goods, inspection and quarantine certificate for imported goods, sanitary certificate for product inspection and quarantine, and the customs clearance certificate issued by the customs office. Therefore, it was identified that the milk power involved was not food complying with the food safety standards. Knowing that the food he sold did not comply with the food safety standards, Jing Ziqiao still sold it. Therefore, plaintiff's claim for repayment of the payment for goods and compensation ten times of the payment for goods had a legal basis and the Railway Transport Court of Shanghai Municipality should upheld such claim. Defendant Taobao Company reviewed the principal information and business qualification of Jing Ziqiao and provided the real name, address, and effective contact information of the seller when plaintiff Xu Ruiyun safeguarded her rights, and the commodities involved have been out of stock in a timely manner. Taobao Company has performed its duty of care and it should not assume the joint and several liability for compensation. | | 食品安全关涉人民群众的生命与健康，对于社会稳定、经济发展具有重大影响。近些年，食品安全领域由于重大食品安全事故频发，严重危害到公众健康，对构建和谐社会造成威胁，使我国面临着极为严峻的食品安全问题。随着贸易全球化和我国经济社会的发展，进口食品已经成为我国消费者重要的食品来源，尤其是通过网络销售，大量种类繁多的进口食品送到了消费者手中。进口食品安全问题，同样不能忽视，必须符合我国食品安全国家标准，经营者违反国家食品安全规定销售进口食品的，应当承担相应的法律责任。本案例即明确，进口食品应当符合我国食品安全国家标准，经国家出入境检验检疫机构依照进出口商品检验相关法律、行政法规的规定检验合格，按照国家出入境检验检疫部门的要求随附合格证明材料。被告敬子桥作为经营者必须要保证食品来源的安全。本案中，被告敬子桥通过网络销售的俄罗斯进口奶粉不是我国目前准入的食品，且被告敬子桥也无法提供进口货物的相关报关单据、入境货物检验检疫证明、产品检验检疫卫生证书、海关发放的通关证明等进口食品所应具备的资料，故认定涉案奶粉属于不符合食品安全标准的食品。因被告敬子桥销售明知是不符合食品安全标准的食品，原告要求退还货款并支付价款十倍的赔偿金，于法有据，法院予以支持。被告浙江淘宝网络有限公司对被告敬子桥的主体信息、经营资质进行了审核，并在原告徐瑞云维权时提供了销售者的真实名称、地址和有效联系方式，涉案商品也已及时下架处理，其已经履行了注意义务，不应承担连带赔偿责任。 |
| 3. Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd. v. Xu Wenqiang et al. (Case about disputes over a network service contract) | | 3.浙江淘宝网络有限公司诉许文强等网络服务合同纠纷案 |
| Basic Facts | | 基本案情 |
| In 2009, Xu Wenqiang registered with Taobao and opened an online shop for selling alcoholic products. In the registration, he concluded the Taobao Platform Service Agreement with Zhejiang Taobao Network Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to “Taobao Company”), which stipulated that Xu Wenqiang was not allowed to sell/provide commodities/services infringing upon others' intellectual property rights or other lawful rights and interests on the Taobao platform. However, during the period from November 2014 to September 2015, Xu Wenqiang sold liquor of counterfeit Wuliangye on the Taobao platform. Afterwards, Wuliangye Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Wuliangye Company”) in Yibin City of Sichuan Province filed a lawsuit against Xu Wenqiang on the ground that its trademark rights were infringed. The court ordered that Xu Wenqiang should pay Wuliangye Company CNY70,000 as compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses. In the meantime, Taobao Company alleged that Xu Wenqiang and Shanghai Shunming Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Shunming Company”) which was a one-person limited company with Xu Wenqiang as a shareholder violated the service agreement. | | 2009年，许文强在淘宝网注册，开设网店销售酒类产品，其在注册时与浙江淘宝网络有限公司（以下简称淘宝公司）签署了《淘宝平台服务协议》，约定：不得在淘宝平台上销售/提供侵犯他人知识产权或其他合法权益的商品/服务。然而在2014年11月至2015年9月间，许文强在淘宝平台上销售五粮液假酒，之后被四川省宜宾五粮液集团有限公司以商标权受到侵害为由提起诉讼，法院判决其赔偿五粮液公司经济损失及合理开支7万元。同时，淘宝公司认为许文强及其作为股东设立的一人有限公司上海舜鸣贸易有限公司（以下简称舜鸣公司）违反了服务协议。 |
| Taobao Company alleged that the online shop of Xu Wenqiang sold counterfeit products in violation of the service agreement, causing great adverse effects on Taobao Company's reputation. In order to crack down on sales of counterfeit products, Taobao Company has input a lot of manpower and material resources. With respect to the corresponding losses incurred therefrom, Taobao Company demanded Xu Wenqiang and his Company's compensation for its losses and payment of legal fees, over CNY120,000 in total. | | 淘宝公司诉称，许文强网店售假行为违反服务协议约定，给淘宝网声誉造成巨大负面影响，淘宝公司为打击售假行为，投入大量人力物力，产生相应损失，要求许文强及其公司赔偿损失及律师费等共计12万余元。 |
| Xu Wenqiang and Shunming Company contended that Xu Wenqiang has assumed the corresponding compensation liability and he did not infringe upon Taobao Company's economic interests and goodwill. He has received the corresponding punishment given by Taobao Company for the selling of liquor of counterfeit Wuliangye and he should no longer be sued for compensation. Shunming Company should assume no liability for the selling of counterfeit products occurred prior to its engagement in business operations. | | 许文强和舜鸣公司辩称，许文强已承担相关赔偿责任，未侵犯淘宝公司的经济利益和商誉。出售假冒五粮液的行为已经受到了淘宝公司的相应处罚，不应再被起诉要求赔偿。舜鸣公司不应对其参与经营之前的销售行为承担责任。 |
| Adjudication | | 裁判结果 |
| On September 21, 2017, the People's Court of Songjiang District, Shanghai Municipality entered a civil judgment (No. 7706 [2017], First, Civil Division, 0117, Shanghai) that: (1) Xu Wenqiang should, within ten days after the judgment came into force, compensate Taobao Company CNY2,000 for its losses; (2) Xu Wenqiang should compensate Taobao Company CNY13,000 for its reasonable expenses; and (3) other claims of Taobao Company should be dismissed. After the judgment was pronounced, both Taobao Company and Xu Wenqiang appealed. On January 16, 2018, the No. 1 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai Municipality entered a civil judgment (No. 13085 [2017], Final, Civil Division, 01, Shanghai) that: First, item (3) of the civil judgment (No. 7706 [2017], First, Civil Division, 0117, Shanghai) entered by the People's Court of Songjiang District, Shanghai Municipality should be affirmed; second, item (1) of the civil judgment (No. 7706 [2017], First, Civil Division, 0117, Shanghai) entered by the People's Court of Songjiang District, Shanghai Municipality should be altered and appellant Xu Wenqiang should, within ten days after the judgment came into force, pay Taobao Company CNY20,000 as compensation for its economic losses; and third, item (2) of the civil judgment (No. 7706 [2017], First, Civil Division, 0117, Shanghai) entered by the People's Court of Songjiang District, Shanghai Municipality should be altered and appellant Xu Wenqiang should, within ten days after the judgment came into force, pay appellant Taobao Company CNY23,000 for its reasonable expenses. | | 上海市松江区人民法院于2017年9月21日做出（2017）沪0117民初7706号民事判决：一、许文强于判决生效之日起十日内赔偿淘宝公司损失2，000元；二、许文强于判决生效之日起十日内赔偿淘宝公司合理支出13，000元；三、驳回淘宝公司其余诉讼请求。宣判后，淘宝公司和许文强提出上诉。上海市第一中级人民法院于2018年1月16日做出（2017）沪01民终13085号民事判决：维持上海市松江区人民法院（2017）沪0117民初7706号民事判决第三项；二、变更上海市松江区人民法院（2017）沪0117民初7706号民事判决第一项为上诉人许文强于本判决生效之日起十日内赔偿上诉人浙江淘宝网络有限公司损失20，000元；三、变更上海市松江区人民法院（2017）沪0117民初7706号民事判决第二项为上诉人许文强于本判决生效之日起十日内赔偿上诉人浙江淘宝网络有限公司合理支出23，000元。 |
| Significance | | 典型意义 |
| With the rise of “Internet plus,” the e-commerce industry has been rapidly developing. However, there are many problems demanding prompt solution. In particular, prevalent problems of producing or selling counterfeit commodities are the most serious. Confined by the concealed network behavior, difficult testification, and complex technologies, purification measures adopted by the e-commerce platform are very important. | | 随着“互联网＋”的兴起，电商产业飞速发展，但同时也出现了诸多亟待解决的问题，尤以普遍存在的造假售假问题最为严重。囿于网络行为的隐蔽性、举证的艰难性、技术的复杂性，电商平台自身采取的净化措施就十分重要。 |
| In this case, it was identified that there was an effective agreement between Taobao Company and Xu Wenqiang and Xu Wenqiang's act of selling counterfeit liquor. It was stipulated in the service agreement involved that users may not sell or release commodities or service information that infringed upon others' intellectual property rights or other lawful rights and interests on the Taobao platform. As a user of Taobao, Xu Wenqiang should abide by the agreement and perform his obligations. It was identified in the effective judgment that through “Qiangsheng Vintage Workshop” he opened, Xu Wenqiang sold liquor of counterfeit Wuliangye, which infringed upon Wuliangye Company's right to use the trademark “Wuliangye.” This showed that Xu Wenqiang's act of selling counterfeit commodities has violated the agreement between him and Taobao Company. Such act not only damaged the lawful rights and interests of the relevant obligee of the commodities, but also lowered consumer's trusts in Taobao and the public's good evaluation of Taobao. When using services of the Taobao platform, Xu Wenqiang should predict the possible damages of his act of selling counterfeit commodities to the commodity obligee, consumers, and Taobao Company. Goodwill is positive social evaluation on operators or formed in the process where operators provide commodities or services. Embodied in commodities, trademarks, or corporate names, goodwill can be realized to actual commercial profits in production and business operations and it has a significant property attributes. Therefore, Taobao Company's claim for compensation for loss of goodwill and other losses had the corresponding basis. Both the operator of an e-commerce platform and operators that have concluded agreements with the platform were obliged to conduct standardized business operators according to the law. Since Xu Wenqiang sold liquor of counterfeit Wuliangye on Taobao, he should not only assume the obligation of compensation to consumers, but assume the liability for breach of contract with the e-commerce platform and the operator of the e-commerce operator also had the right to make merchants selling counterfeit commodities be held responsible for breach of contract according to the law. From another point of view, combating counterfeiting and purifying e-shopping environment are also responsibilities of third-party trading platforms, which conform to their long-term business interests and are conducive to safeguarding consumers' lawful rights and interests and maintaining the fair and competitive market order. | | 本案认定淘宝公司与许文强之间存在有效的协议，许文强的售假行为违反了协议约定。本案所涉服务协议均约定，用户不得在淘宝平台上销售或发布侵犯他人知识产权或其它合法权益的商品或服务信息。许文强作为淘宝用户，应恪守约定，履行自身义务。已有生效判决认定，许文强通过开设的“强升名酒坊”店铺，销售假冒的五粮液，侵害五粮液公司对“五粮液”注册商标享有的使用权。由此可见，许文强的售假行为已经违反了与淘宝公司之间的约定。许文强在淘宝网上出售假冒五粮液的行为不仅损害了与商品相关权利人的合法权益，而且降低了消费者对淘宝网的信赖和社会公众对淘宝网的良好评价。许文强在使用淘宝平台服务时，应当预见售假行为对商品权利人、消费者以及淘宝公司可能产生的损害。商誉是经营者本身以及经营者提供商品或服务过程中形成的一种积极社会评价。商誉可以体现在商品、商标、企业名称上，能够在生产经营中变现为实际的商业利润，具有显著的财产属性。因此，淘宝公司要求赔偿商誉等损失的主张具有相应的依据。电商平台经营者和平台内签约经营者均有依法规范经营的义务，许文强在淘宝网上销售假冒的五粮液，不仅应当承担对消费者的赔偿义务，也应当依约承担对电商平台的违约责任，电商平台经营者也有权依法追究平台售假商家的违约责任。从另外一个角度看，打假和净化网络购物环境也是第三方交易平台经营者的责任，符合其长远经营利益，有利于维护消费者合法权益，维护公平竞争的市场秩序。 |
| 4. Wang Bin v. Wang Fan, Zhou Jie, and Shanghai 5pao Network Technology Co., Ltd. (Case about disputes over a contract on the transfer of an online shop) | | 4.王兵诉汪帆、周洁、上海舞泡网络科技有限公司网络店铺转让合同纠纷案 |
| Basic Facts | | 基本案情 |
| On April 9, 2014, the transferee Wang Bing, the transferor Zhou Jie, and the intermediary Shanghai 5pao Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “5pao Company”) concluded a Contract on the Transfer of an Online Shop, which stipulated that Zhou Jie transferred the Taobao shop “Zhicheng Kaituo” with the certified Alipay name of Wang Fan to Wang Bing. Through 5pao Company, Wang Bing paid the transfer fee of CNY20,000; after deducting the commission of CNY2,000, 5pao Company actually transferred CNY18,000 to Zhou Jie. The account name of the Taobao shop “Zhicheng Kaituo” was 2912361468@qq.com and the operator upon real name certification was Wang Fan and Zhou Jie was the managing agent. On December 3, 2015, Wang Fan retrieved the password of the shop in dispute and the shop in dispute was under the actual control of Wang Fan. In July 2016, Wang Bing filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Minhang District, Shanghai Municipality and requested the Court to order that Wang Fan and Zhou Jie should pay the liquidated damages of CNY6,000; refund the deposit of CNY11,830; double refund the transfer fee that has been charged, amounting to CNY40,000; pay the compensation of CNY100,000; and jointly assume the litigation fee of this case. | | 2014年4月9日，受让方王兵与出让方周洁、居间方上海舞泡网络科技有限公司（以下简称舞泡公司）签订《网络店铺转让合同》，约定周洁将支付宝认证名称为汪帆的“至诚开拓”淘宝店转让给王兵等内容。王兵通过舞泡公司支付转让费20，000元；舞泡公司扣除2，000元佣金后实际转交周洁18，000元。“至诚开拓”淘宝店的账户名为2912361468@qq.com，经实名认证的经营者为汪帆，周洁为代管人。2015年12月3日，汪帆找回了系争店铺的密码，系争店铺处于汪帆控制之下。2016年7月，王兵诉至法院，请求判令汪帆、周洁支付违约金6，000元；退回保证金11，830元；双倍退还已收的转让费用40，000元；支付赔偿金100，000元；共同承担本案诉讼费。 |
| In the trial of second instance, both Zhou Jie and 5pao Company recognized that 5pao Company has deducted CNY2,000 from CNY20,000 paid by Wang Bing and the sum of CNY2,000 was commission which should be paid by Zhou Jie to 5pao Company. In the meantime, Wang Fan indicated that for his own business, he intended to get back the online shop in dispute, but Zhou Jie was unwilling to return it and therefore he retrieved the online shop in dispute by himself. | | 二审审理中，周洁、舞泡公司均认可舞泡公司从王兵交付的20，000元中扣除了2，000元，系周洁应向舞泡公司支付的佣金。同时，汪帆表示其因自身经营的需要，欲从周洁处取回系争网络店铺，但是周洁不愿交还，故汪帆自己找回了系争网络店铺。 |
| Adjudication | | 裁判结果 |
| On April 28, 2017, the People's Court of Minhang District, Shanghai Municipality entered a civil judgment (No. 20679 [2016], First, Civil Division, 0112, Shanghai) that (1) Zhou Jie should, within ten days after the judgment came into force, pay Wang Bing CNY20,000; (2) Zhou Jie and Wang Fan should, within ten days after the judgment came into force, pay Wang Bing CNY3,970; and (3) other claims of Wang Bing should be dismissed. After the judgment was pronounced, Wang Bing, Wang Fan, and Zhou Jie appealed to the No. 1 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai Municipality. On September 15, 2017, the No. 1 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai Municipality entered a judgment of second instance (No. 8862 [2017], Final, Civil Division, 01, Shanghai) that the appeals should be dismissed and the original judgment should be affirmed. | | 上海市闵行区人民法院于2017年4月28日作出（2016）沪0112民初20679号民事判决：一、周洁于判决生效之日起十日内支付王兵20，000元；二、周洁、汪帆于判决生效之日起十日内支付王兵3，970元；三、驳回王兵的其余诉讼请求。宣判后，王兵、汪帆、周洁向上海市第一中级人民法院提出上诉。上海市第一中级人民法院于2017年9月15日作出（2017）沪01民终8862号二审判决：驳回上诉，维持原判。 |
| Significance | | 典型意义 |
There are a large number of private transfers of online shops in real life and disputes arising therefrom are constantly entering into judicial proceedings. There are no relatively uniform opinions on such issues as what has been transferred in the transfer of an online shop and the legal effect of the transfer in theory and practice. This case has specified the corresponding adjudicative standards for disputes arising from the transfer of online shops and it is typical and has some guidance value.
．．．．．． | | 网络店铺的私自转让现实中大量存在，因此产生的纠纷亦有不断进入诉讼的趋势。该案涉及网络店铺转让究竟系转让什么、转让的法律效力如何等问题，理论界和实务界并无相对统一之见解。本案例明确了涉网络店铺转让纠纷相应的裁判规则，具有一定的典型性和指导价值。
．．．．．． |
|
Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.
1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.
2. Binding to the account with access to this database.
3. Apply for a trial account.
4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【￥1500.00】 for your single purchase. | |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户；您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买，支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content
found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright
owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.
Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations
of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language
versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly
or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.
We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve
the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
|
|
|
|
|
|