Gong Jun sues Hive Box for millions in damages, now entangled in jurisdictional dispute
[4] Compiled from: Red Star News
Case review
Recently, Tianyancha APP disclosed the first-instance documents of the portrait rights dispute between Gong Jun and Shenzhen Hive Box Technology Co., Ltd.
The documents show that the plaintiff, Gong Jun, claims that the defendant, Hive Box Company, displayed multiple images containing Gong Jun's portrait on the screen interface of its "Hive Box" courier lockers nationwide, with words such as "Gong Jun" and "Teacher Gong" next to the portrait. This was done to use Gong Jun to attract traffic for its brand while charging advertising fees externally, with clear commercial profit purposes. The defendant used the plaintiff's name and portrait in a "false endorsement" manner, infringing on the plaintiff's right to name and right to portrait. Therefore, the plaintiff requests the court to order the defendant to apologize and compensate for economic losses and rights protection expenses totaling 1.01 million yuan.
Hive Box Company raised an objection to jurisdiction, arguing that the case should be heard by the Beijing Internet Court.
The Beijing Chaoyang District People's Court held that the result of Gong Jun's photos being displayed on the "Hive Box Smart Cabinet" without permission did not occur on the internet, so the outcome of the disputed act in the case constitutes a physical result. Beijing Chaoyang District is the place where the infringing act occurred, so the court has jurisdiction over the case. Ultimately, the court rejected Hive Box Company's objection to jurisdiction.
[3] Civil Procedure Law
Article 29
A lawsuit arising from an infringing act shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court of the place where the infringing act occurred or where the defendant is domiciled.
Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts
Article 2
The Beijing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou Internet Courts have centralized jurisdiction over the following first-instance cases within their respective cities that should be accepted by the basic people's courts:
(7) Disputes arising from infringement of others' personal rights, property rights, and other civil rights and interests on the internet;
[1] The author's perspective
Nowadays, many brands or companies use photos of celebrities without their consent, attempting to leverage their fame to boost brand recognition. Such incidents are common, and people are aware that this is illegal. Therefore, this article does not discuss celebrities' right to肖像, but focuses on the jurisdiction of this case.
This case involves an infringement dispute. According to Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Law, it can be under the jurisdiction of the people's court at the place of the infringing act or the defendant's domicile. The place of the infringing act includes both the place where the act was committed and the place where the result occurred. The plaintiff's evidence, collected from Hive Box, is located in Beijing's Chaoyang District. Thus, Chaoyang District is the place where the infringement result occurred. However, the defendant's objection to jurisdiction is not based on the incorrect location of the result, but on the argument that this incident is an internet case and should be under the jurisdiction of the Beijing Internet Court. So, why did this seemingly "internet-related" case ultimately fall under the jurisdiction of the Beijing Chaoyang District Court?
From the court's ruling, it can be seen that not all cases with an internet connection are internet cases. In this case, although the plaintiff's photos were uploaded and reviewed via the internet, the final projection was on a physical Hive Box cabinet. This constitutes an infringement with a tangible result, so the Chaoyang District Court has jurisdiction.
Thus, it is evident that in a lawsuit, not only substantive legal issues but also procedural legal issues deserve attention.
