Female student Online "exposure" provoked lawsuit by Christine claim 2 million

On the one hand, "Christine", who calls himself a famous company in Shanghai, is a female college student in Shanghai who claims to be "selling me out for 1 million" because of a "whisper" spoken on the internet to "girlfriends", which was edited and disseminated on Sina Weibo, female college students were sued by "Christine" in a paper filed to claim the million. Following the first session of August 15, the afternoon of 5th, this High-profile case was heard in the second session of the Xuhui court, and the defendant, Mutsen, never appeared. A whisper or a rumor? A word to attract millions of claims in the November 1992 Wood Heart, in a few days to usher in their 20 birthday, she should have never dreamed, will embark on the journey of 20 years old she is facing the amount of millions of claims lawsuit. April 25, 2012 22:32, the Wood Heart in Renren released such a "state": "Just call my mother to learn, Jinshan a cream factory was seized by the health bureau, the cream is made of gutter oil and foreign industrial oil!" Christine, Lillian Egg tarts, such as Shanghai famous cake brand from this factory!! We must not eat ah, yesterday detected, is expected to be exposed soon!! Don't buy it!!! "The next day at noon, Weibo ID as" News soldier Cao Wenji "micro-Boda, citing the wooden heart of everyone online content, and in addition to" "Christine also happened? "" After the title, posted on Weibo, netizens have forwarded, has aroused public concern. Just 6 hours or so, Christine International Holdings Limited issued a clarification announcement on its official web site, saying it "did not buy raw materials or any cooperation with any Jinshan cream factory in Shanghai," and said it would be held accountable for "disinformation". Then, in the efforts of Christine's Ministry of Law, the "News soldier Cao Wenji" deleted Weibo and apologized, Wood Heart also deleted the relevant posts, and in everyone on the Internet to clarify that they are "on the road to hear people talk about Jinshan a cream factory was seized," then "sent a post to remind me close friends, the result was misrepresented to this ", I hope everyone will not put me and my girlfriends words too serious, if caused misunderstanding, forgive me, I hope you help me clarify." However, this is not the end of the picture. April 27, Shanghai Xuhui Food Co., Ltd. staff to the police reported that the news of the company's normal production caused a significant impact, the police did not file a case. April 28, Shanghai Xuhui to the Court of Justice filed goodwill lawsuit, in the request of female college students Mutsen compensation for the economic loss of 1 million yuan, but also in Renren, micro-blog home prominent position issued a statement, apology, eliminate the impact of the announcement time of not less than 60 days. June 5, the court presided over conciliation between the two sides. If the defendant is willing to make a public apology in the presence of the press and press, the defendants would be able to offer a waiver of compensation, said Shanghai's Liz. The claim of "publicly and insulting" claims was rejected by the defendant's agent, and Shanghai, August 3, added a written request to sue,The defendant was asked to issue a statement to the plaintiff at a press conference held by the plaintiff. Christine or Christine? The plaintiff said that the claim million "just estimate" anyone who pays attention, will notice that the original "Christine", "Christine" is the plaintiff in the case "Christine"? The difference between the two words has become the first key point for defense attorneys to argued. The plaintiff took out many honors, argued Christine is the Mutsen in the original post "Shanghai famous Cake brand Christine", and the defendant took out the National Trademark registration website, the food category under the "Christine" trademark, to prove that "Christine" is not the "Christine". If even the plaintiff's main identity can not be confirmed, and how to infringe the right to goodwill say? Even if the court finds the identity of the same subject, the defendant proposes that, in legal proceedings, "Christine" the rights of the trademark should be for Shanghai Gram Food Co., Ltd. and Christine International Holdings Limited, Shanghai, Liz, a unilateral lawsuit, Christine's international Reservation of litigation rights is not in line with the procedure, It is also unfair to the accused. "This means that, after the claim of Shanghai's 1 million, Christine International can again lodge a claim against the defendant, which is unfair to the defendant." If Christine's goodwill is vested in Shanghai, and Christine's international community, it should be sued by two companies, and Shanghai's Liz has no right to sue for a separate claim. "said the defendant's lawyer, Fuminrong. As for the composition of the 1 million-yuan claim, the plaintiff's lawyer said that it was mainly the loss of operating profit, and also included the loss of human and material resources to deal with the incident, the lawyer's fee of 5000 yuan and the notary fee of 1700 yuan. When the court wise the claim, counsel for the plaintiff explained that the amount was based on the group's profit in the same period (May 2011) and this year (May 2012). However, in the financial statements provided by the plaintiff, May 2011 Group operating profit was 91 million and May 2012 was 95 million. On the question of the presiding judge, counsel for the plaintiff said that the amount of the claim constituted "not clear" and that the company's actual losses were much more than million, and that the amount claimed was 1 million "only estimated". In respect of the amount claimed, the defendant's counsel argues that Shanghai Gram is only a subsidiary of Christine International, the plaintiff used the group profit as a corporate profit for the defendant to claim, the act is suspected of blackmail, the relevant evidence shows that after the incident, the plaintiff's store increased, profits increased, and no loss, The claims submitted have no legal basis. Audit absence or commercial hype? The defendant said that the enterprise should have the obligation of tolerance in the whole case, the defendant Mutsen as an ordinary female student in school, an ordinary netizen, in has 405 (the plaintiff proof) friend's net account release only friends visible "whispers", is intended to remind the Group of people to pay attention to possible risks (the defendant to the proof Jinshan really related rumors) , does such a message need to go through theBusiness verification, audit before release? The defendant's lawyer said in court that the ordinary netizens and the media should not be equated, the release of information to be audited, verification is the requirements of the media, the law does not stipulate that ordinary netizens have the obligation to audit. The plaintiff believes that the defendant Mutsen from the mother's telephone information is not equal to the rumors, after the incident, the defendant has not apologized, to eliminate the impact, and in the previous mediation, trial in a variety of denial, so the claim million is not the original intention, but hope that netizens can learn from it, not rumors, In this case, the defendant's lawyer retorted that, judging from the development of the incident, the plaintiff was not thoroughly investigated after the incident and issued a clarification statement, the defendant deleted the relevant posts, after a day, the plaintiff will be a wooden heart to the court, the claim million, the period did not and wooden heart met, or even through the phone, the defendant "a variety of denial" The argument for prosecution is unconvincing. And after the incident has largely subsided, the plaintiff sued the claim for commercial speculation. At the same time, the defendant lawyer said that since the plaintiff argued himself is well-known enterprises in Shanghai, then, as a well-known enterprises, there should be a certain degree of tolerance obligations, "enterprises can not only enjoy the benefits of visibility, but also to bear the popularity of the challenge and criticism, to accept public questioning and supervision." "For Christine International in a clarification statement," the dissemination of false information claims that the relevant information is reproduced from Renren, after checking the site did not find the original post "one said, the defendant lawyers believe that Renren itself has a certain degree of access limitations, even the plaintiff" did not find the original post ", it can be seen that the defendant in Renren posted posts caused by very limited. As to whether the defendant will pursue the legal responsibility of "the News soldier Cao Wenji", the plaintiff's lawyer said that the case is in the process of trial, the relevant situation is inconvenient to disclose.