Second Instance Judgment Announced--IQIYI Suing Xiangjiang Dingfu for Infringing The Monkey King 2

Recently, the reporter learned from bjgy.chinacourt.gov.cn (Beijing court website) that the second instance judgment of the case in which Beijing IQIYI Science & Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as IQIYI company) sued Beijing Xiangjiang Dingfu Restaurant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xiangjiang Dingfu company) for infringement of the right to disseminate works on the Internet had been released. Beijing Intellectual Property Court rejected the appeal of Xiangjiang Dingfu company.

In the first instance, IQIYI company claimed that Xiangjiang Dingfu company, without permission of the plaintiff, provided online broadcasting services to play the film and television work The Monkey King 2 (hereinafter referred to as the film and television work involved in the case) to the public with a fee through information network in the hotel it operates, violating IQIYI company’s exclusive right to disseminate the information of the film and television work involved in the case on the Internet. It has severely violated IQIYI company’s rights and should bear the corresponding infringement liability.

In response, the People’s Court of Beijing Dongcheng District (hereinafter referred to as the court of first instance) issued a judgment that the acts of Xiangjiang Dingfu company constituted an infringement on the right of online information dissemination of the film and television work involved in the case, and the company should bear the civil liability, stop the infringement and compensate for economic losses. According to the Copyright Law of the People’s Republic of China, the defendant, Xiangjiang Dingfu company, should compensate the plaintiff, IQIYI company, for 40,000 Yuan of economic losses and 3,000 Yuan of reasonable expenses.

In response, Xiangjiang Dingfu company expressed its disapproval and appealed to Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Beijing Intellectual Property Court rejected the appeal and ruled that the facts found in the first instance court were clear, the law was applied correctly, and thus the judgment should be maintained.

October 18, 2019

Source: China IP Magazine

Photo from: 699pic.com