Guangming network August 2 – Hisense video lawsuit TCL commercial defamation dispute case and new progress. Recently, the Shandong Provincial High People’s Court made a final judgment on this case, confirming the facts identified by the first-instance court, and ordered TCL Trumcard Electrical Appliance (Huizhou) Co., Ltd. to compensate Hisense Video Technology Co., Ltd. for the economic losses and reasonable expenses of safeguarding rights totaling 2 million yuan. TCL Trumpin Electronics (Huizhou) Co., Ltd. posted a statement at the top of its official Weibo account for 15 consecutive days within 10 days of the verdict to eliminate the impact.
TCL Huizhou has posted derogatory content against laser TV products on weibo and Douyin accounts operated by TCL TV.
Shandong province higher people’s court that operators for other people’s products, services and other business activities are not not comment or criticism, but comments or criticism must be based on the legitimate purpose, the contents of the comment or criticism should have legal basis, must be fair and neutral, objective, authentic, not to mislead the public and unhelpful goodwill.
The court held that huizhou TCL company to comment the hisense laser TV products should fulfill the duty more careful attention, but the release of the alleged infringement video content by contrast, exaggerate and derogatory way hisense laser TV products for the misleading description, significantly exceeded to normal product reviews and introduces the reasonable limit.
On November 27 last year, the Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court ruled in the first instance that TCL was guilty of commercial defamation and should compensate the plaintiff for the economic loss of 500,000 yuan (including reasonable expenses for stopping the infringement). The Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court held that the defendant TCL Huizhou Company, as a direct competitor of the plaintiff, released the accused infringement video containing false and misleading information about the plaintiff’s laser TV products, which damaged the plaintiff’s business reputation and product reputation and constituted a commercial defamation against the plaintiff. (Reporter Zhan Zhao)