"IMPACT evaluation" net red toothpaste manufacturers claim was dismissed
necessary court held that the limit does not exceed the operators to evaluate the service
An Internet celebrity whitening toothpaste has become popular on a short video platform, and the anchors who bring the goods are highly recommended.
At the same time, some bloggers in the "anti-counterfeiting evaluation" category questioned its efficacy, and the released "anti-counterfeiting" videos received more than 200,000 likes.
For this reason, the manufacturer of the toothpaste believes that its own reputation has been infringed, and the decline in product sales is related to this, so it sued the blogger and the short video platform to the court for a claim of 100,000 yuan.
Recently, a reporter from Beijing Youth Daily learned that the Beijing Internet Court rejected all claims of the toothpaste manufacturer involved in the first instance.
Vendor
Video leads to a decline in product sales
The toothpaste manufacturer complained that on March 1, 2020, the online celebrity toothpaste product began to promote the product on the short video website.
However, the manufacturer found that on April 30, 2020, a blogger specializing in "anti-counterfeiting evaluation" posted a so-called anti-counterfeiting video on the short video website. In the video, the blogger fabricated and distorted the facts and tried to discredit toothpaste products. And the blogger is commenting on the basis of no factual basis.
"It is all groundless nonsense that its behavior has caused a very bad effect on this net celebrity toothpaste product, resulting in a sharp decline in product sales."
"The infringing video has 247,000 likes, 11,000 comments, and 986 reposts. It is widely disseminated and has a huge impact." The producer believes that the company's reputation has been infringed and requested the court to order the blogger to clarify the facts and restore reputation. Eliminate the impact; the short video platform and the blogger shall jointly bear the compensation for the economic loss caused by the damage to their reputation, as well as the legal fees and transportation expenses incurred to prevent the continuous expansion of the reputation right, totaling 100,000 yuan.
Blogger
Only for improper sales
In this regard, the short video platform did not agree to the manufacturer's litigation request.
It argued that the videos involved in the case were edited and released by users themselves, and the platform only provided technical services. After the case was accepted, the platform removed the videos involved in the case, promptly safeguarding the rights and interests of the manufacturer, and did not cause any additional losses to it.
In summary, the platform has neither intentional infringement nor conduct of infringement, and it should not bear any responsibility.
The blogger argued that he did not infringe on the reputation of the manufacturer, and the video content never mentioned whether the product had quality problems.
In the ever-changing Internet era, it is normal for platforms to carry goods. It is undeniable that some web anchors deliberately exaggerate the product's efficacy or conceal part of the product's facts in order to sell goods.
"The main purpose of this video we recorded is to warn you not to easily believe the exaggerated publicity of the online celebrity anchor when it recommends and sell the product when buying the online celebrity product. It is aimed at the online celebrity anchor's improper conduct of the online celebrity product. The form of sales is not specific to a product.” The blogger believes that data such as video views have no causal relationship with the economic loss of the manufacturer.
The court
The blogger's video does not constitute infringement
The court concluded that the case was a dispute over the right of reputation, and the main focus of the dispute was whether the video published by the blogger pointed to the manufacturer, which constituted insult or defamation against him.
Regarding the subject's directivity, in the video involved, the blogger holds a toothpaste with black packaging and black paste, and the toothpaste package contains three tooth comparison diagrams to illustrate. After comparison with the plaintiff’s toothpaste outer package, There is a high degree of consistency in packaging color, paste color, three tooth comparison charts, etc., allowing consumers who have a certain understanding of the product to recognize that the product held by the broadcaster is an Internet celebrity toothpaste product produced by the plaintiff.
Combined with the lines of the broadcaster, "Can you really whiten your teeth with just one brush?" "It's a fantasy to use toothpaste to whiten your teeth." "In order to sell you this stuff, he (net celebrity) can say anything. The point of the remarks involved in the case is the behavior of toothpaste promoting the whitening effect of teeth in the sale, rather than the product quality problem of the toothpaste itself.
The tooth comparison chart on the outer packaging of this toothpaste implies that it has the effect of whitening teeth, and in the promotion page of the online shop that sells the product, the product name contains "one brush white" and "one brush is white", and the teeth are compared The picture is played in the form of a promotional video.
Under this circumstance, the broadcaster’s involved behavior did not exceed the necessary limit for evaluating the operator’s services, and from the point of view of the involved behavior, the blogger did not have the subjective intent to insult or slander the product manufacturer involved.
In summary, the blogger involved in the case did not constitute infringement by publishing the video involved in the case, and the short video platform did not constitute infringement.
The Beijing Internet Court rejected all claims of the toothpaste manufacturer involved in the first instance.
Court reminder
There should be a certain tolerance for reasonable criticism
The court emphasized that at a time when the Internet and social life are highly integrated, texts or videos with evaluation and commentary properties published by online bloggers are an important way for consumers to understand related products and services. Criticisms on product quality, service quality, and propaganda behaviors within a reasonable limit should be tolerated. The content posted by online bloggers should be basically objective, and they should not take the opportunity to slander, slander, and damage the reputation of producers and operators. , Goodwill.
This group of articles / our reporter Song Xia