[Key words] civil / cause of action / business slander / infringement of reputation right / repeated litigation
[introduction to the lawyer of this case] Chen Hongjun, senior consultant of Liaoning Tongfang law firm. In 2018, he was employed as the legal adviser of the people's Government of Liaoning Province, and now he is the president of Shenyang Intellectual Property Association. Chen Hongjun's main business areas are intellectual property business, major and difficult civil and commercial litigation business, legal counsel of government organs and comprehensive legal services of large enterprises. Liu Xingwei, lawyer of Liaoning Tongfang law firm. It is mainly committed to the construction of enterprise intellectual property management system, brand operation and management of enterprises, legal counsel of government organs, comprehensive legal services of large enterprises, major and difficult civil and commercial litigation and other businesses. He has rich experience in intellectual property and commercial litigation.
[key points of judgment] in the case of reputation dispute, the court of first and second instance did not conduct substantive trial on the commercial defamation claims and litigation claims filed by Ankang company because of jurisdiction issues. In this case, Ankang filed a lawsuit again on the ground of commercial defamation. The court of second instance did not hear the claim of commercial defamation, so it was obviously inappropriate to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground of repeated litigation.
[basic case] Anshan Dayu company announced on a Korean website that the products sold by Ankang company were not authorized by Korea Dayu company and were counterfeit products, reminding consumers to pay attention. Ankang company filed a lawsuit with Tiedong District People's Court of Anshan City on the basis of infringement of reputation right and commercial defamation. Anshan intermediate people's court held that the evidence provided by Ankang company was insufficient to prove that the infringement was committed by Anshan Dayu company. As for the issue of commercial defamation, the court did not have jurisdiction to hear it, so it rejected the lawsuit request of Ankang company. Ankang company appealed to Anshan intermediate people's court, which rejected the appeal. Ankang company took commercial slander as the cause of action, added Korean companies Daewoo eng Co., Ltd. and Ma Tianbiao as the co defendants of Anshan Daewoo company, and filed a lawsuit to Shenyang intermediate people's court. The Shenyang intermediate people's court rejected all the plaintiff's claims in the first instance. Ankang appealed to the Liaoning Provincial Higher People's court. The higher people's Court of Liaoning Province held that Ankang company sued Anshan Dayu company in Anshan intermediate people's court for infringing its reputation, and the Anshan two-level court rejected the lawsuit request of Ankang company. Ankang company is now suing Anshan Dayu company again for the same fact and legal relationship. Although the additional defendants Ma Tianbiao and Dayu eng Co., Ltd. are the second and third defendants, this case is consistent with the judgment of Anshan two-level court, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit, and the reputation of the legal person is damaged, thus causing a lawsuit, which constitutes a repeated lawsuit. It ruled to cancel the judgment made by Shenyang intermediate people's court and reject the lawsuit of Ankang company. Ankang company disagreed with the judgment of second instance made by the higher people's Court of Liaoning Province and applied to the Supreme People's court for retrial. It believed that Ankang company sued Anshan Dayu company for the dispute of reputation rights in another case, which was different from the facts involved in this case. Ankang company sued the right of reputation infringement and business defamation respectively based on different legal relationships. The parties involved in the dispute of reputation right and the dispute of commercial defamation filed by Ankang company are different. It does not belong to repeated litigation. The Supreme People's court held that, firstly, the parties involved in the two civil cases were different; secondly, the claims of the two cases were different; finally, in the case of reputation dispute, the court of first and second instance did not conduct substantive trial on the commercial defamation claims and claims filed by Ankang company because of jurisdiction issues. In this case, Ankang filed a lawsuit again on the ground of commercial defamation. The court of second instance did not hear the claim of commercial defamation, so it was obviously inappropriate to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground of repeated litigation. The ruling instructed the higher people's Court of Liaoning Province to retrial the case.
[judgment result] the court ordered the higher people's Court of Liaoning Province to retrial the case.
[reason for adjudication] in the case of reputation dispute, the court of first and second instance did not conduct substantive trial on the commercial defamation claims and litigation claims filed by Ankang because of the jurisdiction issues. In this case, Ankang filed a lawsuit again on the ground of commercial defamation. The court of second instance did not hear the claim of commercial defamation, so it was obviously inappropriate to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground of repeated litigation.
[relevant articles] the key articles on which the judgment is based.
[lawyer's point of view] the cause of action of the right of reputation infringement case and the cause of business defamation case are sometimes regarded as the same fact in judicial practice. In terms of legal relations, there is also a certain relationship of competition and cooperation between the two. In the case that the basic facts on which the two lawsuits are based are not significantly different, it is a theoretical difficulty whether the former and the latter constitute repeated lawsuits. One view is that the two cases are based on the same fact and the same legal relationship. Although the parties are added, they still belong to the same subject matter, so they belong to repeated litigation. Another point of view is that under the condition that the court of first instance clearly distinguishes the legal relationship of commercial defamation, the substantive trial of reputation right infringement and commercial defamation cannot be substituted for each other. Strictly speaking, commercial defamation and reputation right infringement are two different legal relationships. The two cases do not belong to the same subject dispute, and the legal relationship cannot be judged simply from the cause of the dispute. In this case, the case handling lawyer analyzed the difference between the two lawsuits from the perspectives of basic facts, parties, claims and legal relations, and proved that it was not a duplicate lawsuit.
The Supreme People's court fully accepts our views.
The significance of this case is that the Supreme People's court has made a typical judgment on whether the reputation infringement case and the business defamation case constitute repeated litigation under such circumstances. The Supreme People's court believes that in judging whether it is a repeated litigation, it should consider whether the legal relationship of the subsequent litigation has been tried by the entity, In the case where the former court of appeal clearly distinguished commercial defamation as a legal relationship, the cause of commercial defamation was not actually tried by the entity. It is not possible to replace the substantive trial of the subject matter of commercial defamation with the substantive trial of the subject matter of reputation right infringement.