Look for certainty in uncertainty
Yao Huanqing is an associate professor at the School of Intellectual Property, Renmin University of Chinese.
There have always been diametrically opposed views on the jurisdiction of cases of infringement of the right to disseminate information on the Internet. Behind this is the relationship between Article 25 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law") and Article 15 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes Involving Infringement of the Right of Information Network Dissemination (hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation of the Right of Information Network Communication"). This time, the adjudication rules of Guiding Case No. 223, "Zhang Moulong v. Beijing XX Butterfly Cultural Communication*** Cheng and Ma, a Dispute over Infringement of the Right of Information Network Dissemination of Works", clearly point out that the jurisdiction of cases involving works infringing on the right of information network dissemination shall be handled in accordance with the provisions of Article 15 of the Interpretation of the Right of Information Network Dissemination. This provides clear guidance for the determination of jurisdiction in cases of infringement of the right of information network dissemination of works, which is conducive to improving the expectation of jurisdiction in cases involving infringement of the right of information network dissemination of works, and will surely become a benchmark for handling similar Internet-related cases in the future.
The object of intellectual property is the incorporeal intellectual achievement, which has unlimited possibilities for simultaneous exploitation. Due to the exclusivity of the object of the infringement of the right to corporeal property, the place where the infringement occurs and the result of the infringement is relatively limited, and the jurisdiction is relatively easy to determine. However, the infringement of intellectual property rights can coexist in multiple places at the same time, so the place of occurrence and the result of the infringement can theoretically exist indefinitely. As a result, there are often many opportunities for a plaintiff to "choose" jurisdiction. Coupled with the differences in the jurisdiction of different types of IP cases, centralized jurisdiction and cross-regional jurisdiction overlap, and the determination of the jurisdiction of IP cases has become a complex issue.
Article 25 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that the place where the infringement of information networks is committed includes the location of the computer and other information equipment where the alleged infringement is committed, and the place where the result of the infringement occurs includes the domicile of the infringed party. Specifically, if the interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law is applied first, because of the characteristics of "the public can obtain the work at the time and place of its choosing", the right holder can choose the jurisdiction through the choice of location. If the facts of the case are present on the platform or the two parties communicate through WeChat, or if the two parties conduct transactions through WeChat and other information network platforms, it will be determined that information network infringement is constituted, which will inevitably generalize the scope of Article 25 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law, making it difficult to determine the place of jurisdiction, which is not convenient for the people's court to hear the case, nor is it in line with the original intent of the legislation.
On the issue of jurisdiction over intellectual property cases involving the Internet, the Supreme People's Court has been striving to regulate the arbitrary choice of jurisdiction by the parties while providing a reasonable choice of jurisdiction by the right holder. In addition to Article 15 of the Interpretation on the Right of Information Network Communication, Article 4 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Disputes over Copyright and Article 6 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Trademark Dispute Cases both exclude the place of jurisdiction as the place of jurisdiction as to a certain extent. The gist of the adjudication of Guiding Case No. 223 clarifies the relationship between Article 25 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law and Article 15 of the Interpretation of the Right of Information Network Dissemination on jurisdiction, that is, Article 15 of the Interpretation of the Right of Information Network Transmission, as a special law norm, takes precedence over the application of Article 25 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law. This adjudication rule also provides important guidance for the priority application of jurisdiction provisions in other judicial interpretations of intellectual property rights, and provides higher certainty for the jurisdiction of future Internet-related intellectual property cases.
*: Information Bureau of the Supreme People's Court.