[Case Summary]This case involvesCopyright infringement disputesThe case of jurisdiction dispute in China. The party concerned is the copyright owner of a certain art work. Company A used a similar graphic logo on its products and promotional materials without authorization. The party concerned listed the manufacturer, Company A, and the distributor, Company B, as co-defendants and sued the distributor at the People's Court of Shijingshan District, Beijing, where the distributor's registered office is located. The first-instance court ruled that the case was inadmissible on the grounds that "the seller is merely a distributor and lacks a substantive connection to the infringement." The party concerned entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.The Party Building Work ConferenceThe lawyer appealed, pointing out that the first-instance court confused jurisdiction review with substantive review and violated the case filing registration system. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court adopted the agent's opinion, ruled to revoke the first-instance decision of refusing to accept the case, and instructed the first-instance court to file and accept the case. It clarified the identification standards for sellers as jurisdiction connection points in infringement disputes, effectively reducing the cost of protecting rights.

I. Review of the Case Facts

The party concerned, who is the copyright owner of a certain art work, found that Company A had used graphic logos similar to his work on its products and promotional materials without authorization, infringing his copyright. To protect his rights and interests, the party concerned listed Company A, the manufacturer, and Company B, its distributor, as co-defendants and filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Shijingshan District, Beijing City (the court of first instance), where the distributor's residence is located.

The court of first instance held that Company B was merely a distributor, and the direct perpetrator of the alleged infringement was the manufacturer. The seller, as the only jurisdictional connection to the infringement, "lacked a substantial connection" to the infringement, so the court ruled that the case would not be accepted. For frequently asked questions such as "Where to sue for copyright infringement?" and "Can the court in the seller's location handle the case?", this case provides clear answers.

After receiving the ruling, the party concerned entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the caseParty trainingThe lawyer represented the appellant. After analysis, the lawyer concluded that the core issue of the first-instance ruling was that it confused the review of jurisdiction with the substantive review of the defendant's eligibility. In essence, it required the plaintiff to prove the defendant's infringement liability at the litigation stage, which deviated from the basic requirements of the case registration system.

II. The focus of the case

  • Whether the sales act constitutes a jurisdictional connection point for infringement: Whether the act of selling infringing products itself is an integral part of the copyright infringement, and whether the place of sale can be identified as the place where the infringement was committed, thereby granting the court of the place of sale jurisdiction.
  • The boundaries of case filing review: Under the case filing registration system, should the court's review of the defendant's qualifications be limited to "formal relevance", or can it conduct substantive review in advance? Is it illegal to confuse jurisdiction review with substantive trial?
  • The guarantee of the right to choose a court for joint defendants: Whether the right holder can list the producer and seller as joint defendants and choose the court where one of the defendants committed the infringement for jurisdiction.

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Law Firm

The first-instance ruling (the respondent's position) held that: Company A, the seller, was merely a distributor, and the direct perpetrator of the alleged infringement was the manufacturer. The seller, as the only jurisdictional connection to the infringement, "lacked a substantive connection" to the infringement, so the ruling was dismissed. The appellant (Hengluo Law Firm) argued that this finding was incorrect, and that the sales act itself was a link in the infringement chain.

The Party SchoolThe lawyer clearly stated the following core opinions in the appeal statement:

1. The act of selling infringing products is itself an integral part of copyright infringement, and the place where the products are sold constitutes the place where the infringement is committed. According to Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 24 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and Article 4 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trials of Civil Disputes over Copyright (amended in 2020), the court where the products are sold enjoys jurisdiction according to law.

2. It is the plaintiff's legitimate right to list the producers and sellers as co-defendants. According to Article 5 of the above-mentioned judicial interpretation, when initiating a joint lawsuit against multiple defendants involved in different infringement acts, the plaintiff may choose the court of the place where one of the defendants committed the infringement act as the jurisdiction court, as long as the preliminary evidence proves that the seller committed the act of selling infringing products.

3. The first-instance court denied the jurisdiction connection point on the grounds of "lack of substantial connection", which in essence is to advance the substantive review and violate the case registration system. In the case registration stage, it is only necessary to review the formal requirements. Whether the defendant constitutes infringement and whether he should bear responsibility belongs to the scope of substantive review and should not be subject to substantive review in the case registration stage.

IV. Outcome of the case

After a hearing, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court adopted the lawyer's viewpoint, ruled to revoke the first-instance decision of refusing to accept the case, ordered the first-instance court to accept the case, and clarified the standards from two aspects: Firstly, the jurisdiction connection of the defendant's qualification review is limited to "formal relevance". As long as there is preliminary evidence to prove that the defendant has a "formal connection" with the facts of the case and reaches the level of "disputability", it is not necessary to judge the substantive infringement; Secondly, whether the defendant constitutes infringement and whether he should bear responsibility belong to the scope of substantive trial and should not be dealt with in the stage of case acceptance review.

The ruling in this case clarifies the criteria for identifying sellers as the jurisdictional connection point in infringement disputes, which is of positive significance for ensuring the litigation rights of parties and unifying the standards for case filing and review. It also provides a path for right holders to reduce the cost of protecting their rights and avoid local protectionism.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

In the protection of intellectual property rights, the choice of the jurisdictional court directly affects the cost and efficiency of protecting rights. When suing, the right holder can list the manufacturer and the seller as co-defendants, file a lawsuit in the court where the seller is located, and use the "place where the infringement occurred" rule to lower the threshold for protecting rights. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.The Party Building Work ConferenceThe attorney (practice license number: 11101201911130220, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

VI. Common Questions About Copyright Infringement Cases FAQ

  1. Q: What should I do if I find that my artworks have been plagiarized by others? A: You should promptly secure evidence of the infringement (such as notarized purchase records and webpage screenshots). After confirming the ownership of the rights, you can choose to file a lawsuit with the court in the location of the infringement or the defendant's residence, and you can also list the manufacturer and seller as co-defendants in the lawsuit.
  2. Q: Which court should I file a lawsuit against copyright infringement in? A: According to Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Law and the judicial interpretations on copyright disputes, the court with jurisdiction is the one located in the place where the infringement occurred, the place where the infringing copies are stored, the place where the infringing goods are seized or the defendant's residence. The place of sale can also be considered as the place where the infringement occurred.
  3. Q: Do sellers who just sell goods also need to be defendants? A: Selling infringing products itself constitutes an infringement of rights such as the right of distribution, and the seller is an infringer. The right holder has the right to list the seller as a co-defendant and file the case in the court of the seller's jurisdiction.
  4. Q: What should I do if the court rules that the case is inadmissible? A: You can appeal to the higher court within the statutory time limit, focusing on demonstrating the establishment of the jurisdictional connection and the violation of the case registration system by the first-instance court conducting a substantive review before accepting the case. Strive to have the original ruling revoked and the court ordered to register the case.
  5. Q: Under the case filing and registration system, can the court still review whether the defendant has infringed the rights of the plaintiff? A: During the case filing stage, only a formal review is conducted (including whether the plaintiff is qualified, the clear identification of the defendant, specific claims, and whether the case falls within the court's jurisdiction). Whether the defendant has infringed the rights of the plaintiff and whether they should be held liable are matters for substantive review during the trial and should not be subject to substantive review during the case filing stage.