[Case Summary]This case involves a dispute over jurisdiction in a copyright infringement dispute. The plaintiff is the copyright owner of a certain art work. Company A, without authorization, used a graphic logo similar to the plaintiff's work on its products and promotional materials, infringing the plaintiff's copyright. The plaintiff listed Company A, as the manufacturer, and its distributor, Company B, as co-defendants and filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Shijingshan District, Beijing City, where Company B's registered office is located. The first-instance court held that Company B was merely a distributor and had no substantial connection with the infringement, and ruled that the lawsuit was inadmissible. Beijing Hengluo Law FirmThe Party Education and Training CenterThe lawyer represented the appeal, and the Beijing Intellectual Property Court adopted our viewpoint, ruling to revoke the first-instance decision of refusing to accept the case, ordering the first-instance court to accept the case, and clarifying the criteria for determining the seller as the jurisdiction connection point in infringement disputes: the review of the defendant's eligibility for jurisdiction connection point is limited to formal relevance, and it can be argued to a certain extent.

I. Review of the Case

Intellectual property rights holders often encounter a practical dilemma: they discover that a product is using a logo that is similar to their own work, but where can they file a lawsuit for copyright infringement? Is it only possible to chase after the manufacturer and file a lawsuit in the manufacturer's location? The parties involved in this case encountered such a jurisdictional dilemma.

The party concerned is the copyright owner of a certain art work. Company A used graphic logos similar to the party's work on its products and promotional materials without authorization, infringing the party's copyright. The party listed the manufacturer, Company A, and the distributor, Company B, 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 headquarters 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 was inadmissible. After receiving the ruling, the parties entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case.Party trainingThe lawyer represented the appellant, arguing that the ruling confused the review of jurisdiction with the review of the defendant's qualification as a legal entity. The ruling essentially 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

  • For dealers who sell infringing products, is the place where they sell the products considered the place where the infringement occurred, and can the sellers be used as a connecting point for determining jurisdiction?
  • During the case filing and review stage, how should the court grasp the review standards for the defendant's qualifications, and can the court deny the jurisdiction connection points on the grounds of a lack of substantive connection?
  • When the manufacturer and the seller are listed as co-defendants, do the plaintiffs have the right to choose the court with jurisdiction over the place where the seller committed the infringement?

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The parties' arguments and defenses:The court of first instance ruled 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 substantive link to the infringement, so the court ruled that the case was inadmissible. Attorney Dang Pei pointed out in the appeal that this ruling confuses the review of jurisdiction with the review of the defendant's qualification as a proper entity, essentially requiring the plaintiff to prove the defendant's infringement liability at the litigation stage.

Party trainingAttorney's representation opinion:

Firstly, the act of selling infringing products is itself an integral part of copyright infringement. The place where the products are sold constitutes the place where the infringement occurred. According to Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, lawsuits initiated for infringement shall be under the jurisdiction of the court in the place where the infringement occurred or the defendant's domicile; 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 clearly stipulates that the place where the infringement occurred includes the place where the infringement was committed and the place where the infringement results occurred; 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 Edition 2020) stipulates that the court in the place where the infringement was committed enjoys jurisdiction. The seller's sale of infringing products constitutes an infringement of the right of distribution, and the place where the products are sold is the place where the infringement occurred.

Secondly, it is the plaintiff's legal right to list the producers and sellers as co-defendants, and the court of the place of sale has jurisdiction according to law. According to Article 5 of the above-mentioned judicial interpretation, in the case of 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 long as the right holder has preliminary evidence to prove that the seller committed the act of selling infringing products.

Thirdly, the first-instance court denied the jurisdiction connection on the grounds of lacking a substantial connection, which essentially preempted the substantive review and violated the case filing registration system. In the case filing review stage, the court only needs to review whether the formal requirements are met, whether the defendant constitutes infringement, and whether the defendant's liability is true. These matters fall within the scope of substantive review and should not be subject to substantive review in the case filing stage. The seller has a direct connection with the alleged infringement and is a clear defendant, meeting the conditions for filing a lawsuit.

IV. Outcome of the case

北京知识产权法院经过开庭审理，采纳The Party Building Work ConferenceFrom the lawyer's perspective, the ruling revokes the first-instance court's decision to refuse acceptance and instructs the first-instance court to accept the case and clarify the standards from the following aspects: Firstly, the review of the defendant's suitability for jurisdiction 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 this connection reaches a disputable level, it is not necessary to make judgments on whether the defendant constitutes infringement or should bear legal responsibility. Secondly, whether the defendant constitutes infringement or should bear legal responsibility belongs to the scope of substantive trial and should not be dealt with in the stage of case acceptance review.

The judgment in this case is based on 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, Article 4 and Article 5 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 Edition 2020), and the relevant provisions of the filing and registration system. It clarifies the boundaries between jurisdiction review in the filing stage and substantive trial, and affirms the legal effect of sales as a connecting point for infringement jurisdiction.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Advice

In the protection of intellectual property rights, don't be discouraged if the case is ruled inadmissible. Under the filing registration system, the court only conducts a formal review at the filing stage, and whether the defendant infringes the rights is a substantive issue. The right holder has the right to list the manufacturer and the seller as co-defendants and choose the court where the seller is located to file the case, which significantly reduces the cost of protecting rights and avoids local protectionism.

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.The Party Education and Training CenterAttorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101201911130220, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acting as the agent.

VI. Common Questions About Jurisdiction Over Copyright Infringement Cases FAQ

  1. Q: If I find that a product uses a logo similar to my own work, where can I file a lawsuit? A: You can file a lawsuit at the court located in the place where the infringement occurred, the place where the infringing copies are stored, the place where the goods were seized or impounded, or the defendant's residence. The court located in the place where the distributor who sells the infringing products is based can also exercise jurisdiction over the place where the infringement occurred.
  2. Q: If only the seller is sued but not the manufacturer, will the court accept the case? A: Selling infringing products in itself constitutes infringement. The rights holder may list both the manufacturer and the seller as co-defendants and choose the court with jurisdiction over the place where the seller committed the infringement, which is in accordance with the law.
  3. Q: What should I do if the first-instance ruling refuses to accept the case? A: You can appeal within the statutory time limit in accordance with the filing registration system, claiming that the filing review is merely a formal review, and whether the defendant infringed the rights is within the scope of substantive review. You may request the higher court to revoke the ruling and order the case to be filed.
  4. Q: Can the court review whether the defendant has really infringed in the filing stage? A: No. The review in the filing stage is limited to the formal requirements such as the plaintiff being qualified, having a clear defendant, specific litigation requests and factual grounds, and falling within the court's jurisdiction. The determination of the actual infringement should be resolved during the trial.
  5. Q: What are the benefits of listing the dealer as a co-defendant? A: It allows the case to be filed in the court of the dealer's location, i.e., the sales location, rather than solely pursuing the manufacturer. This reduces the cost of protecting rights across different regions and effectively avoids local protectionism.