Guiding Case No. 223 Zhang [REDACTED]long v. Beijing [REDACTED]die Culture Communication Co., Ltd., Cheng [REDACTED], and Ma [REDACTED]
(dispute involving infringement of the right of communication through information networks)

Keywords: Civil action, Infringement of the Right of Communication through Information Networks, Jurisdiction, Place of Infringement

Key Points of Judgment

In cases of infringement of the right of communication through information network, the place of the result of the infringement is uncertain and should not be used as the basis for determining jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over civil dispute cases involving infringement of the right of communication through information network should be governed by Article 15 of the Provisions by the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Hearing Civil Dispute Cases Involving Infringement of the Right of Communication through Information Network, i.e., the people's court in the place of infringement or the place of domicile of the defendant has jurisdiction.

Basic Facts

Zhang [REDACTED]long sued Beijing [REDACTED]die Culture Communication Co., Ltd., Cheng [REDACTED], and Ma [REDACTED] in the Intermediate People's Court of Qinhuangdao City of Hebei Province, where he was domiciled. He alleged that they published and used his copyrighted photographic art works online without his authorization, thus infringing upon the right of communication through information network. Ma [REDACTED] argued that the jurisdiction over this case should be governed by Article 15 of the Provisions by the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Hearing Civil Dispute Cases Involving Infringement of the Right of Communication through Information Network (hereinafter referred to as the Provisions on the Right of Communication through Information Network). He pointed out that Qinhuangdao City, the place of domicile of the plaintiff, was not the place of infringement or the place of domicile of the defendant. Therefore, he objected to the jurisdiction of the case, requesting it to be transferred to the Beijing Internet Court that was in the place of infringement and the place of domicile of the defendant. 

Judgment

On June 2, 2021, the Intermediate People's Court of Qinhuangdao City of Hebei Province made the Civil Ruling (No. 27 [2021], First, Civil, IP, 03, Hebei), dismissing Ma [REDACTED]'s jurisdictional objection. Ma [REDACTED] appealed against the first-instance ruling. On August 24, 2021, the High People's Court of Hebei Province made the Civil Ruling (No. 66 [2021], Final, Jurisdiction, Civil, Jurisdiction, Hebei), reversing the first-instance ruling and transferring the case to the Beijing Internet Court for trial. After examination, both the Beijing Internet Court and the High People's Court of Beijing deemed it inappropriate for the High People's Court of Hebei Province to transfer the case to the Beijing Internet Court for trial, subsequently reported to the Supreme People's Court for designation of jurisdiction. On August 22, 2022, the Supreme People's Court made the Civil Ruling (No. 42 [2022], Jurisdiction, Civil, SPC) determining that the case should be heard by the Beijing Internet Court.

Judgment's Reasons

The Supreme People's Court holds the following: Article 25 of the Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China provides: “The place where a tort is committed on an information network shall include the place where the computer and other pieces of information equipment used to commit the alleged tort are located, and the place where the result of a tort occurs shall include the place of domicile of the victim.” "The tort committed on an information network" in this article is a tort against general civil rights on an information network. However, the right of communication through information network is a legal right of copyright owners as stipulated in Article 10(1) of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China; i.e., "the right to make a work available to the public by wire or by wireless means, so that the public may have access to the work at time and place chosen by them” Based on the nature and characteristics of the right of communication through information network, once the infringement of the right of communication through information network occurs, it results in "the public may have access to the work at time and place chosen by them”, with the geographical scope of the infringement remaining uncertain. Therefore, Article 15 of the Provisions on the Right of Communication through Information Network provides: “A civil dispute case involving infringement of the right of communication through information network shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court at the place of infringement or the place of domicile of the defendant. The place of infringement includes the place where the network server, computer terminal or any other equipment used for committing the alleged infringement is located. Where it is difficult to determine both the place of infringement and the place of domicile of the defendant or both of them are located outside China, the place where the computer terminal or any other equipment on which the plaintiff discovers the infringing content is located may be deemed the place of infringement.” Therefore, Article 15 of the Provisions on the Right of Communication through Information Network is a special provision on the jurisdiction of civil dispute cases involving infringement of the right of communication through information network known as a specific type of civil right. The determination of jurisdiction over civil dispute cases involving infringement of the right of communication through information network shall be based on Article 15 of the Provisions on the Right of Communication through Information Network.

In this case, Qinhuangdao City was the place of domicile of the plaintiff, not the place of infringement or the place of domicile of the defendant as specified in Article 15 of the Provisions on the Right of Communication through Information Network. There were no exceptional circumstances, such as "where it is difficult to determine both the place of infringement and the place of domicile of the defendant or both of them are located outside China" under the same article. The Intermediate People's Court of Qinhuangdao City of Hebei Province had no jurisdiction over this case. It was, therefore, appropriate for the High People's Court of Hebei Province to transfer this case to the Beijing Internet Court.

Relevant Provisions

1. Article 29 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China

2. Articles 24 and 25 of the Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China

3. Article 15 of the Provisions by the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Hearing Civil Dispute Cases Involving Infringement of the Right of Communication through Information Network.