Huada Gene v. Public Author’s Infringement Case Wins

Huada Gene v. Public Author’s Reputation Rights Dispute case, recently in Shenzhen, the second trial judgment. The judgment obtained yesterday by a reporter from Mr. Jin, the author of the public-related newspaper, showed that the court found that Mr. King’s article was infringing at first instance, asked Mr. King to stop the infringement, delete the article involved, and apologize to the plaintiff in the corresponding newspaper. After the second instance, the court found that the content of Mr. King’s article itself did not exceed the legal limits, but that the title may be misleading to the general public who read only the title of the article, and therefore found that Mr. King had violated the plaintiff’s right to reputation and upheld the original judgment.

Huada Gene v. Public Author's Infringement Case Wins

Mr. Kim told the North Qing newspaper that the judgment is final, so the judgment will be fulfilled the legal responsibility required.

Writing questions about Huada gene

Claimed $1 for alleged infringement

In October 2018, an article published on the Personal Public number caused concern among netizens, including Shenzhen Huada Gene Technology Services Co., Ltd. was subject to administrative punishment in 2015, Shenzhen Huada Gene Technology Services Co., Ltd. and other institutions obtained 140,000 copies of genetic testing data, and with foreign authors to publish papers and other content.

The author of the article, Mr. Kim, told the Beiqing Newspaper that before writing the article, he had learned from some professionals about a paper published by Shenzhen Huada Gene Technology Services Co., Ltd., which mentioned that the company had tested the genomes of 140,000 pregnant women, “and some professionals were concerned. Fearing that these pregnant women were not being given sufficient information and that the genes were being illegally leaked abroad, they wrote this article based on some of the material disclosed. “

Subsequently, Shenzhen Huada Gene Technology Services Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Huada Life Science Research Institute will sue Mr. Jin to the court, asking Mr. Jin to stop the infringement, delete the relevant articles published by him, in the provincial newspaper public apology, and compensation shenzhen Huada Gene Technology Services Co., Ltd. lost 1 yuan, as well as to bear the legal fees, litigation fees and so on.

The court found that the article was misleading to the public.

First-instance judgment author loses

After hearing, the court of first instance found that Mr. Jin had spoken about the administrative punishment suffered by Shenzhen Huada Gene Technology Services Co., Ltd. in 2015. As well as Shenzhen Huada Gene Technology Services Co. , Ltd. and other institutions obtained 140,000 copies of genetic testing data, 2018 Shenzhen Huada Gene Technology Services Co., Ltd. and other institutions and foreign authors jointly published papers and other content.

The court of first instance found that in 2015, the Ministry of Science and Technology made a Decision on Administrative Penalties to Shenzhen Huada Gene Technology Services Co., Ltd., which concluded that Shenzhen Huada Gene Technology Services Co., Ltd. and a hospital, without permission, carried out international cooperation research on Chinese genetic resources with a University of the United Kingdom. And without permission, some information on human genetic resources is transmitted out of the Internet. Therefore, Shenzhen Huada Gene Technology Services Co., Ltd. has made a corresponding punishment.

In 2018, media reported that an international team led by Chinese researchers sequenced and analyzed some genome samples from more than 140,000 pregnant Chinese women.

The court of first instance held that the title of the article is a high degree of condensation and generalization of the main content of the article, people’s general reading habits are also the first to see the title of the article, and then to read the content of the article. Today, people may only be able to complete their reading perceptions and perceptions of the article by quickly browsing the title. The title of the article may lead readers to mistake Shenzhen Huada Gene Technology Services Co., Ltd. and other institutions illegally access to genetic data, and the above 140,000 copies of genetic testing data illegally leaked abroad, and therefore subject to administrative penalties.

The court held that some of the text of the text, combined with the title of the article, could lead the public to believe that the Shenzhen Huada Gene Technology Services Co., Ltd. and other institutions illegally leaked the above 140,000 copies of genetic testing data abroad.

In addition, in response to the plaintiff’s assertion that Mr. King had violated the plaintiff’s right to reputation in another subsequent article, the court found that it had also misled the public.

Therefore, the original trial court held that the two articles constituted an honorary infringement of Shenzhen Huada Gene Technology Services Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Huada Life Science Research Institute, and Mr. Jin should bear the corresponding civil liability.

The court’s first-instance judgment mr. King should delete the relevant articles and publicly apologize in the provincial newspaper within 10 days of the effective date of the judgment.

The second instance found that the article did not exceed the legal limit

Maintain the original judgment due to title infringement

Since then, both parties have appealed to the courts. The reporter of Beiqing newspaper noted that in the judgment of the second instance, the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court, which was in charge of the second-instance judgment, held that Mr. Jin’s question son of whether the research on Huada gene had been legally approved and whether the study was authorized by pregnant women using genetic information was not distorted by the source cited in the article itself. The conclusion that genetic information may have been leaked in the article is a possible judgment made by the author based on the information available, and does not exceed the legal limits.

However, the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court held that the title of the article could be misleading to the public, and therefore confirmed that the title violated the plaintiff’s right to reputation. The court’s final second-instance decision rejected the appeal stoics of the parties and upheld the original judgment.

Mr. Kim told the North Qing newspaper that after he received the judgment on the 8th, he endorsed the second-instance judgment in which the court found that the content of the article did not exceed the legal limits. “At that time, the writing of this article was written mainly for public interest reasons, reasonable speculation about the relevant public material. Although I ultimately lost the judgment, this is the final judgment, I will fulfill the judgment to me required legal responsibility. “

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *