"find delicacy and preferential, chugaluging mommy not help you, I help you!" in the Google website released information, malicious defamation of improper business reputation, "ordering Secretary" is Shanghai famous search site "chugaluging delicacy mommy" on the court. The day before, the Pudong New Area court of the commercial defamation case verdict, "operator ordering Secretary" Shanghai help information technology Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as help companies) should immediately stop the infringement, and on its website published a statement to eliminate the effects of compensation operators "Gu mommy" Shanghai Wanshitong Internet technology company Limited (hereinafter referred to as Wanshitong company) 8000 yuan of economic losses.
popular delicacy search website "Gu mommy" was founded in 2005. A chance, "he found mummy" appeared on the Internet some down their own image of comparative advertising. To this end, in December 2009, "Gu mommy" company has two times to help the company issued a "notice", requiring it to immediately stop the improper behavior.
in August 2010, in the field of notary personnel under the supervision of "Gu mommy" management personnel input "Gu mommy" found in the Google search "," sponsored links "column in the" no 95171 "your mommy." he is not looking for mummy, delicacy, delicacy; looking for concessions, Mommy doesn’t help. You, I help you! "Keyword advertising, click on these advertisements into" ordering Secretary "website (www.95171.cn).
Wanshitong company will help the company to court, asking them to stop infringement, revocation in Google keyword advertising, and in the "ordering Secretary" website and "Xinmin Evening News" and other media published a statement of apology, compensation for 51 thousand and 500 yuan.
The defendant argued that
in Google keyword advertising, web publishing is not required to provide proof, as long as can be registered and paid, the advertising is not the issue, but by third people or the plaintiff issued, the defendant did not implement the plaintiff’s claims of advertising behavior. The defendant also believes that the plaintiff’s complaint keyword advertising does not constitute infringement.
the court held that the plaintiff and the defendant involved in advertising content and correlated, beneficiaries of the defendant; although the release of Google keyword advertising in the Internet do not need to provide a business license, but Google will later review some of the publisher, to determine whether the advertisement publisher for himself; the defendant failed to provide relevant evidence the defense shall bear the adverse consequences of the.
court also believes that the content of keyword advertising belittle the plaintiff website service quality to a certain extent, damage the credibility of the business, and through the link to the defendant website increase pageviews, constitute unfair competition against the plaintiff.