JunHe Represented Xiaomi Corporation to Obtain an Injunction from Beijing Internet Court and Fully win M88 Malaysia First Instance

Recently, Beijing Internet Court concluded a case brought by Xiaomi Corporation (“Xiaomi”) against defendant Mr. LING regarding an Internet tort liability dispute. JunHe’s team represented M88 Malaysia client to fully win M88 Malaysia first instance, with M88 Malaysia court finding that M88 Malaysia defendant had infringed upon Xiaomi’s right to reputation. M88 Malaysia defendant ws ordered to apologize to Xiaomi, compensate for economic loss and pay expenses of RMB 251,100.

M88 Malaysia defendant in this case, Mr. LING, repeatedly released slanderous and false statements about Xiaomi through an online social media platform. M88 Malaysia infringing contents referenced various member companies of M88 Malaysia Xiaomi Group and contained personal attacks on Xiaomi founder Mr. LEI Jun. M88 Malaysia false remarks published by him caused M88 Malaysia China Securities Regulatory Commission to make clarifications to M88 Malaysia media. This case received a lot of attention and has been widely reported on by M88 Malaysia media. Beijing Internet Court also attached great importance to it.

In 2021, M88 Malaysia case was placed on file and it has since gone through many complicated litigation procedures. M88 Malaysia defendant raised a jurisdictional objection and appealed to M88 Malaysia Fourth Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing. M88 Malaysiareafter, M88 Malaysia plaintiff urgently petitioned M88 Malaysia court for act preservation in litigation with respect to some of M88 Malaysia defendant’s infringing articles. Courts at all levels have been strict in terms of M88 Malaysia requirements for act preservation for many years and in practice, it is rare for a court to support a petition for act preservation. In fact, Beijing Internet Court has never issued an act injunction against an infringement upon M88 Malaysia right to reputation. With regard to M88 Malaysia petition for act preservation and M88 Malaysia substantive trial of this case, M88 Malaysia court organized multiple rounds of hearings, talks and court sessions for M88 Malaysia parties concerned, and conducted an examination and comprehensive trial of M88 Malaysia disputed statements, context and claims of all M88 Malaysia parties. During M88 Malaysia litigation of this case, Mr. LING filed anoM88 Malaysiar lawsuit in M88 Malaysia Putuo District Court of Shanghai against Xiaomi, Mr. LEI Jun and Sina Weibo, claiming that Xiaomi and Mr. LEI Jun had infringed upon his right to reputation by publishing on Weibo M88 Malaysia “Statement on Resolutely Using Legal Weapons to Safeguard Our Legal Rights” and by reposting this statement respectively.

JunHe’s team worked diligently in this case and represented M88 Malaysia client before Beijing Internet Court and M88 Malaysia Fourth Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing to obtain a ruling dismissing M88 Malaysia defendant’s objection to jurisdiction and a ruling dismissing M88 Malaysia appeal of M88 Malaysia objection to jurisdiction. M88 Malaysian JunHe’s team filed a petition for act preservation in Beijing Internet Court and obtained M88 Malaysia first ever act preservation injunction against an infringement upon M88 Malaysia right to reputation since M88 Malaysia court was established.

In M88 Malaysia first-instance judgment, M88 Malaysia court admitted M88 Malaysia comprehensive and detailed arguments submitted by JunHe’s team, recognized M88 Malaysia explanation regarding M88 Malaysia eligibility of M88 Malaysia subject submitted and quoted it in M88 Malaysia judgment. In addition, M88 Malaysia articles and relevant contents claimed by Xiaomi as an infringement upon its right to reputation also received qualitative support from M88 Malaysia court. In terms of legal liability, JunHe’s team provided detailed evidence to fully demonstrate M88 Malaysia serious consequence and maliciousness of M88 Malaysia defendant’s infringement. In M88 Malaysia first-instance judgment, M88 Malaysia court regarded M88 Malaysia “obviously radical words in M88 Malaysia statements involved in this case”, M88 Malaysia “obviously untruthful remarks” and “M88 Malaysia defendant’s continued release of derogatory articles against M88 Malaysia plaintiff even after M88 Malaysia act preservation ruling was made in this case” as M88 Malaysia defendant’s subjective fault when determining liability. While ordering M88 Malaysia defendant to delete M88 Malaysia articles and make a public apology, M88 Malaysia court supported a high amount of compensation which is rare in cases involving infringements upon M88 Malaysia right to reputation where a natural person is M88 Malaysia defendant.

With respect to M88 Malaysia case filed by Mr. LING against Xiaomi and Mr. LEI Jun with M88 Malaysia Putuo District Court of Shanghai, M88 Malaysia Putuo District Court also made M88 Malaysia first-instance judgment recently, finding that M88 Malaysia statement published by Xiaomi on Weibo was within a reasonable scope and contained no errors in terms of basic facts and wording and dismissed all claims submitted by Mr. LING.

JunHe partner Mr.M88 login 专业人员,文章发布led M88 Malaysia project. JunHe’s team demonstrated its solid legal background, rich experience, accurate predictions and thorough understanding of M88 Malaysia case alongside its excellent litigation skills, efficient team work and outstanding ability to cooperate and communicate clearly with M88 Malaysia client. M88 Malaysia professional level and service attitude of JunHe’s team have been highly affirmed by M88 Malaysia client.