I. Brief Facts

In October 2011, the defendant Xiang Mouyun divorced Zheng Mou, the mother of the plaintiff Xiang Moushan (minor), and agreed that the plaintiff would be raised by his mother Zheng Mou. After the plaintiff followed Zheng Mou's life, Zheng Mou changed his name to "Zheng Mouwen". The plaintiff has been living and studying with "Zheng Mouwen", and participated in domestic and international competitions such as mathematics, art, and Latin dance in the name of "Zheng Mouwen", and won many awards. In December 2018, the defendant Xiang Mouyun applied to the police station to change the plaintiff's name back to "Xiang Moushan". After the plaintiff's name was changed back to "Xiang Moushan", his study, life, and participation in competitions were affected to a certain extent. The plaintiff and his mother Zheng Mou failed to negotiate with the defendant Xiang Mouyun, and the plaintiff sued the court, requesting the court to order the defendant to cooperate with the plaintiff to change the plaintiff's name to "Zheng Mouwen". During the trial, the plaintiff appeared in court and clearly stated that he was willing to continue living with the name "Zheng Mouwen".

II. Judgment Result

The People's Court of Hechuan District, Chongqing Municipality, held after hearing that A name is a natural person's personality symbol for participating in social life. According to Article 1012 of the Civil Code, a natural person has the right to decide, use, change, or permit others to use his or her name in accordance with the law, but shall not violate public order and good customs. The handling of disputes involving the interests of minors after the divorce of parents should adhere to the principle of maximizing the interests of minors. In this case, the plaintiff has been using the name "Zheng Mouwen" for many years. The name has been familiar to relatives, friends, teachers, and classmates, and has become a symbol of his personality and an important part of his life and study. As a minor over the age of 12, the plaintiff has been able to understand the literal meaning and personality symbolic meaning of the name. Combining his experience of winning awards in international and domestic competitions and his own true wishes, continuing to use the name is conducive to the plaintiff's physical and mental health and growth. Therefore, in accordance with relevant laws and regulations, the court ruled that the defendant should cooperate with the plaintiff to change the registered name back to "Zheng Mouwen".

III. Typical Significance

This case is a typical case of applying the Civil Code to protect the legitimate right of minors to change their names. In practice, disputes are frequently triggered by one party changing the name of a minor after a divorce. The court hearing the case adhered to the principle of maximizing the interests of minors, organically combined the latest provisions of the Personality Rights Section of the Civil Code with the "Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Minors", fully listened to the wishes of minors with certain judgment and reasonable cognition, respected citizens' autonomy in choosing their names, and maximized the protection of minors' personality interests, which has achieved good social results.

I. Brief Facts

The plaintiff, Shi Moulian, is the adopted daughter and sole heir of the deceased couple Shi Mouxin and his wife, while the defendant, Shi Mouhe, is Shi Mouxin's cousin. The Shijialing community relocated villagers' graves in 2009, and Shi Moulian's name was engraved on the tombstone of Shi Mouxin and his wife at that time. In the summer of 2020, during the relocation of graves by the Shijialing Neighborhood Committee, in addition to providing economic compensation, the community provided new tombstones and engraved names according to the list reported by each family. Shi Mouhe did not include Shi Moulian when reporting the list to the neighborhood committee, which resulted in Shi Moulian's name not being engraved on the newly erected tombstone. Shi Moulian filed a lawsuit requesting the court to order Shi Mouhe to engrave Shi Moulian's name on the tombstone of Shi Mouxin and his wife, return the tomb relocation fee, and compensate for emotional distress.

II. Judgment Result

The Steel City District People's Court of Jinan City, Shandong Province, held after hearing the case that, according to Article 990 of the Civil Code, in addition to the specific personality rights stipulated by law, natural persons also enjoy other rights arising from personal freedom and dignity. Engraving the names of relatives on the tombstones of the deceased is a reflection of the descendants' emotional remembrance of their relatives in traditional Chinese culture, and has a significant spiritual sustenance for the descendants. It is in line with public order, good customs, and traditional habits for adopted children to engrave their names on the tombstones of their deceased parents, and it also demonstrates their special relationship with the deceased, gaining social evaluation such as reputation and prestige. Therefore, engraving names on tombstones is related to the personal dignity of the children, and the corresponding rights should be protected by law. . The name of the adopted daughter, Shi Moulian, was engraved on the original tombstone. Shi Mouhe deliberately omitted Shi Moulian's name when re-erecting the tombstone, infringing on Shi Moulian's personality rights and should bear civil liability. The first instance ordered Shi Mouhe to engrave Shi Moulian's name on the tombstone of Shi Mouxin and his wife according to folk traditions and customs, and Shi Mouhe returned the tomb relocation fee of 3736 yuan to Shi Moulian. The Jinan Intermediate People's Court upheld the original judgment in the second instance.

III. Typical Significance

The right of adopted children to have their names engraved on the tombstones of their deceased adoptive parents is related to personal dignity and equality, and is in line with the tradition of filial piety and public order and good customs. This case incorporates this kind of personality right into the general personality rights for protection, responding to the new needs for the protection of personality rights arising from social development , and has reference value for the handling of similar cases.

I. Brief Facts

Company A is a search engine operator with a search advertising business. Company B purchased the above services to promote its business and intermittently used the name of "Company C," a company in the same industry, as a keyword for Company B's commercial promotion for 3 years. Searching for Company C's keywords through the search engine in question, the first two entries on the results page both pointed to Company B, while Company C's official website entry was relatively far behind. Company C believed that Company B used Company C's name without authorization to attract customers during online promotion, infringing on its name rights, and that Company A knew that the above behavior constituted infringement but still provided assistance. Therefore, it sued the court, requesting Company B and Company A to stop the infringement, apologize, eliminate the impact, and jointly compensate for losses of 300,000 yuan.

II. Judgment Result

The Guangzhou Internet Court held after hearing the case that according to Articles 1013 and 1014 of the Civil Code, legal persons and non-legal person organizations enjoy the right to a name, and no organization or individual may infringe on their right to a name by interfering, stealing, or counterfeiting. As an enterprise with a certain degree of popularity, Company C's name has a certain economic value. Company B's unauthorized use of Company C's name for marketing will inevitably cause economic losses to it and has infringed on its right to a name. As the search engine operator in question, Company A conducts paid advertising business to the outside world, and its review obligations for Company B's keyword settings should be higher than those of ordinary network service providers. Because Company A failed to properly perform its review obligations, it objectively provided assistance to the infringing act in question and constituted joint infringement. Therefore, the court ordered Company B and Company A to issue a written apology, clarify the facts, eliminate the impact, and jointly compensate 65,000 yuan.

III. Typical Significance

The right to a name is an important symbolic right for enterprises to engage in commercial activities and has gradually become a core asset of enterprises. This case is based on the new track of digital economic development, and by revealing the business logic of bidding ranking advertisements, it clarifies that the legally registered business names of others are protected, and no one may infringe on the business name rights of others by means of "riding on hot topics" or "imitating famous brands." Also, this case also clarifies the review obligations of network service providers , urging them to use their technical advantages to substantively review the ownership of "bidding ranking" keywords, etc., which has a positive effect on restricting trademark infringement and unfair competition, standardizing industry competition order, and building a healthy brand economy. 。

I. Brief Facts

The defendant operates a smart phone bookkeeping software. In this software, users can create or add "AI companions" by themselves, set the name, avatar, relationship with the user, mutual names, etc. of the "AI companion", and set the interaction content between the "AI companion" and the user through system function settings, which the system calls "training". The plaintiff, He, is a public figure. Without the plaintiff's consent, the software featured an "AI companion" identified by the plaintiff's name and portrait. At the same time, the defendant used algorithms to open the role to many users, allowing users to upload a large number of the plaintiff's "emoticons" and create graphic interaction content to achieve the function of "training" the "AI companion". The plaintiff believes that the defendant infringed on the plaintiff's right to name, right to portrait, and general personality rights, so he sued the court, requesting an apology and compensation for economic losses and mental damage.

II. Judgment Result

The Beijing Internet Court held after hearing the case that, in the software in question, users use the plaintiff's name and portrait to create virtual characters and make interactive materials, projecting the overall image of the plaintiff's name, portrait, personality characteristics, etc. onto the AI role. The AI role forms a virtual image of the plaintiff, and the defendant's behavior is the use of the overall personality image including the plaintiff's portrait and name . At the same time, users can set identity relationships with the AI role, set arbitrary mutual names, and "train" the role by creating materials, thereby forming a real interaction experience with the plaintiff. The defendant's above functional settings also involve the personal freedom and dignity of natural persons. Although the specific graphics and texts are uploaded by users, the defendant's product design and application of algorithms actually encourage and organize users' uploading behavior, directly determining the realization of the software's core functions. The defendant is no longer just a neutral technical service provider and should bear tort liability as a content service provider. Therefore, the defendant's use of the plaintiff's name and portrait without consent, and the setting of system functions involving the plaintiff's personal freedom and dignity, constitute an infringement of the plaintiff's right to name, portrait, and general personality rights. The court ruled that the defendant should apologize to the plaintiff and compensate for the losses.

III. Typical Significance

With the further innovation of the Internet industry model in the post-epidemic era and the continuous development of new technologies such as virtual reality, the application of virtualized presentation of natural person personality elements is increasing. This case clarifies that a natural person's personality rights extend to their virtual image, and at the same time, it conducts a beneficial exploration of the evaluation criteria for algorithm applications. , which is of great significance for strengthening the protection of personality rights in the era of artificial intelligence.

I. Brief Facts

The defendant, a certain biotechnology company, used a portrait silhouette formed after processing a photo of a well-known artist, Jia, in a commercial promotion article published on its official account. The article introduced that the company was about to welcome a mysterious "blue friend" and provided a large number of clearly indicative character clues. A large number of comments in the comment area of the article mentioned Jia's name or his online nickname. The plaintiff, Jia, believed that the defendant infringed on his right of portrait and right of name, and thus sued the court, requesting the defendant to immediately remove and destroy the relevant offline promotional materials, make a public apology, and compensate for economic losses. The defendant argued that the portrait silhouette did not reflect facial features and could not identify personal characteristics such as gender, age, and identity. It did not have recognizability and did not have the attributes of a portrait. The defendant did not infringe on the plaintiff's right of portrait, and the article was published for a short time with a small impact, and did not cause any economic losses to the plaintiff, and should not be held liable for infringement.

II. Judgment Result

The Chengdu High-tech Zone People's Court held that The Civil Code clearly defines a portrait with three elements: "external image", "carrier reflection", and "recognizability", with recognizability being the most critical element in determining whether it is a portrait. In this case, even if the defendant processed the plaintiff's photo and could not see the complete facial features, the facial contours (including the hairstyle) displayed in the silhouette still had the plaintiff's personal characteristics and belonged to the plaintiff's external image. The text description of the article in question had strong recognizability. The "precise portrait" described by the character characteristics greatly enhanced the recognizability of the portrait silhouette. A large number of comments selected in the comment section of the article all commented that the portrait silhouette was Jia, which further confirmed the recognizability of the portrait silhouette. In summary, the portrait silhouette in the article in question has obvious recognizability in combination with other content in the article, and therefore constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff's right of portrait. The court ruled that the defendant should make an apology and pay the plaintiff 100,000 yuan in economic losses.

III. Typical Significance

This case is a new type of portrait infringement case after the implementation of the Civil Code, The defendant attempted to illegally obtain the portrait benefits of well-known artists by using the ambiguity of the rules , which has aroused social attention. This case was tried in accordance with the latest provisions of the personality rights section of the Civil Code, It reflects the legislative spirit of substantial and complete protection of citizens' portrait rights, which is conducive to the public's knowledge and understanding of the positive changes in portrait rights protection. , and also promotes the formation of a social atmosphere of strictly respecting the portrait of others and abiding by the law.

I. Brief Facts

The plaintiff, Zhou, provided joint guarantee for a loan from a third party, Mo, to the defendant, Shanglin Bank. Later, it was determined by an effective judgment made in 2018 that Zhou's guarantee liability was waived. Three years later, Zhou was prompted by the leader of his unit and inquired about his personal credit at the Credit Reference Center of the People's Bank of China on April 25, 2021, and found that he had been included in the bad credit record. He then filed a written objection to Shanglin Bank and applied to eliminate the bad credit record. However, the bank failed to report the credit correction information after receiving the objection raised by Zhou, resulting in Zhou's bad credit record not being eliminated, and Zhou was restricted in handling financial activities such as credit cards and loans. Zhou then sued the court, requesting Shanglin Bank to assist in revoking Zhou's bad guarantee credit record, compensate for mental damage and reputation loss fees, and publish an apology in the newspaper to eliminate the impact.

II. Judgment Result

The People's Court of Shanglin County, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, held that According to the provisions of Article 1029 of the Civil Code, credit evaluation is related to personal reputation. Civil subjects have the right to maintain their credit evaluation from being infringed by others, and have the right to raise objections to improper credit evaluations and request necessary measures such as correction and deletion. Shanglin Bank, as a professional institution providing credit evaluation information, has the right and obligation to report users' credit information accurately, completely, and timely. If it finds that the credit evaluation is improper, it should promptly verify and take necessary measures in a timely manner. In this case, Shanglin Bank failed to promptly verify the situation that Zhou had been legally exempted from the guarantee liability, and still failed to report the credit correction information after receiving Zhou's objection application, resulting in the credit reporting system making false records and negative evaluations of Zhou's personal creditworthiness, which led to Zhou being restricted in handling financial activities such as credit cards and loans. Its behavior constituted an infringement of Zhou's right of reputation. The court ruled that the defendant should report personal credit correction information to the Credit Reference Center of the People's Bank of China. Because reporting the correction information was sufficient to eliminate the impact, Zhou's claim for compensation for losses and apologies was not supported. 。

III. Typical Significance

In recent years, cases of reputation disputes caused by financial institutions' failure to verify and correct debtors' credit records have gradually increased. This case applies the relevant provisions of the Civil Code on "credit evaluation" in accordance with the law, clarifying that financial institutions have the obligation to truthfully record, accurately reflect, and timely update users' credit records, which is of positive significance for urging financial institutions to actively act, strengthen daily credit management, optimize the credit environment, and guide citizens to enhance their personal credit awareness and legally safeguard their credit rights and interests. 。

I. Brief Facts

The plaintiff, a property management company, provides property management services for a certain residential area. The defendants, Wu, and a third party, Xu, are owners in the residential area. On December 11, 2020, Xu posted a 15-second short video in the owner WeChat group and stated, "The housing maintenance fund at the entrance of the residential area is being used. Did you all sign and agree to it?" The defendant, Wu, then stated, "Now a little bit of this stuff costs so much money. What will happen when the elevators break down or the roof is damaged? The maintenance fund will be used up by the property management, and they'll just leave. Who will the owners turn to?" "If there's no money for major repairs, we'll just have to fend for ourselves. It's too black-hearted." "Therefore, establishing an owners' committee in this residential area is urgent." "No matter what, the signatures you signed are in violation of regulations. We don't recognize them and demand a public list." The property management company staff stopped Wu in the group and demanded an apology, but Wu continued to say, "Why should I apologize to you?" "What I'm saying is the truth." The plaintiff, a property management company, believes that the defendant Wu's remarks infringed on its right to reputation and sued the court, demanding that Wu publicly apologize and compensate for losses.

II. Judgment Result

The Second Instance, Intermediate People's Court of Ji'an City, Jiangxi Province, held that, According to Articles 110 and 1024 of the Civil Code, legal persons and non-legal person organizations enjoy the right to reputation by law, and no organization or individual may infringe on the reputation rights of others by means of insult, defamation, etc. The use of special housing maintenance funds involves the vital interests of the owners. As an owner of the residential area, the defendant Wu made comments on the plaintiff's property management company regarding the application and use of special maintenance funds in the relevant owner WeChat group. The negative evaluation, although the wording is uncivilized and imprecise, does not exceed the necessary limit and is not sufficient to cause damage to the social evaluation of a property management company. The property management company is a corporate legal person that provides services to the owners and has a certain obligation to tolerate the owners' speeches in the owner group regarding their vital rights and interests. Therefore, the defendant Wu does not constitute an infringement on the plaintiff's right to reputation. At the same time, the court believes that, Owners should express their doubts and state their opinions rationally when exercising their right to supervision. In summary, the court rejected the plaintiff's property management company's claim.

III. Typical Significance

This case clarifies that the negative evaluation made by the owner for the supervision matters in order to safeguard their own rights and interests does not exceed the necessary limit, and does not constitute an infringement of the property company's reputation. The case reasonably divides the boundaries between the enjoyment of personality rights of legal persons and non-legal person organizations and the freedom of citizens' behavior according to law. 。

I. Brief Facts

The plaintiff and defendant are neighbors in adjacent buildings in the same residential area, with a minimum distance of less than 20 meters between their homes. Based on the existing security monitoring facilities in the residential area, the defendant installed a video doorbell with facial recognition technology on his entrance door to monitor the surroundings of his residence at any time. The doorbell can automatically record videos and store them, and its position directly faces the bedrooms and balconies of several households in the front building, including the plaintiff's. The plaintiff believes that the defendant can control the video doorbell through a mobile app and monitor the plaintiff's residence for a long time, infringing on his privacy and disturbing his life. The defendant believes that the sensing distance of the video doorbell is only 3 meters, and the plaintiff's home is blurry when filmed, which does not constitute privacy. He has never intended to pry into the plaintiff's affairs, and the other party should understand this. He does not agree to remove or relocate the video doorbell. The plaintiff then sued the court, requesting that the defendant be ordered to remove the video doorbell, make a public apology, and compensate for property losses and mental distress.

II. Judgment Result

The People's Court of Qingpu District, Shanghai, held that, Although the defendant installed the video doorbell in his own space, the range of the equipment's filming exceeded his own area and captured the plaintiff's residence. The residence is private and is the starting point and foundation for personal peace of life, which is essential for maintaining personal dignity and freedom. The video doorbell can be activated for filming through facial recognition and background control dual modes, and can record videos for a long time and store them. In addition, the plaintiff and defendant have been living in close proximity for a long time, which provides the possibility for identifying images. It is practically feasible to obtain private information and behaviors in the residence in this way, and the plaintiff's peace of life will indeed be disturbed. Therefore, the defendant's installation behavior has infringed on the plaintiff's right to privacy. The defendant argued that he had no subjective intention to infringe on the plaintiff's privacy, and the plaintiff should tolerate this, etc., which is not legally based, and the court will not adopt it. Because there is no sufficient evidence to prove that the plaintiff has suffered actual mental and material damage due to the defendant's behavior, therefore, The court supported the plaintiff's claim that the defendant remove the video doorbell, but did not support his claim for a public apology and compensation for losses. 。

III. Typical Significance

This case explores the order of rights protection when conflicts arise between the use of artificial intelligence devices and the enjoyment of privacy rights, emphasizes the priority protection of privacy rights, and demonstrates a humanistic stance. It has certain reference and guiding significance for the proper and standardized use of smart home products and avoiding infringement of personality rights.

I. Brief Facts

Starting in February 2019, the defendant, Sun, sold more than 40,000 pieces of personal information, including names, phone numbers, and email addresses, which he purchased and exchanged online, to a third party, Liu, for 34,000 yuan through WeChat, QQ, and other means. The third party, Liu, used the relevant information to promote false foreign exchange business after obtaining it. The public interest litigation prosecutor believes that the defendant, Sun, openly and illegally traded and provided personal information on the Internet without the permission of others, causing more than 40,000 pieces of personal information to be illegally traded and used, seriously infringing on the personal information rights of many unspecified subjects in society, and causing damage to the social public interest. Based on this, a civil public interest lawsuit was filed.

II. Judgment Result

The Hangzhou Internet Court held that, Article 111 of the Civil Code stipulates that any organization or individual that needs to obtain personal information of others shall obtain it in accordance with the law and ensure information security, and shall not illegally collect, use, process, or transmit personal information of others, and shall not illegally trade, provide, or disclose personal information of others. The defendant, Sun, without obtaining the consent of many unspecified natural persons, Illegally obtained personal information of unspecified subjects, and then illegally sold it for profit, infringing on the public information security interests carried on the personal information of unspecified social subjects. The court ordered Sun to pay 34,000 yuan in compensation for damage to the public interest based on the profits obtained from the tort, and to make a public apology to the public.

III. Typical Significance

This case is the first civil public interest litigation case for personal information protection after the implementation of the Civil Code. This case accurately grasps the legislative spirit of the Civil Code in protecting personal information rights, focuses on safeguarding the personal information security of unspecified social entities, and clarifies that large-scale infringement of personal information constitutes an infringement on the social public interest in the field of public information security, demonstrating the determination and effort of judicial protection of personal information rights and social public interests.