Blue Moon v. Wang Hai claims 3 million

The Blue Moon Company, which accounts for half of the domestic liquid detergent market, was suddenly accused of causing cancer by Wang Hai. However, in terms of the blue moon, Wang Hai found that in the absence of any factual and scientific basis, he not only initiated successive lawsuits and complaints in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou, but also distributed information on Weibo, which constituted a right of reputation for the company. damage.

At 2:30 pm on October 25th, Guangzhou Blue Moon Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Blue Moon) sued Wang Hai and infringed the right of reputation in the Huangpu District Court of Guangzhou.

One is the domestic Laundry Liquid giant Blue Moon, one is the "China's first hit dummies," said professional offender Wang Hai, this case has triggered widespread concern in society.

At the court trial, the reporter for the "Rule of Law Weekend" noticed that there were media reporters and practitioners in related industries.

In this session, Wang Hai did not appear in court and his agent was Ye Maoliang, who sued the Blue Moon as a consumer and entrusted Wang Hai as an agent in the Tianhe District Court of Guangzhou.

In court, the Blue Moon requested the court to order Wang Hai to immediately stop the infringement of the Blue Moon's reputation right through news media, and has an influential portal site, a nationwide newspaper, and a Guangdong province influential. The newspaper made a written apology and paid a compensation of 3 million yuan to compensate for the adverse effects of the Blue Moon.

Suddenly, on this June 20th, Wang Hai issued 10 messages through his Sina Weibo, referring to the Blue Moon “adding fluorescent brighteners to brightening liquid laundry detergent”, suggesting that consumers do not purchase Blue Moon brand. Yang Yan, the endorser, publicly apologized.

The "Rule of Law Weekend" reporter saw on the Sina Weibo titled "The Counterfeit First Person Wang Hai." The Weibo released several news related to Blue Moon Liquid Laundry on June 20.

In an interview with the “Rule of Law Weekend” reporter, Wang Hai admitted that Beijing WorldCom Warner Advertising Media Co., Ltd. (World Warner) had “interviewed” him when he produced a program for the Blue Moon. (For more details, please refer to our report on August 4th in this newspaper)

The Blue Moon appealed in court that since June 20, 2011, Wang Hai has continuously expressed his opinions on the harmful human health of Blue Moon produced by the Blue Moon through an interview with Sina Weibo. The “bright white brightening laundry liquid” produced by the company detected a fluorescent whitening agent for carcinogens. Fluorescent whitening agents belong to dyes rather than decontaminating components and cause damage to the human body, especially infants and young children.

The Blue Moon believes that Wang Hai’s remarks have been repeatedly quoted, reproduced, and commented on by the online media and television media, causing incalculable damage to the reputation of the plaintiff, negatively affecting the sales of his products, and certifying that he has recovered goodwill. The huge amount of money was paid in the media for the promotion of fluorescein whitening agent popular science knowledge, which caused it to suffer huge economic losses, and accordingly made compensation claims.

During the trial, the two sides revolved around whether Wang Hai’s “Blue Moon” constitutes an infringement, the determination of the amount of infringement, and whether the industry standard for fluorescent whitening agents is legitimate.

The Blue Moon submitted a total of 42 evidences including domestic and foreign research reports to the court. Wang Hai submitted a test report commissioned by the consumer Wang Feng, issued by the Tianjin Product Quality Supervision and Testing Technology Institute, and copies of some media articles. Wait for 12 pieces of evidence.

The Blue Moon believes that fluorescent whitening agents brighten clothing through optical principles and are commonly used in the detergent industry. Their safety has been widely recognized by scientists, government agencies and authorities in various countries.

The Blue Moon provided the court with a large number of authoritative research reports at home and abroad, which proves that the use of fluorescent whitening agents in laundry detergents is safe and reliable. It will not cause negative impact on the human body and the environment. The added fluorescent whitening agents comply with national laws and regulations. Provisions.

Several other evidences include the inspection reports issued by the Guangdong Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the Guangdong Provincial Quality Supervision Daily Chemical Products Inspection Station for the products produced by Blue Moon, which proves to be non-irritating to human skin.

Among the evidence provided by Wang Hai, the test report No. TQT03-0478-2011 issued by the Tianjin Institute of Product Quality Supervision and Testing Technology for the blue moon detergent showed that the inspection item was an optical brightener and the inspection result was Out.

In addition, several pieces of evidence were published in the People’s Daily on November 7, 1997, entitled "The toxicity of synthetic laundry detergent can not be ignored" and published in the "Life Daily" on May 26, 2010. "Careful Carcinogens Carcinogenicity" article and washing labels of Japanese laundry liquids and brand names such as Mecoxlane and Uniqlo.

During the trial, Ye Maoliang admitted to the judge in court that “may” add fluorescent brighteners to the detergent, but it should be marked.

This is not the first lawsuit between the Blue Moon and Wang Hai.

Since June of this year, Wang Hai and Ye Maoliang have initiated lawsuits and complaints against Blue Moon in Beijing, Shanghai, and Splendor for the cause of cancer caused by fluorescent brighteners contained in blue moon laundry detergent. Co., Ltd. immediately followed a one-week replay of television-related short films on buses in more than 20 large and medium-sized cities in China.

At the same time, Wang Hai accuses the Blue Moon product of causing cancer through Sina Weibo and is forwarded by a number of celebrities on the Internet. The original production and sales of the Blue Moon Company, as usual, had to deal with emergencies.

In October this year, Tianhe District Court of Guangzhou Municipality made a verdict on the case of Ye Maoliang v. Blue Moon (Wang Hai acting as the agent), and determined that the quality of the blue moon brightening laundry liquid was qualified, the product packaging label was in compliance with the requirements, and the plaintiff requested the litigation request. The lack of facts and legal basis, according to law rejected his claim.

Tianhe District Court held that the fluorescent whitening agent added to the products involved in the Blue Moon met the requirements of “QB/T2953-2008 Fluorescent Brightener for Detergents”, and was confirmed by the quality inspection department as safe and harmless, and the fluorescent brightener was not a laundry detergent. The main ingredients of the formula do not need to be marked and do not constitute false propaganda.

In the case of the Blue Moon v. Wang Hai’s reputation infringement, the “Rule of Law Weekend” reporter called the Wang Hai Hotline and the other party rejected the “Rule of Law Weekend” reporter’s interview request on this matter.

The relevant person in charge of the Blue Moon said that in order to eliminate the negative influence of Wang Hai's false remarks and eliminate consumers' misconceptions about fluorescent whitening agents, the company launched public information on fluorescent whitening agent science popularization through major media and networks from July. Printed 10 million copies of the "fluorescent whitening agent CBS scientific knowledge" promotional materials, distributed to consumers free of charge; specializing in the production of two popular public service commercials, broadcast in nearly 40 major television stations across the country.

"The cost is far more than 3 million yuan," said the person in charge. The lawyer of Blue Moon Company stated that the cost of litigation is very high. In terms of the Tianhe District case, even if Wang Hai loses the case, Wang Hai loses only the tolls for the trip, and for the Blue Moon, the loss is very great. .

For this reason, the Blue Moon Company launched a counterattack against Wang Hai on the grounds of reputation infringement.

The evidence submitted by the Blue Moon to the court includes the industry standard "QB/T2953-2008 Optical Brightener for Detergents" issued by the National Development and Reform Commission on March 12, 2008 and implemented on September 1, 2008, which clearly indicates the availability of The types of optical brighteners used in the production of laundry detergents include distyrylbiphenyls (such as CBS-X, etc.) and bistriazine aminostilbenes.

Wang Hai proposed in court that the main reference for “fluorescent brighteners are chemical poisons” is the “Classification of Occupational Disease Hazard Factors” of the State Administration of Work Safety. The table lists four types of items that may cause occupational diseases: dust, chemical poisons, physical factors, and biological factors. Among them, the serial number 96 is an optical brightener, code HX82, and the category is "chemical poisons".

Officials of the State Administration of Industry and Supervision of the State Administration of Work Safety previously said in an interview with the “Rule of Law Weekend” reporter that the classification form was formulated to address the occupational hazards of workers in the production process and was not related to the harmfulness of fluorescent brighteners contained in laundry detergent.

Regarding Wang Hai’s submission to the court on “Toxicity of synthetic detergents can't be ignored,” the relevant person said in an interview with reporters that this is just an individual’s point of view, not a legal standard of the national authoritative department, and equivalent to the Blue Moon. The commonly used optical brighteners do not belong to the same class.

The boundary of freedom of expression is against the blue moon v. Wang Hai’s reputation for infringement. Wang Mao’s agent Ye Maoliang argued in court that Article 35 of the Constitution stipulates the right of citizens to freedom of expression. This is a basic principle, and according to The consumer rights protection law and related judicial interpretations issued by the Supreme Law, consumers have the right to know, and Blue Moon does not include fluorescent brighteners on the outer packaging.

Acting lawyers in the Blue Moon told the “Rule of Law Weekend” reporter that the Blue Moon issued a clarification on the official website on June 25. However, Wang Hai continued to release the toxic and harmful remarks of the Blue Moon products and represented the Blue Moon and The lawsuit of the Blue Moon product has constituted an infringement of Blue Moon's reputation.

Chen Lidan, a professor at the School of Journalism at Renmin University of China, told the “Rule of Law Weekend” reporter that he spoke on Weibo, which was the same as the newspaper’s articles and television shows. "Weibo has provided a platform for people to express their opinions. It is a public-oriented media. Speeches need to comply with relevant laws and regulations."

"Freedom of expression, of course, the protection of the law, while the boundary is as long as it does not infringe on other people's civil rights. This is the constitutional principle." Yang Lixin, professor of the Law School of Renmin University of China.

Zhang Xinbao, a professor at Renmin University of China, believes that there is nothing special about the constitution requirements of new media such as Weibo, and that there is nothing special about the infringement liability of new media such as Weibo. The principle of fault liability set out in Article 6(1) of the Tort Liability Law still applies, especially on Weibo. To make remarks, it must be based on whether the facts are true, whether they are announced, whether there is a fault, and whether there are statutory defense reasons.

“We propose that everyone should be responsible for their own claims, and at the same time ask the website to organize themselves spontaneously to check on Weibo and promote self-discipline in the industry. At present, the power of self-discipline needs to be further strengthened, and the government should introduce corresponding incentive policies to further strengthen Self-discipline," said Chen Lidan.