Shulou(Shulou.com)11/24 Report--

CTOnews.com, February 1 news, recently, the Beijing Internet Court heard a dispute arising from the fake App and found that the operator of an application market failed to review the authenticity and legality of the App on the shelves, resulting in the fake App on the shelves harming the legitimate rights and interests of others, and ordered the operator to bear the corresponding responsibility.

CTOnews.com learned that a company of the plaintiff claimed that during the out-of-case lawsuit, the plaintiff learned that its company had "registered" a loan App in the application market operated by the defendant and was ordered to bear tort liability by the court outside the case because of the existence of trademark infringement in the App. However, the plaintiff verified that he had never registered any account or App in the application market, and the registration was fraudulent. The plaintiff believes that the defendant, an application market operator, violated the legal provisions such as the Network Security Law of the people's Republic of China, did not verify the true identity information of the registered users of the application software, and failed to fulfill the user identity management obligations, resulting in the plaintiff's corporate information being falsely used to register the App involved, thus causing the plaintiff to be held accountable by outsiders, therefore, the defendant should bear tort liability for the losses caused by it.

The defendant, an application market operator, argued that the developer account involved in the case was registered in the name of the plaintiff and submitted compliance documents, and there was no audit fault on the defendant. App involved in the case submitted the relevant qualification documents when uploading, legal compliance, the defendant did not have any fault. In the face of a large amount of application information, there are no provisions in the law, and the defendant does not have the ability to examine in advance whether the applications uploaded by network users infringe upon the rights of others. At the same time, the defendant fulfilled the obligation of post-supervision and promptly removed the App involved in the case.

After hearing, the court held that according to the regulations on the Management of Mobile Internet Application Information Services, the Internet application store service provider should undertake the obligation to examine the authenticity, legality, security and other obligations of the application provider, and at the same time have the obligation to review the legitimacy of the application published by the application provider.

At the same time, as the Internet application store service provider, as an ordinary civil subject without administrative supervision, should be limited to its audit ability when judging whether it fulfills its audit obligations. To audit the authenticity, legality and security of the application provider for the Internet application store service provider, it should be limited to verifying whether the information is consistent with the corresponding materials submitted by the application provider in the authoritative database published by the country to the public. For the Internet application store service provider to verify the legality of the application published by the application provider, it should be limited to the formal examination of whether there is obvious illegal content in the online application material of the application.

In this case, when the involved App registered the developer account, there was an obvious difference between the business license submitted by the plaintiff and the plaintiff in the business license in the national enterprise credit information publicity system. The defendant is fully capable of verifying the formal authenticity of the business license materials submitted by the application provider, and should pay attention to the problem of false business license when there are obvious differences in the apparent content. In this case, the developer account involved in the case still completed the registration in the case of providing a false business license, which shows that the defendant did not fulfill the obligation to audit the developer account involved. In addition, the App involved in the case is a financial lending application, which is related to China's financial security and stability as well as the property rights and interests of application users, but in the application materials for the listing of the App involved, there is no telecommunications business license material stipulated in the interim measures for the Administration of Business activities of Network Lending Information intermediaries. At the same time, there is no logo of "network loan information intermediary" in the business scope of the submitted business license.

To sum up, the defendant did not fulfill the examination obligation of the App involved in the case, resulting in the App involved in the case falsely using the name of the plaintiff to put on the shelves, damaging the legitimate rights and interests of outsiders and compensating by the plaintiff. The defendant constitutes an infringement of help and should bear the corresponding responsibility to the plaintiff. In the end, the court ordered the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for the economic losses and related reasonable expenses incurred as a result of the out-of-case litigation.

Welcome to subscribe "Shulou Technology Information " to get latest news, interesting things and hot topics in the IT industry, and controls the hottest and latest Internet news, technology news and IT industry trends.