关于知识产权 知识产权培训 树立尊重知识产权的风尚 知识产权外联 部门知识产权 知识产权和热点议题 特定领域知识产权 专利和技术信息 商标信息 工业品外观设计信息 地理标志信息 植物品种信息(UPOV) 知识产权法律、条约和判决 知识产权资源 知识产权报告 专利保护 商标保护 工业品外观设计保护 地理标志保护 植物品种保护(UPOV) 知识产权争议解决 知识产权局业务解决方案 知识产权服务缴费 谈判与决策 发展合作 创新支持 公私伙伴关系 人工智能工具和服务 组织简介 在产权组织任职 问责制 专利 商标 工业品外观设计 地理标志 版权 商业秘密 知识产权的未来 WIPO学院 讲习班和研讨会 知识产权执法 WIPO ALERT 宣传 世界知识产权日 WIPO杂志 案例研究和成功故事 知识产权新闻 产权组织奖 企业 高校 土著人民 司法机构 青年 审查员 遗传资源、传统知识和传统文化表现形式 经济学 金融 无形资产 性别平等 全球卫生 气候变化 竞争政策 可持续发展目标 前沿技术 移动应用 体育 旅游 音乐 PATENTSCOPE 专利分析 国际专利分类 ARDI - 研究促进创新 ASPI - 专业化专利信息 全球品牌数据库 马德里监视器 Article 6ter Express数据库 尼斯分类 维也纳分类 全球外观设计数据库 国际外观设计公报 Hague Express数据库 洛迦诺分类 Lisbon Express数据库 全球品牌数据库地理标志信息 PLUTO植物品种数据库 GENIE数据库 产权组织管理的条约 WIPO Lex - 知识产权法律、条约和判决 产权组织标准 知识产权统计 WIPO Pearl(术语) 产权组织出版物 国家知识产权概况 产权组织知识中心 产权组织技术趋势 全球创新指数 世界知识产权报告 PCT - 国际专利体系 ePCT 布达佩斯 - 国际微生物保藏体系 马德里 - 国际商标体系 eMadrid 第六条之三(徽章、旗帜、国徽) 海牙 - 国际外观设计体系 eHague 里斯本 - 国际地理标志体系 eLisbon UPOV PRISMA 调解 仲裁 专家裁决 域名争议 检索和审查集中式接入(CASE) 数字查询服务(DAS) WIPO Pay 产权组织往来账户 产权组织各大会 常设委员会 会议日历 WIPO Webcast 产权组织正式文件 发展议程 技术援助 知识产权培训机构 COVID-19支持 国家知识产权战略 政策和立法咨询 合作枢纽 技术与创新支持中心(TISC) 技术转移 发明人援助计划(IAP) WIPO GREEN 产权组织的PAT-INFORMED 无障碍图书联合会 产权组织服务创作者 WIPO Translate 语音转文字 分类助手 成员国 观察员 总干事 部门活动 驻外办事处 工作人员职位 非工作人员职位 采购 成果和预算 财务报告 监督
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
法律 条约 判决 按管辖区浏览

捷克共和国

CZ002-j

Supreme Court Judgment, Case No. 23 Cdo 2793/2020 – Hellspy

Machine translation
close
tranlsation detector

Civil Code, Art. 2976(1); Act on Certain Information Society Services, Art. 5(1); Directive 2000/31/EC, Art. 14

 

Plaintiff (the Czech National Group of IFPI) sought protection against unfair competition of the defendants, providers of internet hosting services operated mainly under the brand names “Hellshare” and “Hellspy” and accessible to the public on their websites. In particular, the plaintiff complained of the defendants' remuneration of users of their service, the rate of which was depending on the number of downloads of files uploaded by those users. Furthermore, the plaintiff challenged the implementation of a search engine for stored files.

 

The Supreme Court found held that the limitation of the liability of hosting service providers within the meaning of Art. 5(1) of the Act on Certain Information Society Services (Art. 14 of the E-Commerce Directive) refers to a liability for the data which the provider stored at the request of a user of the service. In that regard, the Supreme Court concluded that the plaintiff in this case did not claim the defendants´ liability for the (illegally) stored data (i.e. liability for the stored content), but rather for an unfair incentive model of their service encouraging the users of the service to upload the illegal content which gives rise to a different ground (type) of liability (i.e. liability for the business model).

 

In a situation where the settings of hosting service allow its users to make information (data files) infringing third parties' intellectual property rights (copyright protected sound and audiovisual recordings) available to the public to a considerable (i.e. competitively significant) extent, such a business model of that service may, depending on the specific circumstances, result in unfair competition practice, irrespective of whether the provider of that service is (at the same time) liable for the stored data or not.

 

Particularly, the Supreme Court found unfair competition practice in payment of remuneration to the users of defendants´ hosting service, the amount of which was directly linked to the number or extent of downloads of files stored by these users, without the defendants´ adequate verification whether such remuneration is paid to these users as a result of infringement of the intellectual property rights or not.

 

Regarding the implementation of the electronic search engine into the defendants' service, the Supreme Court found that such an implementation does not, in principle, constitute unfair competition practice as long as the file searching is performed by a neutral, purely technical and automatic means of processing information.