Tianjin residents believe the decoration center uses counterfeit latex paint

China Paint Network
News:
Tianjin City, a citizen believes that the decoration center using counterfeit
latex paint
and in Soufan.com and Youku online postings and videos "exposed", was prosecuted by the other side. The court of first instance held that the citizen had unilaterally entrusted the appraisal department and tested it in the absence of the plaintiff's personnel, and that its conclusions were not legitimate. In the absence of sufficient evidence, postings and videos on the Internet violated the plaintiff's rights and led him to apologize to the plaintiff. A few days ago, the city's Second Central Court upheld the first instance judgment.
Mr. McMay is the legal representative of a decoration company. Ms. Wang and Mr. Mai's decoration company signed the "Tianjin residential decoration project construction contract." Contract agreement, by the decoration center for Ms. Wang's house decoration, and contractors, package part of the material. Construction was carried out for one month and 18 days, and Ms. Wang signed each page of the construction management manual. More than a year later, Ms. Wang contacted a Shanghai company and commissioned it to identify the indoor air in her house.
Not long after, Ms. Wang published an article on Soufan.com entitled "A decoration company (Mr. Mai is the legal representative of the decoration company) half-pack with fake Dolezal latex paint", and posted a video on Youku.com entitled "The new house was renovated into a gas slow release capsule partl". The video features subtitles from the builder of the gas slow-release capsule, a decoration company in Tianjin (mr. Mai is the legal representative of the decoration company) and its latex paint supplier. Mr.
. Mai and his decoration company, which represents legal persons, considered Ms. Wang's action to be extremely inappropriate, and took her to court, asking the court to order Ms. Wang to apologize to the plaintiff through Soufan.com and Youku.com and eliminate the adverse effects, ordering Ms. Wang to pay her damages of 79,000 yuan, and the legal costs in this case should be borne by the defendant.
Mingming is Mr. Mai's decoration center is responsible for decoration, and Why does Ms. Wang mention in the article and video is Mr. Mai's decoration company represented by legal persons? In this regard, Ms. Wang explained that she is actually aimed at the decoration center.
court of first instance held that the defendant in this case unilaterally entrusted the appraisal department to test the air in his house without notifying the plaintiff to be present, and that the appraisal conclusion was not legal and was not accepted. The defendant, without any sufficient valid evidence, spread false information through the Internet that damages the reputation of the plaintiff's decoration company, and the defendant's behavior is subjectively wrong, and objectively has the fact that he has clearly denigrated and defamed the reputation of others. If the defendant does encounter problems such as product quality during the renovation process, it should be resolved through proper means, and false statements should not be spread on the Internet, infringing the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests. Although the defendant said that the posting was only for the decoration center, and the plaintiff decoration company has no relationship, but the defendant in soufan.com and Youku online posts the title and video subtitles are related to the plaintiff decoration company, so the two plaintiffs asked the defendant through Soufan.com and Youku.com to apologize for their request, should be supported. Because the second plaintiff failed to provide sufficient and valid evidence to prove that his economy had suffered losses, the second plaintiff's claim for damages to the defendant was not supported.
, the court of first instance ordered the defendant to apologize to the plaintiff through Soufon and Youku. After the verdict of the first instance, Ms. Wang appealed. After hearing the case, the Second Central Court rejected her appeal and upheld the first instance judgement.