The first case of the infringement dispute involving bitcoin in Hangzhou was rejected due to insufficient evidence.

The first case in Hangzhou involving a bitcoin infringement dispute was rejected due to insufficient evidence.

On July 18, the Hangzhou Internet Court held a second online public hearing on the case of the plaintiff Wu Mou v. defendant Shanghai Science and Technology Company and Taobao Company's network tort liability dispute (property rights dispute) and sentenced the plaintiff to claim the infringement liability to the defendant. The basis for the failure was insufficient to dismiss the plaintiff’s entire claim. It is reported that this is the first case involving the infringement dispute involving bitcoin network property in Hangzhou Internet Court.

On May 7, 2013, Wu bought the goods “FXBTC recharge code 497.5 yuan” through the Taobao shop operated by the outsider Huang. According to the bitcoin price of the day, it was calculated to be 2.69 bitcoins, and the payment was 500 yuan. The transaction order was displayed on the same day. Goods, confirm receipt. The store is marked as the official store of the Bitcoin trading platform. After that, Wu also paid RMB 19,920 to the store Alipay account on November 30, 2013. On May 2, 2014, the Bitcoin Trading Platform ("FXBTC" website) released the "Outage Announcement". Wu believes that a technology company in Shanghai did not make any warnings when the website was shut down, which caused him huge economic losses; Taobao did not fulfill the audit obligation, which led him to purchase prohibited goods on the online shopping platform, so the two defendants should bear the joint responsibility.

The court held that the legal status of Bitcoin as a virtual property should be affirmed, but the plaintiff claimed that the actual implementation of the infringement in this case was the defendant's Shanghai technology company. The plaintiff claimed that he paid RMB 19,920 to the defendant for the purchase of Bitcoin. However, the direct collection of the money was the Alipay account of the shopkeeper Huang, and the unilateral description of the shop was not enough to identify him as the defendant’s Shanghai technology company. "Recharge the store, it is not enough to presume the identity of the store business entity and the website business entity. The plaintiff did not provide any evidence for the fact that the plaintiff had received the recharge code of the website involved, whether there was a corresponding website account, whether the above payment had actually been recharged on the website, and whether the plaintiff actually obtained the corresponding bitcoin share. According to the principle of proof of who advocates who is giving evidence, the plaintiff should bear the legal consequences of the inability to prove.

On the other hand, regarding the plaintiff’s claim that Taobao Company bears joint and several liability, the goods involved in the case do not have obvious illegal or infringing circumstances. The plaintiff did not submit any evidence to prove that the defendant Taobao Company had made any notice on the case. The defendant Taobao Company was not The opposite party involved in the transaction or the perpetrator of the infringement involved does not know whether it is aware of or knows that the infringement exists and does not take timely measures. After the plaintiff’s request, it has also disclosed the certification information of the party involved in the transaction in a timely manner, and therefore does not constitute infringement. . (Zhejiang News)