Business reputation claim. We protect the business reputation of the company Claim to protect the business reputation
Court decisions based on the application of the norm of Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Protection of honor, dignity and business reputation
Arbitrage practice
Decision No. 2-1910 / 2019 2-1910 / 2019 ~ M-811/2019 M-811/2019 dated June 27, 2019 in case No. 2-1910 / 2019
Pervomaisky District Court of Izhevsk (Udmurt Republic) - Civil and Administrative
10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms the right of everyone to freely express their opinion, in conjunction with Art. 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the above constitutional provisions suggest that the possibility of judicial protection of honor, dignity and business reputation from widespread defamatory information that does not correspond to reality is a necessary restriction of freedom of speech ...
Decision No. 2-2992 / 2019 2-2992 / 2019 ~ M-1232/2019 M-1232/2019 dated June 27, 2019 in case No. 2-2992 / 2019
Sverdlovsk District Court of Perm (Perm Territory) - Civil and Administrative
Established by special rules for those provided for in Art. 1100 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, namely: for cases of harm caused by the dissemination of information discrediting honor, dignity and business reputation - Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to clause 1 of which a citizen has the right to demand in court a refutation of information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation, unless the person who disseminated such information proves that ...
- ... are inalienable and belong to everyone from birth. The exercise of human and civil rights and freedoms should not violate the rights and freedoms of others. According to paragraph 1 of Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a citizen has the right to demand in court a refutation of information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation, unless the person who disseminated such information proves that they correspond ...
Resolution No. 44Г-49/2019 4G-561/2019 dated July 8, 2019
Orenburg Regional Court (Orenburg Region) - Civil and Administrative
Intangible benefits belonging to a citizen, as well as in other cases provided for by law, the court may impose on the violator the obligation of monetary compensation for the specified harm. In accordance with article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a citizen has the right to demand in court a refutation of information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation, unless the person who disseminated such information proves that they correspond ...
Decision No. 2-345 / 2019 2-345 / 2019 (2-8783 / 2018;) ~ M-8039/2018 2-8783 / 2018 M-8039/2018 dated June 29, 2019 in case No. 2-345 / 2019
Surgut City Court (Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug-Yugra) - Civil and Administrative
He did not appear in court, he was notified of the date and time of the hearing. Having studied the arguments of the parties, having examined the case materials, the court comes to the following. According to paragraph 1 of Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a citizen has the right to demand in court a refutation of information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation, if the person who disseminated such information does not prove that it is true. ...
Decision No. 2-654 / 2019 2-654 / 2019 ~ M-512/2019 M-512/2019 dated June 28, 2019 in case No. 2-654 / 2019
Karmaskalinsky District Court (Republic of Bashkortostan) - Civil and Administrative
Rights or infringing on other intangible benefits belonging to a citizen, the court may impose on the violator the obligation of monetary compensation for the specified harm. In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a citizen has the right to demand in court a refutation of information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation, if the person who disseminated such information does not prove that it is true. According to ...
Decision No. 2-1776 / 2019 2-1776 / 2019 ~ M-1087/2019 M-1087/2019 dated June 28, 2019 in case No. 2-1776 / 2019
Zheleznodorozhny District Court of Barnaul (Altai Territory) - Civil and Administrative
During their inspection, no confirmation was found, this circumstance in itself cannot serve as a basis for bringing this person to civil liability provided for in Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, since in this case the citizen exercised the constitutional right to appeal to the authorities that by virtue of the law are obliged to verify the information received, and ...
Decision No. 2-2 / 46/2019 2-2 / 46/2019 ~ M-2/37/2019 M-2/37/2019 dated June 28, 2019 in case No. 2-2 / 46/2019
Nolinsky District Court (Kirov Region) - Civil and Administrative
Established by special rules for the cases provided for in Article 1100 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, namely: - for cases of harm caused by the dissemination of information discrediting honor, dignity and business reputation, - Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to paragraph 1 of which a citizen has the right to demand in court a refutation of those discrediting his honor, the dignity or business reputation of the information, unless the person who disseminated such information proves that ...
Decision No. 2-687 / 2019 2-687 / 2019 ~ M-484/2019 M-484/2019 dated June 27, 2019 in case No. 2-687 / 2019
... 3 "On judicial practice in cases of protecting the honor and dignity of citizens, as well as the business reputation of citizens and legal entities" by virtue of paragraph 1 of Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the responsibility to prove the validity of the disseminated information lies with the defendant. The plaintiff is obliged to prove the fact of dissemination of information by the person against whom the claim is brought, as well as defamatory ...Articles of Association, Articles of Association → Sample. Agreement between the founder and the editorial office of the newspaper
Acting on the basis of the decree of the government of the Russian Federation from "" 1994 no. , on the one hand, and the edition newspapers"Russian newspaper"(hereinafter referred to as - edition) represented by the editor-in-chief N.I. Polezhaeva, acting on the basis of the charter ...
Claims, complaints, petitions, claims → Sample. Application for clarification of the claim and increase in the amount of the claim (in accordance with Article 37 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation)
New) mailing address: defendant: (name) mailing address: statement of clarification lawsuits claims and increasing the amount claim(in the order of Art. 37 of the APC of the Russian Federation) the company presented claim to (name of plaintiff) ...
Statements of Claims, Complaints, Petitions, Claims → Sample Statement of Claim
sample the claim applications to the district (city) people's court (name) from the citizen residing at the address surname, name, about ...
Claims, complaints, petitions, claims → Sample. Application for a change in the subject of a claim
Inter-municipal housing 3rd person: (surname, name, patronymic) (address) application for a change in the subject claim me, "" 20 years presented (surname, acting plaintiff) claim on the invalidation of the certificate of ownership ...
Statements of Claims, Complaints, Petitions, Claims → Sample of December 14, 1995 Statement of Securing Claims
Organizations) address: respondent: (name of organization) address: statement of security lawsuits claims "" 20 years (name of the organization of the plaintiff) presented claim to (position, full name) on recognition ...
Power of attorney: filling samples → Sample. Power of attorney to conduct a court case when considering a claim
S, residing at:, in that he is instructed to represent (name of organization) when considering claim to about at all stages of the trial, including in the cassation and supervisory instances. within the framework of this entrusted ...
Business records of the enterprise → Sample dated January 31, 1996. Journal of claims and claims filed by the enterprise
claims presented by the enterprise + - + no. original name amount containing-date term date short date contract, original from ...
Claims, complaints, petitions, claims → Sample. The claim for the exclusion of property from the inventory
claim about exclusion property from the inventory to the railway district court of the city of primorsk plaintiff: ivanova anna ivanovna 666095, city ...
Claims, complaints, petitions, claims → Sample. Cassation appeal against the court decision on the claim for reinstatement at work (brief)
Etchik: (name of the organization) (address of the organization) on the decision of the inter-municipal people's court in claim on (full name of the plaintiff) reinstatement at work cassation appeal by the decision of the intermunicipal district people's ...
Enterprise office documents → Sample dated January 31, 1996. Journal of claims and claims filed against the enterprise
l u r n a l u u t of claims and claims presented to the enterprise + - + no. input date name amount content - date when date short transmitted mark input ...
Claims, complaints, petitions, claims → Sample. Amicable agreement on payment of part of the plaintiff's claims on the statement of claim
Patronymic) (license no. From) and registered in the register for no. on the other hand, parties to the claim no. have entered into this settlement agreement as follows. 1.This settlement agreement is concluded by the parties with ...
Claims, complaints, petitions, claims → Sample. Petition for the recovery of evidence in a claim for the protection of honor and dignity
... (surname, acting) (address) defendants: (surname, acting) (address) (surnames, acting) by Claim Sample dated November 30, 1995 Form the claim statements (general recommended outline)
And bank details) defendant: (full name of the organization, its postal and bank details) price (amount) claim rub. (option - claim without price) state duty rub. and s to o n e n e (briefly - the essence of the requirements for and ...
A claim for the protection of business reputation in court with our lawyer: professionally and on time. Protection of the business reputation of a legal entity or individual entrepreneur is a set of measures to restore the honor of an entity, which were destroyed by defamation and providing false information.
If you have been subjected to such attacks from competitors, clients, the press, you can file a claim to protect your business reputation with representatives of the arbitration court.
When is the protection of the business reputation of a legal entity or individual entrepreneur required?
If you have been publicly slandered, you should not put up with this state of affairs. You can file a claim for the protection of business reputation in the following circumstances:
A lawsuit to protect the business reputation of a legal entity will be accepted and considered if you can prove the facts of falsification of libel. If you find in the press false articles or analytical materials, posts on social networks, negative reviews on specialized sites, be sure to save them. Make a print-screen of the web page, preferably with the date of publication. It is highly likely that the authors of this information, defaming you personally or your business, will delete the information when they find out that they have been sued. If you have evidence of their guilt, it will be easier to win the case.
Protecting business reputation on the Internet is becoming a reality today. If earlier it was practically impossible to prove the involvement of a certain person in the publication of false information in this way, today it is all easily traceable.
USEFUL: watch the VIDEO on the protection of business reputation:
How to make a statement of claim for the protection of business reputation?
The claim does not have to contain only a requirement to protect business reputation.
For example, if the dissemination of information is carried out by your counterparty and is accompanied by a simultaneous non-fulfillment of contractual obligations, then you have the right to simultaneously carry out. It is worth noting that at the request of the plaintiff, with the consent of the defendant, it can be applied in such a situation. This will allow you to significantly reduce legal costs.
The statement of claim contains the following information:
- name of the court;
- information about the plaintiff;
- information about the defendant;
- the name of the print publication or other object where false information was published;
- the essence of the complaint;
- evidence of false information;
- retraction requests;
- claims for the recovery of material and moral damage;
- date, signature.
First, you need to properly file a claim to protect the business reputation of an individual entrepreneur or an entire company. Our experienced lawyers will help you.
USEFUL: watch the video and find out more tips on drafting a lawsuit
Determination of the amount of damage caused to business reputation
Compensation for real damages caused by the dissemination of false information
Often, the dissemination of false information can entail real losses, in the form of termination of contracts with counterparties. Such disrupted deals can seriously damage the business. In this case, competently composed will help. To recover damages, you will have to prove:
- the fact of spreading false information;
- a causal relationship between losses and information dissemination.
If the first, in the presence of the above evidence, is confirmed quite easily, then when proving a causal relationship without the help of a qualified specialist, such as ours, it is often simply impossible to do.
Sample claim for the protection of the business reputation of an individual
To the Ordzhonikidze district court
ANSWER:
Statement of claim
on the protection of honor, dignity, business reputation, compensation for moral damage
I am the head of the personnel department of LLC "...", my responsibilities include, among other things, the selection of personnel. September 28, 2012 together with the director of the company "M." we conducted an interview at the city of Yekaterinburg st. May Day, where the Defendant took part.
On September 29, 2012, the defendant was approved for the position of secretary of record keeping. I invited the defendant to transfer cases, on the same day the internal rules and duties were explained to the defendant. I sent instructions in writing to the defendant (attached to the claim). The orders were urgent and required immediate execution due to the possibility of losses, in particular, the order of railway tickets. The defendant did not properly perform her labor duties, which led to losses in connection with the order of railway tickets.
03 October 2012 during a meeting with the defendant in the presence of two HR managers. I gave explanations in terms of incorrect actions for untimely execution of orders and in terms of losses incurred. The conversation took place in a business style, without raising the voice and insulting the person. The defendant interrupted the conversation by deciding to dismiss and leaving the office. The defendant never went to work.
Subsequently, I received a message from the defendant by e-mail, and using the link I turned to the information that was posted on the ekb website, and also sent to the e-mail of LLC "F." in the city of Tyumen. In the information posted, I was offended by the fact that the defendant called me "a poor woman who probably has not had a man for a long time or I started to climax at the age of 30". I regard the information posted by the respondent as untrue, defaming honor, dignity and business reputation.
In accordance with Article 23 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, everyone has the right to defend his honor and good name. Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees everyone freedom of thought and speech, as well as freedom of the media.
Business reputation is one of the conditions for successful business. Taking into account these constitutional provisions, a balance must be ensured between the right of citizens to protect honor, dignity, and business reputation, on the one hand, and other rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation - freedom of thought, speech, mass information, the right to freely seek, receive , transfer, produce and distribute information in any legal way, the right to privacy, personal and family secrets, the right to appeal to state bodies and local governments (Articles 23, 29, 33 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), on the other.
USEFUL: watch the video and find out why it is better to file any sample of a claim, complaints with our lawyer, write a question in the comments of the video, subscribe to the YouTube channel
In accordance with paragraphs 1 and 7 of Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, in the event of the dissemination of information discrediting business reputation, I have the right to demand a refutation in court.
In accordance with Part 1 and Part 5 of Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a citizen has the right to demand in court a refutation of information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation, if the person who disseminated such information does not prove that it is true. A citizen in relation to whom information has been disseminated that discredits his honor, dignity or business reputation, has the right, along with the refutation of such information, to demand compensation for losses and moral harm caused by their dissemination.
According to Part 2 of Art. 1101 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation “the amount of compensation for moral damage is determined by the court depending on the nature of the physical and mental suffering inflicted on the victim, as well as the degree of guilt of the inflictor of harm in cases where guilt is the basis for compensation for harm. When determining the amount of compensation for harm, the requirements of reasonableness and justice must be taken into account. "
I estimate the moral amount of moral damage in my case, 55,000 rubles.
Based on the foregoing and guided by Art. 151, part 2 of Art. 1101 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, as well as Part 1 of Art. 98 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 24, 2005 N 3 "ON JUDICIAL PRACTICE IN CASES ON PROTECTING THE HONOR AND DIGNITY OF CITIZENS, AS WELL AS THE BUSINESS REPUTATION OF CITIZENS AND LEGAL ENTITIES"
ASK:
- To oblige the defendant to publish the rebuttal on the same ekb website
- To recover from the defendant in my favor monetary compensation for moral damage in the amount of 55,000 (fifty-five thousand) rubles.
- To recover from the defendant in my favor the paid state duty, as well as the costs of paying for the preparation of the statement of claim in the amount of 2,000 rubles.
Date, signature
Help of a lawyer to protect business reputation
If the company does not have such a specialist, contact our reliable legal office. You will be offered the services of an expert who specializes in conducting proceedings in an arbitration court to protect the business reputation of an entrepreneur.
Our competent specialist is able to carry out at least the following amount of work for you:
- collect the necessary evidence of damage to business reputation;
- correctly justify their size;
- will competently and reasonably state your position to the court, which will contribute to the maximum satisfaction of your claims by the court.
Moreover, it is becoming more and more urgent to conclude an amicable agreement in an arbitration court. Even if it is not possible to reach an agreement with the opponent, this procedure is significantly assisted by an independent representative. The specialists of the law office "Katsailidi and Partners" will help you not only draw up, but also help you negotiate with your opponent and conclude an agreement on mutually beneficial terms.
P.S.: if you have a problem - call our lawyer and we will try to solve your issue: professionally, on favorable terms and on time
Our new offer - free legal advice through the application on the website.
In Arbitration court Moscow region 107053, Moscow, Akademika Sakharov Ave., 18
Plaintiff: Limited Liability Company "Company Russian Med" 396651, Voronezh region, Rossosh, st. May 1, 56
Representative of the Claimant: Ya.N.AND. Address for sending correspondence: Moscow, st. Kompozitorskaya, 17 MKA "Zhorin and Partners"
Defendant: Limited Liability Company "Analytical Center Apis" 140150, Moscow region, Ramensky district, pos. Bykovo, st. Verkhnyaya, 18a
Kondratskaya Elena
Bogdanov Andrey Vitalievich
Cost of the claim: 2,000,000 rubles.
CLAIM for protection of business reputation
On May 07, 2013 on the World Beekeeping website in the open access of the Internet, on a page with a domain name, an article by M. Latynin “The largest scam in the Russian honey market or the prospects of beekeeping in Russia” was posted.
The article titled "The largest scam in the Russian honey market or the prospects for beekeeping in Russia" published the following:
“The manufacturer and supplier of counterfeit honey has been named. whose products are littered with "honey" counters in Russia. Regular examinations of honey samples. arriving at the "Analytical Center" Apis ", allowed to reveal the massive falsification of honey on the shelves of Moscow and other regions of Russia. The same technology of honey falsification prompted the idea of the existence of a large producer and supplier of a surrogate. Over time, we managed to identify him. This manufacturer turned out to be the "Company" Russian Med ", based its production in Rossosh and has an extensive branch sales network."
“On this basis, it was concluded that falsification of honey is the cornerstone on which the business of the Russian Med Company is built, and the business concept consists in the production of imitation honey for children, using syrups and stabilizers. dyes and flavors. The kneading was to the taste of an unprepared buyer, who perceived the fake as natural honey with unique properties, and for more than a year now has been confidently displacing natural honey from the shelves. The sale of counterfeit products is very well established and is carried out through the branch network of the Russian Med Company in Moscow, Krasnodar, St. Petersburg and Rossosh. "
"We are constantly working to expand the sales network of the surrogate from the site medolubov.ru."
“Every month, without even suspecting, hundreds of thousands of consumers of beekeeping products in Russia (over 1 million people per year) become victims of this company, who bought imitation at collective farm markets, honey fairs, stationary points in shopping malls.”
"The activities of this company exposed other problems as well - lack of control over the food market by the state, lack of ability or desire to apply the current GOST standards by specialists from accredited laboratories, deception of buyers, the morale of Russian society."
This article instantly spread over the Internet and was replicated many times on other information resources, in particular:
- on the site pchelovod.info;
- on the website forum-pavlovo.ru;
- on the website iediru.net;
- on the website pchelovod-tatar.info.
In confirmation of the fact of dissemination of the disputed information in the case materials, the Plaintiff submitted the Conclusion No. 04-06 / 2013 dated 03.062013, executed by the Closed Joint-Stock Company "First All-Union Expert Center for Information Technologies and Mass Communications"
Also attached to this statement of claim is a message from CJSC Regional Network Information Center that the domain administrator is Elena Kondratskaya, and the administrator of the pchelovod.info domain is Andrey Vitalievich Bogdanov.
In accordance with paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Art. 33 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, arbitration courts consider cases on the protection of business reputation in the field of entrepreneurial and other economic activities.
According to clause 9 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of 09.12.2002 N 11 "On some issues related to the implementation of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation" when applying clause 5 of part 1 of Article 33 of the Code, it is necessary to take into account that cases on the protection of business reputation in the field of business and other economic activities are subject to consideration in arbitration courts and in the case of involving a citizen who does not have the status of an individual entrepreneur, including the author of disseminated (published) information, to participate in the case.
The main activity with is the sale to the population of a wide range of quality goods, including honey and beekeeping products - propolis, bee bread, pollen, royal jelly, etc. From clause 2.2. Of the Charter of LLC “Company Russian Med” it follows that one of the main activities of the Company is retail trade mainly in food products.
Thus, the dissemination of information about the sale of counterfeit and falsified products by the Claimant is directly related to the entrepreneurial activity of the Russian Med Company LLC, and the resolution of the dispute on the protection of the company's business reputation is subject to the jurisdiction of the arbitration court.
The current legislation, in particular Articles 152 and 1100 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, establishes the possibility of legal protection against the dissemination of information discrediting the honor and dignity of citizens or the business reputation of citizens and legal entities, under which - by virtue of Federal Law of July 27, 2006 N 149-FZ "On information, information technology and information protection" and in accordance with the explanations given by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation - it should be understood, among other things, their distribution via the Internet.
The published information in the article refers to information, since it is a statement of facts, events that can be verified for compliance or non-compliance with their reality, and is defamatory, since it characterizes the Claimant as a whole as causing harm to the life and health of consumers through its activities, violating of its activities, the norms established by the legislation regulating the quality and safety of food products sold, in particular, the norms of the Federal Law dated 02.01.2000 No. 29-FZ "On the quality and safety of food products." Published and disseminated information testifies to the alleged bad faith of LLC "Company Russian Med" in the implementation of production, economic and entrepreneurial activities.
In accordance with paragraph 5 of the above-mentioned Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 3, the proper defendants in claims for the protection of honor, dignity and business reputation, along with the persons who disseminated false information, are also the persons indicated as the source of this information.
Thus, the Defendant is the distributor of defamatory information and information that does not correspond to reality, that is, the owner and administrator of the site where this information was published - Elena Kondratskaya, Andrey Vitalievich Bogdanov, as well as the source of the disseminated information - Apis Analytical Center Limited Liability Company.
It is not possible to establish the distributor of defamatory and untrue information on other specified sites for the Claimant, due to the fact that the sites have a "forum" structure, where anonymous dissemination of information is possible.
Information disseminated via the Internet is posted on sites whose resources, as a rule, are technically and technologically objectively accessible to an indefinite circle of persons, which does not exclude the possibility of their anonymous use, including for illegal purposes, for example, to disseminate information defaming honor , dignity or business reputation of citizens and legal entities.
The fact that illegal actions using Internet resources were committed by an unknown person does not negate the general principle by virtue of which the offender is responsible for these actions. However, even the actual impossibility in such cases to establish and prosecute the guilty person as a way to protect the rights of the victim does not mean that these rights cannot be protected by other means, such as restoring the situation that existed before the violation of the right, and suppressing actions that violate the right or create the threat of its violation (Article 12 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
Since in order to protect the violated right, it is necessary to restore the situation that existed before its violation, imposing on a person who has the technical ability, without prejudice to his rights and legitimate interests, to remove information recognized by the court as untrue, the obligation to fulfill, as soon as he became aware of this, the necessary actions (consisting, in fact, in the execution of a court decision that entered into legal force) can not be considered either as an excessive encumbrance or as a disproportionate restriction of his rights (Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 09.07.2013 No. 18-P "In the case of verification the constitutionality of the provisions of paragraphs 1, 5 and 6 of Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation in connection with the complaint of the citizen EV Krylov ").
In accordance with the legal position repeatedly expressed by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (decisions of July 30, 2001 N 13-P, of December 8, 2009 N 19-P, of May 14, 2012 N 11-P, etc., Determination of July 17 2007 N 487-0-0, etc.) protection of violated rights cannot be recognized as effective if a judicial act or an act of another authorized body is not timely executed. The above legal position, formulated on the basis of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, including its articles 1 (part 1), 2, 17 (part 3), 18, 52 and 55 (part 3), correlates article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, obliging the state to provide any person whose rights and freedoms are violated, effective remedies, and paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, which believes that the right to judicial protection would become illusory if the state's legal system allowed a final, binding judgment to be left invalid, to the detriment of one of the parties, and that the execution of a judgment rendered by any court should be regarded as an integral part of the "court" (judgments of March 19, 1997 in the case of "Hornsby ( Hornsby v. Greece ”, dated May 7, 2002 in the case“ Burdov v. Russia ”and others).
It follows from this that if the information discrediting a citizen posted on a site on the Internet is recognized by the court as untrue, the owner of the site or a person authorized by him, who is responsible for posting information on this site, should be obliged at the request of the victim delete such information. Anything else would actually mean a refusal to protect honor and dignity and reputation, while the methods of protection, which, for example, preserving the specified information on the site and at the same time posting a court decision refuting it, significantly reduce its effectiveness, especially when the court states that to establish the distributor of defamatory information is not possible.
Likewise, a person against whom defamatory information was disseminated on a website on the Internet has the right to apply to the court with a demand to oblige its owner or an authorized person who is responsible for posting information on this website to delete this information as untrue, which implies the establishment of this circumstance directly during the consideration of the statement of claim (clause 4.1. Resolutions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation).
According to the provisions of Art. 150 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, business reputation is an intangible benefit protected in accordance with the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, other laws, in the case and procedure provided for by them.
In paragraph 1 of Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it is established that a citizen has the right to demand in court a refutation of information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation, if the person who disseminated such information does not prove that it is true.
Paragraph 5 of the same article provides for the right of a citizen in respect of whom information has been disseminated that discredits his honor, dignity or business reputation, along with the refutation of such information, to demand compensation for losses and moral harm caused by their dissemination. In accordance with paragraph 7 of Art. 152 of the Code, these rules are also applied when protecting the business reputation of a legal entity.
In clause 7 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 24, 2005 No. 3 "On judicial practice in cases of protecting the honor and dignity of citizens, as well as the business reputation of citizens and legal entities", it is established that in cases of this category, circumstances having significance for the case are: the fact of the defendant's dissemination of information about the plaintiff, the defamatory nature of this information and the inconsistency of their reality. In the absence of at least one of these circumstances, the claim cannot be satisfied by the court.
Clause 9 of the same Resolution clarifies that the responsibility of proving the validity of the disseminated information lies with the Respondent. The plaintiff is obliged to prove the fact of dissemination of information by the person against whom the claim is brought, as well as the defamatory nature of this information.
According to clause 7 of the Resolution, the dissemination of information discrediting the business reputation of legal entities should be understood as the publication of such information in the press, broadcast on radio and television, demonstration in newsreel programs and other media, distribution on the Internet, as well as using other means telecommunications, presentation in service characteristics, public speeches, statements addressed to officials, or communication in one form or another, including oral, to at least one person.
Information that does not correspond to reality is statements about facts or events that did not take place in reality at the time to which the disputed information relates.
Defamatory, in particular, is information containing allegations of violation by a citizen or legal entity of current legislation, committing an dishonest act, wrong, unethical behavior in personal, public or political life, dishonesty in the implementation of production, economic and entrepreneurial activities, violation of business ethics or customs business turnover that detract from the honor and dignity of a citizen or the business reputation of a citizen or legal entity.
Business reputation - is the conviction of an indefinite circle of persons in the reliability, decency, competence of a person in relations with business partners.
The information presented in the article created a false idea among the present and potential clients and partners of the Claimant that the Claimant, being a subject of entrepreneurial activity, carries out it with gross violations of the current legislation, which denigrates the business reputation of the Claimant, and also forms a negative public attitude towards the economic activity of the Claimant ...
The information published by the Respondent is stated in the affirmative, does not contain value judgments, is not an expression of a subjective opinion and can be checked for compliance with reality. Thus, these statements are statements of specific facts.
That this information relates directly to the Claimant is evidenced by the following. There is only one company registered in the Unified State Register of Legal Entities, the name of which is “Russian Med Company”. In addition, the article publishes the designation LLC "Company Russian Med", which is a trademark of the Claimant (application No. 2012729164 dated 21.08.2012) and under which the Claimant carries out its business activities. Also in the article there is a link to the Claimant's Internet portal medolubov.ru, the name of which is registered as a trademark "Medolyubov / Medolubov" - the copyright holder of LLC "Company Russian Med" (certificate of registration TZ No. 464920 with priority from 31.01.2011), and the domain name belongs to the sole participant and director of Russian Med Company LLC. Thus, the information set forth in the article is directly related to the Claimant and his activities.
Thus, the Claimant considers the following fragments of the article to be defamatory and untrue:
1.“Named, whose products are overwhelmed with“ honey ”counters in Russia. Regular studies of honey samples supplied to the "Analytical Center" Apis "made it possible to reveal the massive falsification of honey on the counters of Moscow and other regions of Russia. Over time, we managed to identify him. based in Rossosh and having an extensive branch sales network. "
This fragment contains information that does not correspond to reality and discredits the business reputation of the Claimant.
LLC "Company Russian Med" sells natural honey that meets the standards established by current legislation.
The word "Falsification" according to the explanatory dictionary of the Russian language by T.F. Efremova means “1. Forging, altering the appearance or quality of smth. for selfish purposes, to pass off the product as smth. other. 2. Substitution of smth. genuine, real, false, imaginary. 3. What is passed off as the present; fake. "
The meaning of the word "Surrogate" according to the Encyclopedic Dictionary: 1. a product (or object) replacing any other product (or object) with which it has some common properties, but does not possess its qualities; 2. Counterfeit; a tampered, falsified product.
This excerpt contains allegations that the Claimant is a supplier and manufacturer of counterfeit products passed off as natural, which is completely untrue and damages the Claimant's reputation.
When selling honey and beekeeping products, first of all, naturalness and authenticity are valued. All products sold by the Claimant undergo state certification.
However, the contested fragment, without sufficient grounds, without reference to specific facts and evidence, contains allegations of the Claimant's violation of the norms of the current legislation, as well as bad faith in the implementation of production, economic and entrepreneurial activities.
2.“On this basis, it was concluded: with the help of syrups, stabilizers, dyes and flavorings. The batch was to the taste of an unprepared buyer, who accepted it. and has been steadily pushing natural honey off the shelves for more than a year. in Moscow, Krasnodar, St. Petersburg and Rossosh. "
This fragment also contains information that does not correspond to reality and discredits the business reputation of the Claimant.
The word "Imitation" means "fake for something" according to the explanatory dictionary of S.I. Ozhegova.
The plaintiff has been selling certified natural honey for more than fifteen years in accordance with GOST 19792-200.
Thus, information about the Claimant's business activities based on honey falsification, the production of cheap imitation honey, as well as the sale of counterfeit natural honey, denigrates the Claimant's business reputation as a market participant and testifies to the Claimant's dishonesty in the implementation of production, economic and entrepreneurial activities.
3."We are constantly working on expanding the sales network of the surrogate from the site medolubov.ru."
As previously stated in the statement of claim, the site medolubov.ru is the official Internet portal of the Russian Med Company LLC, through which the Claimant carries out wholesale and retail sales of its products. The statement that a surrogate is being sold from this site denigrates the business reputation of the Claimant, due to the fact that there are no counterfeit and surrogate products among the products of Russian Med Company LLC.
A company that sells food products is obliged to comply with all established regulations for the production, storage and transportation of these products, to guarantee consumers safety, compliance with sanitary and epidemiological, hygienic, veterinary and other requirements, which is directly violated in the production of counterfeits and a surrogate.
Thus, the disputable fragment contains information about the violation by the Claimant of the current legislation, business ethics and business customs, does not correspond to reality and tarnishes the business reputation of the Claimant.
4.“Every month, without even suspecting, there are hundreds of thousands of consumers of beekeeping products in Russia (more than 1 million people per year), at collective farm markets, honey fairs, stationary points in shopping malls.”
This verbal and semantic construction does not correspond to reality and denigrates the business reputation of the Claimant, due to the fact that the Claimant's clients have never become victims, namely, "victims" (according to Dahl's dictionary) as a result of the consumption of goods sold by Russian Med Company LLC, and Claimant never supplied imitation honey to fairs or shops.
The health and safety of the final consumer is one of the main objectives and priorities of the Claimant selling food products.
The supply of low-quality and dangerous food products is the basis for bringing the person to responsibility. In relation to LLC “Company Russian Med”, no cases have been initiated in administrative, criminal proceedings on the fact of food poisoning or on any other grounds, there are no relevant judicial acts that have entered into legal force.
5."In fact, . Therefore, it is correct to call “Russian honey” a confectionery factory that positions itself as a honey company in order to maximize profit from the surrogate it produces. "
This information also discredits the business reputation of the Claimant, due to the fact that the main direction of the business activity of LLC “Company Russian Med” is the sale of honey and beekeeping products. LLC "Company Russian Med" occupies a leading position in the market for the supply of high-quality and natural honey, carries out control at all stages, from the apiary and ending with environmentally friendly cubotainers for storage. Information that the Claimant sells not honey, but a fake honey, directly denigrates the Claimant's reputation and hinders the implementation of entrepreneurial activities, since it unreasonably forms a negative image of the Claimant among clients and counterparties.
6."The activities of this company exposed other problems as well - the lack of control over the food market by the state, the lack of ability or desire to apply the current GOST standards by specialists of accredited laboratories, the morale of the Russian society."
The disputed paragraph contains information that does not correspond to reality, since as a result of the Plaintiff's economic activities, there were no facts of deception of buyers, and of a defamatory nature, due to the fact that deception of buyers is “words, actions, actions, etc., deliberately introducing misleading others ”; “The same as a lie” for a food retail and wholesale company that prioritizes consumer confidence and consumer safety is clearly a violation of applicable law, business ethics and business practices.
Thus, as a result of the publication and dissemination of defamatory and untrue information, a wide range of buyers and partners was misled about the legitimacy of the Plaintiff's business activities, this information had a detrimental effect on the opinion of both existing buyers and future buyers.
Taking into account the fact of dissemination of false information discrediting the business reputation of the Claimant, the nature and content of the contested article, the Claimant suffered moral (non-material reputational) harm.
In paragraph 15 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 24.02.2005, No. 3 "On judicial practice in cases of protecting the honor and dignity of citizens, as well as the business reputation of citizens and legal entities", it is established that Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides a citizen with respect to whom information discrediting his honor, dignity or business reputation is disseminated, the right, along with the refutation of such information, to demand compensation for losses and moral damage. This rule, as far as the business reputation of a citizen is concerned, accordingly applies to the protection of the business reputation of legal entities (clause 7 of article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). Therefore, the rules governing compensation for moral damage in connection with the dissemination of information discrediting the business reputation of a citizen are also applied in cases of dissemination of such information in relation to a legal entity.
Compensation for non-pecuniary damage is determined by the court when making a decision in monetary terms. When determining the amount of compensation for moral damage, the courts should take into account the circumstances specified in part 2 of Article 151 and paragraph 2 of Article 1101 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and other circumstances deserving attention. If defamatory information that does not correspond to reality is spread in the media, the court, when determining the amount of compensation for moral damage, must take into account the nature and content of the publication, as well as the degree of dissemination of inaccurate information.
The published information was widely disseminated on other information resources, in particular, on specialized sites where consumers and suppliers of honey and beekeeping products are discussed. This information grossly violates the rights of the Claimant, due to the fact that it groundlessly characterizes the Claimant as an unfair market participant and violates the current legislation and consumer rights.
According to paragraph 17. of the Resolution of the Plenum, when the claim is satisfied, the court in the operative part of the decision is obliged to indicate the method of refuting untrue discrediting information and, if necessary, set out the text of such a refutation, which should indicate which information is untrue discrediting information, when and how they were circulated, and determine the time frame within which it must follow.
Jurisdiction is determined in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, according to which a claim against defendants located or residing in the territories of different constituent entities of the Russian Federation is brought to an arbitration court at the location of one of the defendants. In this case, the jurisdiction was reasonably determined by the Claimant at the location of the Apis Analytical Center Limited Liability Company.
Based on the foregoing, guided by Art. 151, 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Art. Art. 33, 125, 126 of the APC RF,
ASK THE ARBITRATION COURT OF THE MOSCOW REGION:
1) Recognize the information published on the World Beekeeping website with a domain name, as well as on the sites pchelovod.info, forum-pavIovo.ru, jediru.net, as untrue and discrediting the business reputation of the Russian Med Company Limited Liability Company, pchelovod-tatar.info, namely:
“A manufacturer and supplier of counterfeit honey has been named, whose products are overwhelmed with“ honey ”stalls in Russia. Regular studies of honey samples supplied to the "Analytical Center" Apis "made it possible to reveal the massive falsification of honey on the counters of Moscow and other regions of Russia. The same technology of honey falsification prompted the idea of the existence of a large producer and supplier of a surrogate. Over time, we managed to identify him. This manufacturer turned out to be the "Company" Russian Med ", based its production in Rossosh and having an extensive branch distribution network."
“On this basis, it was concluded that falsification of honey is the cornerstone on which the business of the Russian Med Company is built, and the business concept is to produce cheap imitation honey using syrups, stabilizers, dyes and flavorings. The kneading was to the taste of an unprepared buyer, who perceived the fake as natural honey with unique properties, and for more than a year now has been confidently displacing natural honey from the shelves.
The sale of counterfeit products is very well established and is carried out through the branch network of the Russian Med Company in Moscow, Krasnodar, St. Petersburg and Rossosh. " "We are constantly working to expand the sales network of the surrogate from the site medolubov.ru." “Every month, without even suspecting, hundreds of thousands of consumers of beekeeping products in Russia (over 1 million people per year) become victims of this company, who bought imitation at collective farm markets, honey fairs, stationary points in shopping malls.”
“In fact, the Russian Honey Company cannot be perceived as a honey company, since it does not sell honey. Honey in this company is used only for making a fake, giving it the taste and smell of natural honey, adjusting it to the current GOST. Therefore, it is correct to call “Russian honey” a confectionery factory that positions itself as a honey company in order to maximize profit from the surrogate it produces. "
“The activities of this company exposed other problems as well - the lack of control over the food market by the state, the lack of ability or desire to apply the current GOST standards by specialists of accredited laboratories, deception of buyers, the morale of Russian society.”;
2) To oblige Elena Kondratskaya, within ten days from the date of entry into force of the court decision, to refute the information widespread and recognized as untrue and discrediting the business reputation of the Russian Med Company Limited Liability Company by posting the refutation on the website with the domain name in the same font and in the same volume as the refuted information was posted on the main page, which must be posted on the Internet resource and is on this resource for at least one year.
3) To oblige Andrey Vitalievich Bogdanov, within ten days from the date of entry into force of the court decision, to refute the information widespread and recognized as untrue and discrediting the business reputation of the Russian Med Company Limited Liability Company by posting on the website with the domain name pchelovod.info refutation in the same font and in the same volume as the refuted information was posted on the main page, which must be posted on the Internet resource pchelovod.info and is on this resource for at least one year.
4) To recover from Kondratskaya Elena compensation for moral (reputational) damage in favor of the Limited Liability Company "Company Russian Med" in the amount of 500,000 rubles.
5) To recover from Andrey Vitalievich Bogdanov compensation for moral (reputational) harm in favor of the Russian Med Company Limited Liability Company in the amount of RUB 500,000.
6) To collect from the Limited Liability Company "Analytical Center Apis" compensation for reputational damage in favor of the Limited Liability Company "Company Russian Med" in the amount of 1,000,000 rubles.
7) To oblige Elena Kondratskaya to remove the information disseminated and recognized as untrue and discrediting the business reputation of the Russian Med Company Limited Liability Company on the website with a domain name.
8) To oblige Andrey Vitalievich Bogdanov to remove the information disseminated and recognized as untrue and discrediting the business reputation of the Russian Med Company Limited Liability Company on the website with the domain name pchelovod.info.
- Conclusion on familiarization and fixation of information on the Internet No. 04-06 / 2013 dated 03.06.2013 - 1 copy. for 22 liters;
- The original of the payment order No. 497 dated July 22, 2013 - 1 copy. for 1 liter;
- Receipt No., No., No. confirming the direction of the statement of claim and attachments to the Defendants - in 1 copy. 3 liters.
- Reply to a request from ZAO Regional Network Information Center No. 1744-C dated July 01, 2013 - 1 copy. for 1 liter;
- A copy of the notice of receipt of application No. 12017596 for registration of the Russian Med trademark, a copy of the decision on the acceptance for consideration of the application for state registration of the Russian Med trademark, a copy of the conclusion based on the results of a formal examination, confirming the ownership of the Russian Med Company LLC trademark - 1 copy. 4 liters.;
- Extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities containing information about the legal entity Limited Liability Company "Company Russian Med";
- Extract from the Unified State Register of Legal Entities containing information about the legal entity - Analytical Center Apis LLC - 1 copy. 2 liters.
- A copy of the decision No. 1 of the sole participant of the Russian Med Company LLC on the appointment of DG Korotaev as the Director of the Company. - 1 copy. for 1 liter;
- A copy of the Charter of Russian Med Company LLC - 1 copy. 16 liters;
- A copy of the power of attorney for the representative (the original will be presented at the hearing) - 1 copy. for 1 liter. Representative of LLC "Company Russian Med"
Businesses and individuals value their business reputation. The economic profit depends on it.
Dear Readers! The article talks about typical ways of solving legal issues, but each case is individual. If you want to know how solve your problem- contact a consultant:
APPLICATIONS AND CALLS ARE ACCEPTED 24/7 and WITHOUT DAYS.
It's fast and IS FREE!
But often they try to defame it by posting it in the media, on the Internet or in another way, by spreading false information, which is a violation of rights.
As a result, the injured person is forced to file a claim for the protection of business reputation in court.
What it is
Business reputation is an assessment of the business qualities of an organization or citizen. This is one of the intangible benefits guaranteed by law to each person.
Business reputation is extremely important for legal entities, since the success of the organization's activities often depends on it.
It plays an equally important role for individuals, especially those holding certain positions in large organizations, and even an ordinary person is completely unpleasant to hear information that belittles his dignity as a professional.
The legislation allows you to file claims aimed at protecting the business reputation of a citizen or organization in court.
Information can be disseminated through the media, on the Internet or in other ways. Communicating them even to one person is already spreading.
Legislative provisions
Article 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation establishes the rights to defend a citizen and any legal entity in court.
The injured party may file a claim in the claim for the refutation and removal of information that is untrue and damages the business reputation of the applicant.
In some cases, it is impossible to identify the distributor and / or the author of defamatory information, for example, it is far from always possible to find the authors and distributors of various leaflets.
In this case, the person who has suffered from such actions may apply to the court with a demand to declare this information untrue.
Basic terms
Intangible benefits are such benefits that cannot be expressed in monetary terms.
They have no value. These benefits include not only business reputation, but also honor, dignity, etc.
A claim for the protection of business reputation is a claim directed against the defendant, which the injured person asks the court to satisfy.
It is drawn up in the form of an application, which must be submitted to the appropriate court.
The plaintiff in such cases is a person in respect of whom information was disseminated that discredited his business reputation.
Authors and distributors of information can become defendants in this case.
For example, if false information is contained in a newspaper publication, then both the editorial board and the author of the note containing this information will act as defendants in this case.
Information discrediting business reputation is information about facts and events, for example, violation of the law, unethical, improper behavior of an employee, dishonesty, etc., which in reality did not exist.
Terms of Consideration of Cases by an Arbitration Court
There is a widespread opinion that it is necessary to apply to an arbitration court only if the parties to the proceedings are only legal entities, individual entrepreneurs and other organizations.
Cases on the protection of business reputation must be considered by arbitration courts, regardless of who is the representative of the parties.
But only if the condition is met that the requirement has a connection with economic activity (for example, entrepreneurship).
In practice, a claim for the protection of the business reputation of an individual who is not an individual entrepreneur should most often be considered in a district court and only in some cases in an arbitration court.
Video: protecting honor, dignity and business reputation
A claim for the protection of the business reputation of a legal entity
For a long time, claims for the protection of business reputation were met quite rarely.
Even legal entities for whom a good name is important for successful business conduct often tried to simply ignore various materials that did not correspond to reality.
Recently, the situation has begun to change and the number of cases of this category considered by the courts has increased dramatically.
It should be borne in mind that the plaintiff must prove the facts of inaccuracy of the facts given only if it is required to recognize the inconsistency of the information with reality.
In addition to the requirement to refute inaccurate information, the claim may include claims for the payment of non-pecuniary damage, as well as compensation for real losses caused by the dissemination of information discrediting business reputation.
Identification of the plaintiff and the defendant
The exact identification of the plaintiff and the defendant is necessary for the correct resolution of the dispute.
Sometimes it turns out that the real culprit of the violation of rights escaped responsibility, and the claims are made against an outsider.
In order to unambiguously identify the organizations - participants in the case, the OGRN and TIN should be indicated in the application. Similarly, an entrepreneur can be identified by OGRNIP and TIN.
The situation is somewhat more complicated with the identification of a participant in the case - an individual. To do this, the documents must indicate the name of the participant and the address of his residence.
If the address is unknown, the last address known to the claimant should be indicated. It is also possible to request data from the migration service by filing a petition for a request to the court.
Data used to identify participants in the process:
Sometimes it is difficult to unambiguously identify who the direct publication was written about.
In this case, everything will depend on the evidence presented and their assessment by the court. In case of disagreement, the court decision will have to be challenged in a higher instance.
Basic ways
Legislators in the Civil Code have established a fairly wide range of ways to protect business reputation.
This allows a citizen or organization to fully protect their reputation, regardless of the way in which defamatory information is disseminated.
Consider what methods of protection are provided for in Art. 152 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation:
| Rebuttal | distributed in the same or similar way |
| Posting your own answer | and damages |
| Revocation or replacement of a document | which comes from the organization and contains information defamatory |
| Payment of non-pecuniary damage | only if the plaintiff is an individual |
| Recognition of information as untrue | if their distributor cannot be identified |
| Removal of information by seizure and destruction of tangible media | (without payment of compensation), if otherwise it is impossible to delete information defaming the reputation |
| Removal and rebuttal | in a way that allows you to bring information to Internet users |
Compensation for non-pecuniary damage
An individual, defending his business reputation, may bring a claim against the defendant to pay compensation for.
Its size is determined at the discretion of the applicant when filing a claim, in the future, the court at its own discretion decides what compensation should be paid for non-pecuniary damage, taking into account all the facts considered and the actual harm caused to the reputation of the injured person.
Organizations cannot count on compensation for moral damage. But they have every right to declare other claims, including compensation for damage.
Sample application
Legislative acts in force in the Russian Federation do not contain instructions on a strictly regulated form of drawing up a statement on the protection of business reputation.
The applicant can draw up it in free form, however, he should not forget about the general rules adopted in the Code of Civil Procedure and the AIC, as well as business ethics.
In the table, we will consider the main parts of the statement and their content, as well as useful tips for compiling each of the parts:
| Part of the claim | Approximate content | Advice |
| Introductory (header) | Details of the court, the defendant and the plaintiff, as well as third parties (with participation in the proceedings), the amount of state duty paid | Special attention should be paid to the correct determination of jurisdiction and jurisdiction, not forgetting that if the protection of business reputation is related to economic or business activities, then the case should be considered in an arbitration court |
| The main | Facts, circumstances (where, when, by whom the information was posted), as well as an indication of how inaccurate information affected the business reputation | All facts should be clearly described in a logical sequence without unnecessary emotions |
| Pleading | Requirements for publishing a refutation and / or response, compensation for moral harm and / or damage, etc. | Requirements should be formulated as specific as possible |
A sample of a statement of claim on the protection of business reputation, available for download, will help you avoid most common mistakes when drafting a statement.
Arbitrage practice
Most courts dealing with business reputation protection proceedings have noted an ever-growing number of cases of this nature. Despite this, not every claim is satisfied.
Courts reject more than 85% of claims. It is also not worth counting on a large amount of compensation for damage or compensation for moral damage.
Usually these amounts are completely incomparable with the actual losses of the plaintiff.