Hao Hao lighting Fan Bing ice endorsement breach of contract

Considering that Fan Bingbing violated the endorsement contract, Guangdong Haohao Lighting Electric Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Haohao Company) sued Fan Bingbing and his subsidiary Beijing Meitao Zhongyi Culture Media Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Meitao Company) to the court and requested to return the endorsement. Fee 91 thousand yuan. During the trial, Mei Tao counterclaimed the company's deferral of advertisements, and counterclaims claimed 2.2 million yuan. The Chaoyang Court partially supported the appeal of Mei Tao Company and decided that Hao Hao Company had lost its default penalty of RMB 400,000.

The Plaintiff (counterclaiming defendant) Haohao Company claimed that on June 16, 2009, the company signed a contract with Fan Bingbing and Meitao Company, agreeing that Fan Bingbing endorsed the lighting and bath products for Haohao Company. The endorsement period was 24 months and the endorsement fee was 220. Million yuan, endorsement activities for Fan Bingbing for the company to shoot a film and television advertising, a print advertising and attend 4 product promotion activities, and agreed to shoot film and print ads no later than July 15, 2009.

Yan Hao Company stated that Fan Bingbing had violated the contract and had delayed advertising for more than six months, resulting in the company’s loss of 180,000 yuan. Therefore, it should withdraw one-third of its endorsement fee, ie, 730,000 yuan; another Fan Bingbing did not participate in four activities to promote products, so that The company lost 730,000 yuan and asked Fan Bingbing and Mei Tao to return 910,000 yuan.

In this regard, Fan Bingbing argued that he was not the subject of the contract and was not the appropriate defendant of the case.

Mei Tao Company argued that the company’s stated inconsistency with the facts and filed a counterclaim alleged that the endorsement contract expired and that Haohao Company still used Fan Bingbing’s endorsement advertisements to advertise, so the counterclaim required Yanhao Company’s compensation of RMB 2.2 million for liquidated damages. .

In response to the counterclaim, Haohao Company claimed that the counterclaim of Meitao Company should be based on Fan Bingbing's authorization. However, Fan Bingbing had filed a lawsuit on the ground of infringement. According to the principle of “non-rationality”, Meitao Company has no right to counterclaim.

The Chaoyang Court found that the original defendant’s endorsement contract had agreed in many places that the contents of the contract to be performed by Fan Bingbing could be fulfilled. Therefore, Fan Bingbing should be regarded as a party to the contract.

Regarding the issue of postponement of shooting, it was difficult to determine that Fan Bingbing and Mei Tao were in breach of the contract because Qihao Company could not prove whether it fulfilled its duty of written notice. Regarding Fan Bingbing's failure to attend product promotion activities, the court held that the core of the involved contract was Fan Bingbing’s shooting of film and television and print ads for certain products of Min Hao Company. Failure to attend the event did not affect Fan Bingbing’s achievements as a spokesperson for the relevant product image of Yan Hao.

The final judgment of the Chaoyang Court partially supported the appeal of Mei Tao Company, and the Juhao Company paid Meijiang Company's default fine of RMB 400,000.