(By You Yunting) Recently, Uber Shanghai carries out a marketing activity called Call for one hundred million by one button of Uber cooperated with 1qiaobao, an App owned by PINGAN INSURANCE GRP. According to the Uber’s official Weibo, users can use the Uber App to call the securicar provided by both Uber and 1qianbao, and anyone who is the winner of the caller can obtain all the financing earnings of one hundred million yuan, which is about ten thousand yuan. I think this activity has huge legal risks, therefore hereunder are the risks and its reason.
(By You Yunting) As we have already posted Judgment Abstract on NDRC’s Administrative Decision of Qualcomm Incorporated (Part 1) on April 17 2015, today we would like to introduce more.
III What’re the legitimate basis and the final decision?
Pursuant to Article 47 and Article 49 of the Anti-Monopoly Law, the NDRC made the following decisiosn against Qualcomm’s abuse of dominant market position in the SEPs markets and the baseband chip markets:
- Order Qualcomm a halt to illegal activities upon abuse of dominant market position as follows:
a Qualcomm shall provide patent lists to its licensees in China and not charge licensees for expired patents.
(By You Yunting) As from October 2013, the National Development and Reform Commission (the “NDRC”) starts the anti-monopoly probe into the world’s biggest cellphone chip maker, Qualcomm (NASDAQ: QCOM) , and makes in-depth investigations and discussion with tens of cellphone manufacturers and baseband chip manufacturers at home and abroad. Recently, the NDRC determined that Qualcomm holds a dominant position in the markets of standard essential patents (“SEPs”) licensing in relation to CDMA, WCDMA and LTE wireless communication and the baseband chip market, and that Qualcomm be fined 6.088 billion yuan in the violation of the Anti-Monopoly Law. Today we will introduce the punishment decision and make comments.
(By You Yunting) Recently, China Internet giant enterprises generated an intense competition during their hand-to-hand combat, but this time the main character is the Tencent which successively block sharing link with Alipay, Xiami Music App and NetEase Cloud Music App on its WeChat platform. It means that WeChat users could not use the mobile applications to link the contents of Alipay Red Envelope Gifting, Xiami App and NetEase Cloud Music App on its WeChat platform.
Afterwards, Tencent implied externally that the act of sharing link with Alipay Red Envelope Gifting is a malicious marketing and promotion on its WeChat platform, even a shattering experience, and its blocking should have something done with the uninstallation of WeChat Payment on Alipay platform (Chinese Link: http://tech.techweb.com.cn/thread-642700-1-1.html) For cutting off link with Xiami App and NetEase Cloud Music App, Tencent implied to have relationship with its content piracy (Chinese Link: http://tech.sina.com.cn/i/2015-02-05/doc-ichmifpx7018268.shtml).
(By You Yunting) By reports, recently, National Development and Reform Commission (the “NDRC”) investigated the industry group the Zhejiang Insurance Association and its membership insurers, originated from that the Zhejiang Insurance Association in violation of the Anti-Monopoly Law organized its 23 membership insurers to agree on unified commissions from auto insurance premiums through meetings. The NDRC fined 22 of the insurers a total of RMB 110 million. Today, we will introduce the NDRC’s Punishment Decision on Zhejiang Insurance Association and make some comments.
(By Luo Yanjie) Generally, enterprises are always using the application of trademarks to protect their brands, but because of the strict trademark review and long review periods, sometimes enterprises could not obtain the approval of trademark registration. Even so, with regard to their famous goods, enterprises could rely on the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to protect their rights and interests. In today’s post, we will introduce and share a typical case with readers.
Introduction to the Case:
(By You Yunting) Recently, Sohu vs Toutiao has attracted attention from the media. Sohu sued Toutiao for copyright infringement and unfair competition, whilst Toutiao filed lawsuits against Sohu for defamation. It is quite normal for two enterprises in competition to take legal proceedings against each other. However, what really surprised us was, in their dispute, that governmental officials attended Sohu’s press conference, in favor of Sohu. In today’s post, we will discuss the reason for theimproper governmental interference. Comments and suggestions are most welcome.
Is It Illegal for the SARFT to Prohibit Installing Youku and Iqiyi in Internet Cable Box?
–Analysis on the Prohibition of Installing Youku App and Iqiyi App on the Internet Cable Box
(By You Yunting) According to some media reports, the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television (the ”SARFT”) issued a rule to local administrations requesting to delete Youku App, Iqiyi App, Sohu App and browsers from Wasu Box and Internet cable Set-top boxes (the “boxes”), which enables users to support TV, games, online video, music and photos. At first glance, i was astonished how it could be called boxes if without Youku App, Iqiyi App and browsers. However, Hangzhou Wasu Digital TV Media Group confirmed receiving the rule shortly after the reports came out. That being the condition, we would like to analyze the rule.
(By You Yunting) The Chinese internet industry is a fiercely competitive one in which many large internet companies have used lawsuits to gain a competitive advantage. Lawyers are engaged by internet companies to fight against their competitors using any new laws and regulations that might offer opportunity. In the most recent unfair competition litigation Qihoo 360 v. Baidu, Qihoo 360 applied for a litigation injunction to prevent Baidu engaging in infringement. On May 23, 2014, the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court issued its first litigation injunction since the new Civil Procedure Law came into effect.
(By You Yunting) Recently, we introduced that Zhejiang Xiyingmen Beer Company constituted trademark infringement through the use of recycled Budweiser’s beer bottle. In today’s post, we will introduce an unfair competition lawsuit where Zhejiang Xiyingmen Beer Company used the similar packaging and presentation with that of Budweiser-sponsored Harbin Beer.
Introduction to the Case:
Appellant (Defendant at the first instance): Xiyingmen Beer Company
Respondent (Plaintiff at the first instance): Anheuser-Busch and Harbin Brewery Group (the “Harbin Brewery”)
(By You Yunting) National People’s Congress, the China’s legislature, has authorized the State Administration of Industry and Commerce (the “SAIC”) to propose the revision draft of the Anti-unfair Competition Law which has been implemented for more than twenty years in China. Recently, Shanghai Administration for Industry and Commerce held a meeting in making suggestions upon business operators and administrative authorities for the revision. In the meeting, I delivered a speech with the following presentation.
(By Luo Yanjie) Recently, there has been a widely tracked case as to whether 360’s QQ Guard engaged in practices which constituted unfair-competition against Tencent (3Q battle for short). The Supreme People’s Court has made a judgment affirming the initial judgment, deciding that 360’s QQ Guard engaged in unfair competition against Tencent. We have already introduced the case and discussed the comment on the original judgment. Even though the Supreme Court upheld the original judgment, the statement in the judgment of second instance, backed by the Supreme Court, impressed us with its deepened understanding of unfair competition in the era of internet. We will combine the judgment with analysis for our readers in the following article to help you understand the implications.
(By You Yunting) According to reports, in February 2014, Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People’s Court approved plaintiff NOVARTIS’s application requesting the court to order an injunction ruling so as to protect its legal rights and interests in a trade secret litigation.
According to reports, NOVARTIS claimed that the defendant should not disclosure, use or allow another party to use the 879 documents on its trade secret lists that shall keep secret.
For intellectual property infringement, China’s supreme People’s Court may also set a temporary injunction on judicial interpretations of the Patent Law, Trademark Law and Copyright Law; we have previously provided posts discussing related systems in other areas of intellectual property law, such as patent preliminary injunction, copyright injunction and litigation injunction. With regard to trade secrets, however, no particular injunction is set on judicial interpretations of the Anti Fair Competition Law.
(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: Market-managers should fulfill their duty to exercise reasonable care to cease trademark infringement. “Intentionally facilitating an infringement by another person or party of an exclusive right to use a registered trademark including through acts such as storage, transportation, postage, concealment and similar” shall be deemed as an infringement of the exclusive right to use a registered trademark.
Our website once introduced a post that the Name on the American Notorious List Could Also be the Well-known Trademark in China. Actually, Silk Street is not a company that sells fake goods, buta market consisting of many small shops. It is undeniable that the market of Silk Street was once listed alongside the Pirate Bay in the notorious market by USTR because it has sold too many fake products. Considering there are many fake products in Silk Street, the market manager shall be found liable. In today’s post, we would like to introduce and discuss a case where the market manager was found liable for its shops’ selling fake goods.
(By You Yunting) Recently it is at the peak passenger flow of Chinese Lunar Spring Festival in China. Billions of people would take train back hometown. Therefore, Chinese governments enhanced its suppression and punishment to illegal acts relevant to train tickets purchase. The day before yesterday, the Chinese National Development and Reform Commission published a notice (note: the link is in Chinese):
Some companies, who sell airline tickets and train tickets but who had raised arbitrary fees and prices at the peak passenger flow, were got severe punishment. Tieyou.com under Ctrip.com was fined 1.5 million yuan due to its imposing an insurance fee counting from 10 to 20 yuan in selling train tickets. Now Tieyou. Com accepts such punishment and changes compulsory insurance purchase into an optional one.