Why Shanghai Court Not Accept Nikon D600’s Dispute over False Advertisement?


(By You YuntingAbstract: If Shanghai plans to become an international financial center, it is judicial fairness that is an important aspect of a very good investment environment that must be provided by governments. If the court attempts to protect an enterprise beyond the letter of the law, it will cause greater long-term damage on China’s interests, and on fairness and justice than any immediate benefits obtained now, whatever companies company achieves those benefits.

On March 15, 2014, China CCTV exposed the professional SLR quality problems of Nikon D600 SLR, where black spots frequently appear on photographs. After this exposure, our team, acting as a representative of our client Mr. Xu, brought the case concerning Nikon into court. On March 18, 2014, my colleague Luo Yanjie and our client filed a legal complaint to Huangpu District Primary People’s Court.


Why Ctrip’s Opponent Failed in Charging Its Advertisement’s Unfair Competition?

u=615186427,68769916&fm=21&gp=0 (1)


(By Albert Chen) For the company operation in China, whether its slogan would constitute the unfair competition, it shall first judge whether the parties involved are conducting the same or similar industries. After that, it shall verify whether the defendant has conducted the accused propaganda. The last and also is the most important, it shall confirm whether the prohibitive words or phrases have been adopted in the slogan, or whether its description has appeared to be exaggerated or not the truth, and the fit with the fact shall also be judged.


Analysis on Common Legal Risk of Chinese Company’s Ads

By You Yunting

The competition in Chinese market is so fierce that the company would strive to make their ads be more outstanding, yet that could also bring them the risks of administrative punishment. In today’s essay, you will see our analysis on the common risk for corporate propaganda.

I. No fulfilling to the promise in propaganda

The most typical case shall be the ads from Beijing Hyundai (note: the link is in Chinese), the joint venture of Hyundai in China. As claimed in the its ads, the chief of the company promised not to reduce the sales price of its vehicle in the coming 2 years, which soon be overthrown by its price adjustment within 120 days after that with the pressure from market competition. On that, we saw the consumer filing a group lawsuit against its break-in of promise. Despite as investigated by the company that, the words of the chief is not quit the same as claimed in the media report, and Hyundai was therefore judged of no liability, the Korean brand faced a devaluing of social reputation in China. In our opinions, the losses of intangible asset of the car maker are much more than the claimed compensation. And that shall mainly lie with the over promise by the company.


Damages from Over Promotion by E-retailers

Recently, a sale’s promotion campaign (note: the link is in Chinese) is launched by China e-commerce merchants on Weibo, a twitter like website. On 14th August, Mr. Liu Qiangdong, CEO of 360buy.com made a statement on Weibo that all the major home appliances sold on his website will maintain ZERO gross profit in the coming 3 years, and will also be 10%  cheaper than those sold by Sunning and Gome, who are also the major E-retailers in China. Facing the challenge, Sunning (SZSE: 002024) and Gome (SEHK: 493) replied that all their commodities will be cheaper than 360buy.com. After that, both sides announced they will adjust the prices in time to ensure its own prices are lower than the opponent. The quarrel on Weibo triggered a promotion battle between the e-retailers, and after the 1st day of fighting, 360buy.com said the total sales of the day had been over RMB 200 million.