Should L’Oreal Be Responsible for Li Jiaqi’s Live Streaming Incident and Pay to Customers Three Times the Price Besides Refund?

(By You YuntingThe news came from media1 that a recent sale event that Li Jiaqi performed with L’Oreal went awry. In early October L’Oreal announced on weibo that customers in Li Jiaqi’s live streaming room would be offered “the best of the year and get 50 face masks by paying for 20 ones”. Later L’Oreal gave away thousands of coupons at its official Tmall store, causing the final price much lower than the presale price and refused claims of most customers in the live streaming room. Both Li Jiaqi’s and Wei Ya’s live streaming rooms made an statement of stopping cooperation with L’Oreal. I would like to discuss the legal outcome that L’Oreal should have in this case.


Why QQ Pinyin suffered due to Unfair Competition from Sogou Pinyin?


(By You Yunting) Abstract: Although the Advertising Law stipulates that advertisements may not make excessive use of superlatives in advertising products and services, a business operator using absolutist phrasing and imagery alone is insufficient to find one guilty of unfair competition. Although it is true that many methods of advertising on the Internet are not yet clearly defined in the laws, if a company’s methods would be considered to go beyond those of a normal business practice, it can be assured that those operators may face the possibility of lawsuits and possible criminal actions.


The Court Ultimately Supported Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Holding Company’s Application for an Injunction


(BY Albert Chen  ) Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Holding Company (“GPHC”) is the holder of the王老吉 (the “Wang Lao Ji”) trademark in mainland China. In 2000, it licensed Hongdao Group, a Hong Kong admitted company, to use the trademark. After Hongdao Group used the trademark and caused it to develop a definite business reputation, however, a dispute broke out between the two parties over the right to use the Wang Lao Ji trademark.

In the first round of the fighting between the parties, GPHC used arbitration with CIETAC to cancel the supplementary agreements signed between two parties in 2002 and 2003 based upon the fact that the agreements were executed under commercial bribery. This website has discussed the implementation problems arising in that case. After that, the subsidiary of Hongdao Group that had sold Wang Lao Ji, Jia Duo Bao (“JDB”) began to sell its herbal tea under the brand name 加多宝(the “JDB”) Additionally, JDB used disputed slogans, such as “Wang Lao Ji now calls itself JDB,” “China’s top selling red can herbal tea now call itself JDB.” Claiming that such slogans constituted false advertising or unfair competition GPHC filed for an injunction with the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court and demanded an immediate halt to such advertisements.


Is Tencent’s 51Buy’s “Higher Price Reimbursement” Strategy against 360buy Illegal?


(By You Yunting) As reported by the media, the e-commerce site has instituted a so-called “higher price compensation” strategy: if clients of, an affiliate of Tencent, find a lower price for an item on, then will refund the price difference to the client as credits. According to, however, this action violates the Anti-unfair Competition Law and relevant commercial ethics. therefore sent a warning letter to In reply, used its Weibo to state that the activity is legitimate and will continue.


Will the Wang Lao Ji Brand Holder’s Litigation Injunction Application Against Jia Duo Bao Be Approved?


(By Albert Chen) The hearing in the false advertising dispute between Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Holding Company (“GPHC”) (SSE: 600332) and Jia Duo Bao (“JDB”) was held in January of 2013 in the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court. In addition to the arguments over false advertising, the application for a litigation injunction has been hotly debated. Today, we would like to introduce you to the injunction, which is called “preliminary execution” in China’s Civil Procedure Law.