(By Luo Yanjie Unfair competition refers to an operator’s misconduct that violates principles of fairness, justice, and good faith; it is also considered any behavior that violates widely adopted commercial ethics. As for copyright, as a kind of exclusive right, it mainly focuses on granting the right holder a monopolistic right in conformance with the law, and thereby grants the right holder monopoly rights as well as a competitive advantage through the exploitation of his/her own intellectual works.
Abstract: The Copyright Law and the Anti Unfair Competition Law supplement each other, but they also compete with each other. In the case introduced in this article, the first instance court denied the copyright infringement claim, but confirmed liability under the principles of unfair competition. This seems to be logically contradictory, and the court in the second instance corrected this glaring mistake.
(By Luo Yanjie Unfair competition refers to an operator’s misconduct that violates principles of fairness, justice, and good faith; it is also considered any behavior that violates widely adopted commercial ethics. As for copyright, as a kind of exclusive right, it mainly focuses on granting the right holder a monopolistic right in conformance with the law, and thereby grants the right holder monopoly rights as well as a competitive advantage through the exploitation of his/her own intellectual works. In this particular aspect, it shares a similar purpose with the Anti Unfair Competition Law. For this reason, the Copyright Law and the Anti Unfair Competition Law supplement each other, yet on the other hand they also compete with each other.
(By Albert Chen) Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Company’s lawsuit (GPC) against Jia Duo Bao (JDB) for false advertising was heard in January of this year at the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court. In addition to the arguments held by each party regarding the false advertising, they also disputed whether an injunction could be issued as applied to GPC. Ultimately, the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court approved the injunction, basing its decision on findings that JDB had exploited GPC through false advertising, thereby confusing and misleading consumers. The Court then prohibited JDB from making advertisements with claims that GPC’s vitamin drink “Wang Lao Ji” had changed its name to JDB, or any other similar slogans indicating that somehow GPC’s Wang Lao Ji product was the same as JDB’s as the result of a name change.
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.
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.