Competition law Archives - Page 3 of 8 - Bridge IP Law Commentary

Outcome of Unfair Competition Dispute between Tencent QQ and Qihoo 360

Posted on March 7, 2014 by yytbest

(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.

NOVARTIS Awarded Injunctive Relief in Trade Secret Action in China

Posted on February 19, 2014 by yytbest

(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.

Shall Silk Street Undertake Compensation Liability to LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER for Trademark Infringement?

Posted on January 28, 2014 by yytbest

(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.

Ctrip was Fined RMB 1.5 Million by China NDRC for Imposing Train Ticket Insurance

Posted on January 27, 2014 by yytbest

(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.

Why VICTORIA’S SECRET could not Prevent Selling a Parallel Imported Genuine Product Online in China?

Posted on January 24, 2014 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) VICTORIA’S SECRET is the largest American retailer of lingerie whose products does not sell on the Internet in China. Considering the fact that a Shanghai-based company sold its products on the Internet in China and confessed that it was the unique designated general distributor in China, VICTORIA’S SECRET brought the Shanghai-based company to the court on the grounds of trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Introduction to the Case:

Plaintiff: VICTORIA”S SECRET STORES BRAND MANAGEMENT, INC．(the “VICTORIA’S SECRET”)

Is Evasi0n 7.0 Illegal to Install Software for iOS Jailbreak Device?

Posted on December 25, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) Recently, Evad3rs released a new jailbreak tool called Evasi0n7.0 for Apple’s iOS 7 with Chinese name “太极7”. Due to Evasi0n 7.0 forcing Chinese jailbreak users to the default installation of TaiG app store in China, all public opinions on domestic Internet websites are criticism-oriented and most reports stated that Evasi0n 7.0 was a counterfeit software tool.

The principal Pod2g of Evad3rs team today expressed his opinions on Twitter that Evad3rs have decided to remotely disable the default installation of TaiG app store in China for further investigations on the piracy issue. As an intellectual property lawyer, I paid great attention to this issue. I hope this post has broached several legal problems as follows.

Why did the Courts Determine Google Receive a Prior Right in its Pre-approved China Enterprise Name?

Posted on November 6, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting and Wang Ting) Abstract: Generally, before registration, an enterprise never receives corresponding protection for its enterprise name. However, in relation to its pre-approved enterprise name before registration, the pre-approved enterprise name shall be provided appropriate protection.

Today, we will introduce a typical case touching upon this issue, specifically, the process of approving an enterprise name under the establishment of a foreign-invested company. In this case, Google successfully defended itself against a Chinese enterprise, and finally won rights in the Chinese transliteration of its name, written in Chinese as“谷歌” and pronounced “gu-ge”.

How to Determine the Competent Jurisdiction for Online Infringement?

Posted on October 29, 2013 by yytbest

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: The Supreme People’s Court’s decision concerning jurisdiction in terms of determining the domicile of a transit server seems rather amiss against the principle of the doctrine of the plaintiff accommodating the defendant. The place where a plaintiff discovers infringing content should be the final choice of jurisdiction in cases involving network and online infringement. Unfortunately, laws and judicial interpretations in our country do not currently make a distinction between the right of goodwill and a legal person’s right of reputation.

Essential points on Writing Noncompetition Clauses In a China Labor Contract

Posted on October 16, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) In today’s post, our website would like to introduce some essential points in writing noncompetition clauses in a labor contract in accordance with relevant Chinese laws and regulations. Pursuant to the Labor Law, the Labor Contract Law and related laws and regulations, combined with the specific conditions of employing units, when writing noncompetition clauses or agreements, we will pay particular attention to the following points:

I. How to determine the scope of the noncompetition clauses?

China’s Telecom Anti-Monopoly: What Troubles is the China National Development and Reform Commission Meeting?

Posted on September 30, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) According to media reports, the officer in charge of the China National Development and Reform Commission (the “NDRC”) in a recent statement was quoted as saying that the NDRC had always, and would continue to supervise the monopoly issues in relation to broadband access provided by China Telecom and China Unicom, and that the NDRC suffered from various reactions when it announced its investigation into China Telecom and China Unicom at the end of 2011. He also said that currently the 10G of bandwidth provided by China Telecom and China Unicom had been extended to 100G, and that it would still urge China Telecom and China Unicom to rectify this issue within a period of three to five years.

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

Posted on September 23, 2013 by yytbest

(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.

Infringing Goods shall not be Determined as Well-Known Goods

Posted on September 18, 2013 by yytbest

Abstract: Under the circumstances of prior trademark rights on the same goods, determining similar trade name used by another person as the special name belonging to a well-known commodity shall be limited. Furthermore, the courts shall necessarily review the ownership of prior trademark as the fact of a case.

(By Luo Yanjie) The special name belonging to a well-known commodity is a protective approach for an unregistered trademark. In particular, the special name shall have no severability itself; otherwise, it shall be limited. In today’s post, we will introduce a case with this element with the following analysis:

The Chinese Automotive Industry is a Hotbed for Systematic Vertical Monopoly

Posted on August 20, 2013 by yytbest

Abstract: Current regulations, created by ministries and commissions such as the National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”), formulate that automobile distribution should follow the hierarchy from sole distributor to brand distributors. This is to prevent in-fighting within the individual brand, however, the results is a legal hotbed for monopoly practices to eliminate or restrict competition.

(By You Yunting) According to Media’s reports, China Automobile Dealers Association (the “CADA”) recently confirmed that the CADA is actively cooperating with the NDRC’s anti-monopoly investigation. But a senior executive of CADA explained that the investigation is aimed at whether automobile manufacturing enterprises fixed the minimum sale prices to distributors, not about the issue of high profit of imported automobiles into China. Setting a high price for import automobiles is a business decision, and does not constitute as a monopoly conduct.

NDRC should Further Improve the Transparency of Administrative Law Enforcement on Price Monopoly.

Posted on August 18, 2013 by yytbest

Abstract: Five Shanghai gold retailers fined for price manipulation because although they were supposed to be competing with each other, the retailers conspired to fix the price, which constitutes as a horizontal monopoly, a clear violation of the Anti-Monopoly Law. The reason behind the five gold retailers’ fines is that their practices of horizontal monopoly caused more severe harm to consumer’s legal interest and social orders than that of previous vertical monopoly on limitation of resale prices made by Mao Tai, Wu Liang Ye, and six milk powder manufacturers. However, what is puzzling about this fine is that the punishments for this horizontal monopoly violation made by the NDRC were inferior to that of vertical monopoly violation.

Could Milk Powder Manufacturers Win the Lawsuits Against NDRC’ s Vertical Monopoly Penalty?

Posted on August 15, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) According to Chinese National Development and Reform Commission’s (“NDRC”) announcement, recently NDRC carried out anti-monopoly investigations into milk powder manufacturers and imposed fines on multiple offenders. When combined this announcement with the second instance court’s decision on Beijing Rui Bang Co., Ltd that was released last week by Shanghai Higher People’s Court, we have seen a sharp difference between NDRC and Chinese courts’ understanding of Article 14 of the Anti Monopoly Law. Therefore, if the punished milk powder manufacturers file an administrative lawsuit against NDRC’s fines, the Chinese court may not necessarily agree with the commission’s decision nor hold the punishment to be legal.

Bridge IP Law Commentary

Your Guide to China IP Law！

Category Archives: Competition law