Competition Archives - Page 4 of 5 - Bridge IP Law Commentary

Whether using the Name of Another’s Work Constitutes Copyright Infringement or Unfair Competition

Posted on July 19, 2013 by You Yunting

Abstract: The Copyright Law and the Anti Unfair Competition Law supplement each other, but they also compete with each other.

(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.

Is the Territorial Scope of a Famous Brand Limited to Chinese Territories?

Posted on July 16, 2013 by You Yunting

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: The determination of a product reputation is usually limited to Chinese territories, while on the other hand the reputation of a mark may involve consideration of overseas reputation.

Freeriding among Chinese manufacturers is unfortunately a very common and severe issue, and for most well known foreign companies, there may be situations in which they have not paid adequate attention to the Chinese market, and ergo have provided insufficient attention to policing its marks within the realm of IPR protection. As a result, the vast majority of foreign brands are helpless in facing rampant infringement.

Does 360’ s QQ Guard Constitute Unfair Competition against Tencent? Part II

Posted on July 16, 2013 by You Yunting

(By Luo Yanjie) Today, we would give our opinions on 360’s unfair competition ruling

Lawyer’s Comments:

The case is a part of the “3Q battle”, and has garnered wide attention in the society. From a legal standpoint, this case is not difficult.The ruling against 360 was proper for the following reasons:

1. The promotion of ads and charges are of the lawful items

It shall first be pointed out that despite the annoying functions in QQ, like the pop-up ads or value added service, these functions are of the legal profit model of Tencent. As known to all, QQ is a free software (despite the various charging items, the basic function of the software, namely the messaging is free). For Tencent has invested many resources in hardware and management cost, and should naturally be repaid through the ads or value added service. If other companies prevent the lawful advertising of Tencent, thereby reducing the chances of lawful transactionsfor Tencent and its clients, it would be of unfair competition.

Does 360’ s QQ Guard Constitute Unfair Competition against Tencent? Part I

Posted on July 15, 2013 by You Yunting

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: Although online ads or pop-up ads may make you feel uncomfortable, that is a profit model utilized by free software like Tencent’s QQ, the popular online messaging software. But, when the 360 Guard software removed QQ’s ads, it would no doubt damage Tencent’s legal rights. We’d like to introduce this case to our readers, beginning with today’s post and extending into tomorrow’s.

In 2010, Tencent introduced its “QQ Computer Keeper” to the market, which focuses on defending against attacks on Tencent. Before that, the Qihu 360 Company publicized its product 360 Guard. 360’s software could remove QQ’s ads, remove supplemental and additional functions found within QQ’s software, and prevent computer viruses from stealing QQ account information. Within the first 72 hours after the introduction of 360 Guard, it was downloaded more than 20 million times. Tencent believed that 360’s Guard software constituted unfair competition, and was possibly even stealing end user’s personal information. For this reason, Tencent announced that all computers with 360’s software installed would no longer be able to use QQ’s software.

Analysis on the Anti-monopoly Dispute Filed by Qihoo against Tencent, III

Posted on July 11, 2013 by You Yunting

(By Luo Yanjie) In our previous two posts, we introduced the reader to the facts involved in the monopoly dispute between Qihoo and Tencent, as well as the Court’s decision. Today, we continue that discussion of the case and would like to share our opinions on it.

Lawyer’s comments and analysis

It is not difficult to find from the above judgement that Qihoo lost the lawsuit mainly because the court in the first instance denied its allegation that Tencent held a dominant position in the market; ithe court’s decision was primarily based on a broad definition of “relevant market” in regard to Tencent’s QQ instant messaging software. The following is our analysis on the issue:

Analysis on the Anti-monopoly Dispute Filed by Qihoo against Tencent, II

Posted on July 10, 2013 by You Yunting

Today we will continue our introduction of the opinions of the Guangdong High People’s Court, the first instance court in the anti-monopoly dispute, concerning the facts in the case as well as its judgment.

II. About the dominant position of the defendant in the relevant market

As held by the court in the first instance, the plaintiff had a much narrower definition of the relevant product market and regional market, and its calculation for the market share was thus not accurate.Especially taking into account that the product scope shown was the plaintiff’s most important evidence; more importantly, that the report from the Ai Rui research institution presented data contrasting with the scope determined by the court.

Analysis of the the Anti-monopoly Case Filed by 360 Against Tencent, I

Posted on July 9, 2013 by You Yunting

(By Luo Yanjie) Starting today, we will have three posts introducing the decision in China’s most closely followed anti-monopoly case. Today’s post will first introduce the facts of the case. Qihoo 360 Technology Co. Ltd. (NYSE: QIHU) (“Qihoo”) is a company whose primary business is security software. In October of 2010, Qihoo released software named “360 Privacy Protector,” which was claimed to prevent QQ, the instant messenger of Tencent Holdings Limited (SEHK: 700) (“Tencent”), from uploading the user’s personal information. Tencent issued a notice to its users, demanding that users who installed QQ not install any of Qihoo’s software. At the same time it took technical steps to check the computers for any Qihoo’s software. If any Qihoo software was found, the user was not allowed to sign in to QQ. This led to a large dispute on the Internet in China. After the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (the “MIIT”) intervened, Qihoo recalled its 360 Privacy Protector, and Tencent revoked its regulation prohibiting QQ users from using Qihoo.

Despite the Record-Making CNY 1, 000, 000 Compensation for Yao Ming, Infringer Did Not Lose the Lawsuit

Posted on June 26, 2013 by yytbest

Among the Ten IPR Cases issued by the Supreme People’s Court in 2012, one of the more interesting ones involves a case of portrait infringement involving international basketball star Yao Ming’s likeness. Despite the court’s understanding that infringement had been found for the unlicensed use of Yao’s portrait and name, granting compensation as high as RMB 1 million Yuan, such an amount is far less than Yao’s typical payment for participating in ads and other marketing materials. For this reason, the court’s decision to grant such an amount is simply inadequate to prevent further acts of infringement involving a well-known person’s name and likeness.

Why China Companies Licensed by Overseas Right Holder Would Still Be Found Infringement?

Posted on June 14, 2013 by yytbest

d009b3de9c82d15800e3b0f7800a19d8bc3e4217

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: Whether the confusion has been made among the consumers is the basis on which to judge the unfair competition liability. In recent two years, some China companies have engaged themselves in the fake licensing as first to establish a company outside mainland China in Hong Kong, with the same name like those reputed brands and then gain the benefits from the free riding on it. But once it has been judged confusion among the consumer, even it is licensed through the legal procedure, it shall also take the infringement liability.

The Shanghai Branch of CIETAC Changed Its Name

Posted on April 17, 2013 by yytbest

Today, we noticed an announcement published on the website of the Shanghai Branch of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission stating that it has changed its name to the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (the “Shanghai Commission”). At the same time, it will begin to use the name of Shanghai International Arbitration Center. Additionally, starting on May 1, 2013, the Shanghai Commission will begin using new Arbitration Rules and a new arbitrator name list.

How to Determine the Recognition Level of Products in Unfair Competition Disputes in China, II

Posted on March 19, 2013 by yytbest

Comments on the unfair competition case between Ferrero and Jinsha

Today, we will share our opinions on the following issues related to the case introduced in yesterday’s post: the scope of name recognition, whether a product’s packaging can refer to the products of others, and protection over product packaging through the use of trademarks.

Lawyer comments:

The interpretations of the judges in the first and second instance courts and the review court help us better understand the following issues involved in unfair competition cases:

How to Determine the Recognition Level of Products in Unfair Competition Disputes in China, I

Posted on March 18, 2013 by yytbest

Comments on the unfair competition case between Ferrero and Jinsha

Today and tomorrow, we will analyze several issues raised by the Ferrero and Jinsha unfair competition
case. Namely: the scope of name recognition, whether a product’s packaging can refer to the products of others, and protection over product packaging through trademark protection. Today, we will briefly introduce the case facts and the opinions held by the deciding courts.

Case summary:

Ferrero Company registered the trademark “FERRERO ROCHER” in China in 1986 and its FERRERO ROCHER chocolate (“Ferrero Chocolate”) entered the Chinese market in 1988. The Ferrero Chocolate packaging has the following features: 1) gold, ball-shaped foil wrapping; 2) the “FERRERO ROCHER” trademark printed as a decoration within an oval on the gold foil; 3) each chocolate wrapped in gold foil is padded with additional brown paper; 4) outer packaging is made of transparent plastic, so that the inner gold-wrapped balls can be seen from the outside; and 5) a red ribbon-like decoration printed on the trademark of the chocolate.

Do All Minimum Price Limits Violate the Anti-trust Law in China?

Posted on February 26, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) In the post, “The Legal Sense of the Punishment over the Vertical Monopoly of Mao Tai and Wu Liang Ye By NDRC,” which was posted several days ago, we described China’s first case on vertical pricing agreements (a vertical monopoly contract refers to a contract a monopolistic business signs with its business partner, which limits pricing or contains other monopolistic content). The application of Article 14 of the Anti Monopoly Law adopted by the court in that case was different from the application adopted by the China National Development and Reform Committee. We have found and studied the written judgment for that case, which is now in its second instance. Although according to the Civil Procedure Law, the judgment of the first instance has not yet come into effect due to the appeal, some of the main points of the decision are worth looking at. Therefore, we would like to share our opinions on it with our subscribers.

Full Text of the Anti-trust Punishment Ordered by China NDRC against MaoTai and WuLiangYe Vertical Pricing Monopoly

Posted on February 26, 2013 by yytbest

The Price Bureaus under the Provincial Development and Reform Commissions in Sichuan Province and Guizhou Province published their orders for punishment against the vertical pricing monopoly by MaoTai and WuLiangYe on their official websites. By the orders, the two distilleries were fined totaled RMB 449 million yuan (approximately $ 72, 064, 500 dollar). The following is our translation of the full text of the administrative punishments already ordered.

The punishment ordered by Sichuan Provincial Development and Reform Commission:

Would NDRC’s Vertical Pricing Monopoly Fine against MaoTai and WuLiangYe Have Influences on Other China Companies?

Posted on February 25, 2013 by yytbest

(By You Yunting) Over the past few days, the writer shared two essays concerning the administrative punishment ordered against Mao Tai Company and Wu Liang Ye Company, the top distilleries in China, over the accusation that they violated the Anti Monopoly Law by concluding monopoly agreements restricting or fixing retail prices (the “monopoly agreements”) with their dealers. The writer has received heated comments and arguments from the subscribers and followers of his Weibo and Blog. Many of these comments support the punishment, but some friends have expressed concerns over the issue. Today, the writer will share his opinions on whether the punishment will influence the normal commercial order.

Bridge IP Law Commentary

Your Guide to China IP Law！

Category Archives: Competition