(By You Yunting) By reports, recently, National Development and Reform Commission (the “NDRC”) investigated the industry group the Zhejiang Insurance Association and its membership insurers, originated from that the Zhejiang Insurance Association in violation of the Anti-Monopoly Law organized its 23 membership insurers to agree on unified commissions from auto insurance premiums through meetings. The NDRC fined 22 of the insurers a total of RMB 110 million. Today, we will introduce the NDRC’s Punishment Decision on Zhejiang Insurance Association and make some comments.
(By You Yunting) By reports, recently, National Development and Reform Commission (the “NDRC”) investigated the industry group the Zhejiang Insurance Association and its membership insurers, originated from that the Zhejiang Insurance Association in violation of the Anti-Monopoly Law organized its 23 membership insurers to agree on unified commissions from auto insurance premiums through meetings. The NDRC fined 22 of the insurers a total of RMB 110 million, with PICC Property and Casualty Company Limited Zhejiang Branch, an insurer, escaping punishment because of informing the authorities and providing key evidence. In today’s post, we will introduce the decision on PICC Property and Casualty Company Limited Zhejiang Branch escaping punishment and make comments.
(By You Yunting)The 2014 FIFA World Cup is taking place at several venues across Brazil, and is attracting attentions from all over the world. According to reports, CCTV holds the exclusive rights of broadcasting 2014 FIFA World Cup in mainland China. However, CCTV refuses to sell the right of live network broadcasting but only sells the on-demand right of network broadcasting to video sharing websites. In reality, CCTV refusing to sell the right of live network broadcasting could potentially be considered to be a violation of the Anti-Monopoly Law. The following is our legal analysis.
(By You Yunting) The anti-monopoly litigation of Huawei v. InterDigital caused the attention of intellectual property bound in China. Huawei had filed litigations in China accusing InterDigital of discrimination in patent licensing. Recently, Guangdong Higher People’s Court published its rulings in Huawei v. InterDigital. In today’s post, we will present the judgment of this case and address our comments in the following.
Introduction to the Case:
Appellant (Plaintiff in the first instance): Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd (the “Huawei”)
(By You Yunting) According to the latest announcement on Chinese National Development and Reform Commission website, NDRC’s carried out anti-monopoly investigations into milk powder manufacturers and imposed fines. Based on this announcement, we found that there are different views between NDRC and Chinese courts on the understanding of Article 14 of the Anti Monopoly Law. With regard to the court’s understanding that milk powder formula in this case is effective competitive, the milk powder manufacturers shall not the determined as violating the the Anti Monopoly Law even if they conducted price control. Following is our translation for this public announcement.
(By You Yunting) August 1, 2013 was the fifth anniversary of the enactment of China’s Anti–Monopoly Law. On the same day, Shanghai Higher People’s Courts handed down the first decision that supported a plaintiff’s claim in an anti-monopoly civil ligation in China. The court determined that Johnson & Johnson Medical Co. Ltd action constituted as a vertical monopoly for restricting the minimum sales price, and the company was ordered to make civil compensation for the plaintiff’s loss.
Day Five of the US Visit II
In late March, the author had the opportunity to make a journey to the United States at the invitation of the U.S. government in order to better understand how the US intellectual system operates. On the fifth day of the visit, the author went to the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”), and the following is a brief record of his visit there.
The FTC is the administration in charge of investigating and taking action against unfair competition and anti trust in the US. During the visit, FTC officials showed us a map showing that as of 1900, only the US and Canada had enacted competition laws, including unfair competition law and the anti trust law. Later by 1960, Sweden, France, and Japan passed legislation on competition. By 1980, many countries in Europe and South America passed competition laws, as well as Australia, India, Thailand, and South Africa. By 2012, almost all states of the world had laws in that field, except for a few African countries.
On 18th April, 2012, Guangdong Higher People’s Court heard the case of monopolized status dispute filed by Qihoo 360 (NYSE: QIHU) against Tencent (HKEX: 700), with the claim of 150 million yuan. For the background information of the case, please refer to Wiki and a letter from Zhou Hongyi, the CEO of Qihoo 360 to his employees.
The information disclosed from the indictment of Qihoo 360:
I. The request of Qihoo 360
Demanding Tencent to cease the infringement of abusing its market monopoly status, including but not limited to cease the limitation on the transaction between QQ user and Qihoo 360, selling the safeguard software in QQ; demanding the joint compensation by the defendants to the losses of RMB 150 million yuan and the apology to Qihoo 360, also the expenses of reasonable costs and lawsuit fee paid by Qihoo 360 shall also be borne by Tencent.
Today, Bridge IP Law Commentary will introduce you the latest regulations and policies in China.
I. The Pilot Enterprises Levied Value-added Tax (VAT) in Lieu of Business Tax
Whose Tax Bearing are Increased can Apply for Financial Support in Shanghai
Recently, according to the Meeting on Pilot Reform of Levying VAT in Lieu of Business Tax, the Shanghai government has made the detailed implementation measures for transitional financial support policy mainly includes “enterprises shall apply in accordance with facts, various financial supports for various enterprises, and timely funds pre-allocation”. The finance and taxation departments shall arrange the pilot enterprises fill the Declaration (Review) for Changes of Tax Bearing by Enterprises Levied VAT in Lieu of Business Tax when they conduct pilot enterprises to declare for the tax and collect the tax. The pilot enterprises can, comparing the current tax bearing with that before reform, apply to the finance and taxation departments for financial support if the actual tax bearing is ultimately increased.