Tag Archives: anti unfair competition law

Can a database be Protected by the Copyright Law in China?

Posted on by

Abstract: in order to be considered a compilation, such works should typically possess a number of characteristics, such as the selection or arrangement of the data, and the originality in the presentation of said data. In other words, compilations generally require a modicum of originality and ingenuity present in order to receive some form of protection as an original work.

(By Luo Yanjie) Generally, the copyright of a database protects the arrangement of the database rather than to the contents. The case in today’s post demonstrates this point, and at the same time, provides a bit of good for thought. The following is the introduction to the case.

READ MORE

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

Posted on by

(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.

READ MORE

Can Employees’ Nondisclosure Warranty Letter Be A Confidential Measure in China?

Posted on by

Abstract

(By Albert Chen) According to the Anti Unfair Competition Law, one of the conditions required for something to constitute a trade secret is whether sufficient measures have been taken for such information to remain confidential. In practice, apart from an NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement), other confidential articles that explicitly indicate the inclusion of remuneration for confidentiality in an employee’s pay, as well as written warranties issued by an employee can both be considered confidential measures in law sufficient to properly maintain a trade secret.

READ MORE

How to Infer the Trade Secret Disclosure by Original Staffs in China?

Posted on by

Abstract

(By Albert Chen) How to demonstrate one’s original employee has presented the trade secret gained during his/her service to the new employer, who thereafter makes benefit of it? As no direct evidences are available, in the current judicial practices, the principle of “similarity, contactable and excluding lawful origin” has been adopted for the case judging.

Case Summary:

Zhao once had her employment with Jiashan Shengguang Electronics Co., Ltd. (the “Company S”) from February 20th 2002 to March 19th 2006, and was in charge of the sales of the company. During her service there, Zhao, as the representative of Company S, concluded several transactions on vehicles lighting with Mexican DDB Company.

READ MORE

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

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: to determine whether two trademarks are similar to each other, the main consideration is determining the distinguishing features of the mark. However, to determine a famous or well-known product, such a determination is typically 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.

READ MORE

Why Ctrip’s Opponent Failed in Charging Its Advertisement’s Unfair Competition?

Posted on by
u=615186427,68769916&fm=21&gp=0 (1)

Abstract

(By Albert Chen) For the company operation in China, whether its slogan would constitute the unfair competition, it shall first judge whether the parties involved are conducting the same or similar industries. After that, it shall verify whether the defendant has conducted the accused propaganda. The last and also is the most important, it shall confirm whether the prohibitive words or phrases have been adopted in the slogan, or whether its description has appeared to be exaggerated or not the truth, and the fit with the fact shall also be judged.

READ MORE

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

Posted on by
J&J

(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.

READ MORE

Administrative Warning Issued to 360.cn by Beijing Administration of Industry and Commerce

Posted on by
20130213-周三

 (By You Yunting) Recently, the Beijing Municipal Administration of Industry and Commerce (“Administration”) published on its official Weibo that the Beijing Administration and Xicheng Administration of Industry and Commerce made an appointment with the chief of Beijing’s Qihoo Co. (“Qihoo”), and issued an administrative warning against company conduct, claiming violations of unfair competition laws and regulations related to its “360 Safeguard” for use in computer internet browsers.

READ MORE

“Do Not Hire Agreements” among Google, Intel, Apple and Other Tech Firms Violates Chinese Laws?

Posted on by
u=192487636,1824686138&fm=23&gp=0_副本

(By You Yunting) As reported, the CEOs of tech giants Apple, Intel, and Google might be forced to go to court to account for mutual unwritten agreements about not soliciting each other’s workers for employment. These cases started due to the dissatisfaction of relevant employees, who believed that such “do not hire agreements” damaged that legal rights and interests. The news has also revealed emails from former Apple CEO, Steve Jobs, threatening Palm and Google and demanding that they stop using headhunters to obtain the email addresses of Apple employees. This news also raised the concerns within the industry.

READ MORE

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

Posted on by
360截图-29354723_副本

(By You Yunting) As reported by the media, the e-commerce site 51buy.com has instituted a so-called “higher price compensation” strategy: if clients of 51buy.com, an affiliate of Tencent, find a lower price for an item on 360.com, then 51buy.com will refund the price difference to the client as credits. According to 360buy.com, however, this action violates the Anti-unfair Competition Law and relevant commercial ethics. 360buy.com therefore sent a warning letter to 51buy.com. In reply, 51buy.com used its Weibo to state that the activity is legitimate and will continue.

READ MORE

Is It Illegal for Microsoft to Use Firefox with Firebug Plugin in Evidence Preservation in China?

Posted on by

According to news reports, Microsoft along with Autodesk, filed a lawsuit in the Foshan Intermediate Court (note: the link is in Chinese) against a renowned company admitted in Foshan City, claiming computer software copyright infringement. The plaintiffs stated that the accused company had been using their software without any licenses or approvals. Based on this, the plaintiffs demanded compensation of RMB 8 million yuan, elimination of influence, cessation of infringement, and an apology. This case is not black and white and the court certainly has its own opinions, but today I would like to take this chance to discuss how to determine the legitimacy of evidence collection in cases of computer software infringement.

READ MORE

Is It Lawful for News Websites to Demand Payment of Fees for Google and Baidu Searches

Posted on by

(By You Yunting) According to a report in the New York Times, as also reported by some European websites, Google is recompiling its searched news results as a news page. It may be said that this method could infringe the copyright of the original publishing websites and, as a result, Google should pay fees for the websites. This idea has received support from both the French and German Governments, yet Google believes that its behavior fully conforms to the law, and thus should not have to pay any fees. In China, the main search engines Google and Baidu provide this kind of news search service, and today’s post will discuss whether it is lawful for news websites to claim fees from the search engines.

READ MORE

Has Apple Lost Opportunity of In-Camera Hearing on Its Case?

Posted on by

By Albert Chen

The most watched dispute between Baidu (NASDAQ: BIDU) and Chinese Writers Alliance (the “Alliance”) is heard on 11th of October in Beijing No.2 Intermediate People’s Court. That lawsuit is filed following the battle against Baidu by the Alliance. Before the hearing on 11th, Apple applied to the court for the hearing in camera with the claim that the case is with trade secret related. After the consideration by the court, such an application was refused by the judge, yet it still decided the procedure may switch into be in private when one the interrogation involves the business secret. In today’s post, you may see our analysis on the “lawsuit in camera” in China.

READ MORE

Analysis on Common Legal Risk of Chinese Company’s Ads

Posted on by

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.

READ MORE