Competition is the lifeblood of a market economy, and fair competition is a fundamental principle that underpins the efficient operation of market mechanisms. Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, General Secretary Xi Jinping has made a series of important statements on the protection and promotion of fair competition, emphasizing the need to "strengthen antitrust efforts and deepen the implementation of fair competition policies." The Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee stressed the need to "construct a unified national market" and "reinforce antitrust measures and combat unfair competition."

Judiciary plays a critical role in ensuring and realizing fair competition through legal means and promoting the establishment of a unified national market. To fully leverage the guiding role of judicial rulings, the Supreme People's Court announced eight typical cases related to antitrust and unfair competition during the 2024 China Fair Competition Policy Promotion Week.

Among the cases, four typical antitrust cases involve significant legal issues concerning horizontal monopoly agreements, such as fixed pricing and joint boycott of transactions, as well as abuse of market dominance through bundled sales. These cases relate to essential sectors, including catering, digital television, natural gas, and vegetable wholesale. The main characteristics of these cases are as follows:

1. Focus on Public Welfare and Actively Exercise the Judicial Antitrust Functions: These cases, the horizontal monopoly agreement of "rice noodle manufacturers", the abuse of market dominant position of "cable digital TV scrambling signal service public enterprises", the bundling transaction of "natural gas companies", and the abuse of market dominant position of "vegetable wholesale market" are all directly related to people's livelihood and well-being. The courts decisively prohibited the alleged monopolistic behaviors, offering compensation to affected businesses, thus maintaining a fair competitive market order and protecting the legitimate interests of the public. The adjudication of the above cases reflects the important role of anti-monopoly justice in serving and safeguarding the people's livelihood, and the positive significance of the spirit of anti-monopoly law in regulating market competition in the field of people's livelihood by handling the "key small things" that are related to the vital interests of the people.

2.Clarify the Instruction of Rules and Guide Business Dealers to Orderly Conduct Competition According to the Law. The horizontal monopoly agreement case involving "rice noodle manufacturers" clearly defined criteria for joint boycott transactions. The case concerning the abuse of market dominance by "cable digital television signal service public enterprise" provided clear standards for bundling behavior. The bundled sales case involving the "natural gas company" further clarified the burden of proof for plaintiffs in subsequent civil compensation litigation following the penalty decision made by the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency, as well as the calculation of losses incurred from bundled sales. The case-abuse of market dominance of "vegetable wholesale market"- established that arbitration agreements between parties cannot preclude courts from accepting antitrust civil disputes, according to the newly released provisions of the judicial interpretation of anti-monopoly civil litigation. The rulings in these cases are valuable references for curbing monopolistic violations, guiding fair competition, and regulating the acceptance and adjudication of antitrust disputes by courts.

The four typical cases on anti-unfair competition involve important legal issues such as the application of general provisions in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, as well as the identification of counterfeiting and confusion, false advertising, and the infringement of technical secrets, involving online and offline industries such as platform data, traditional consumer goods, and new energy vehicles. The main features of these cases are as follows:

1. Strengthen Judicial Protection to Effectively Support and Serve the Development of New Quality Productive Forces. In the case concerning the infringement of technical secrets related to "new energy vehicle chassis" released this time, the court’s judgments of organized, planned and large-scale infringements of technical secrets not only determined the amount of compensation according to the punitive damage legal provisions, but also actively explored the aspects of stopping the infringement of civil liability, and effectively protected the innovation and development of enterprises, fostering and developing new quality productive forces on the basis of adopting a holistic analytical approach.

2. Severe Crackdown on Unfair Competition Behaviors such as “Free Riding” to Maintain the Market Order of Fair Competition. Recent years, many kinds of unfair competition behaviors represented by counterfeit and confusion have occurred frequently, seriously damaging the interests of business dealers and the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, and must be severely cracked down on. In the counterfeit and confusion dispute case involving "Schneider" released this time, guided by encouraging honest business practices, the court strengthened the protection of well-known brands, and condemned dishonest commercial practices of trademark imitation and unfair association. With substantial evidence of infringing profits, the courts increased the cost of infringement significantly, effectively deterring malicious infringement behaviors.

3. Focus on the Need to Develop New Forms and Models of Business and Promote the Healthy and Orderly Development of the Digital Economy. In the dispute regarding the unfair competition of the enterprise credit information data platform released this time, the People's Court actively probed into the judicial rules for big data competition protection, rationally demarcated the boundaries of data rights ownership and usage behavior, and contributed to establishing an open, healthy, and safe digital ecology. In the "Light Shake" unfair competition dispute case, the People's Court effectively halted the false propaganda behavior of organizing false "fans and traffic" and obtaining traffic improperly, and guided the healthy and orderly development of the platform economy.

Typical Cases of Antitrust and Anti-Unfair Competition

Table of Contents 

[Case Number] ：Supreme People's Court (2023) Intellectual Civil Final No. 653: Dispute over horizontal monopoly agreement between Yunnan Yimourun Dian Rice Noodles Co., Ltd., and Yunnan Runmou Food Co., Ltd., Kunming Linmou Qiugu Food Manufacturing Co., Ltd

[Basic Facts of the Case]: The rice noodle manufacturer Yunnan Yimourun Dian Rice Noodle Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yimourun Dian) filed a lawsuit claiming that Yunnan Runmou Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Runmou) and Kunming Linmopu Qiugu Food Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Linmou Qiugu) along with seven other defendants engaged in monopolistic behavior by forming and implementing a horizontal monopoly agreement to fix the prices of the products and jointly boycott trading. This conduct allegedly caused operational difficulties for Yimourun Dian, ultimately leading to the cessation of its rice noodle production and processing. Yimourun Dian sought compensation for economic losses amounting to 5 million yuan and reasonable expenses of 200,000 yuan. The first-instance court determined that while the defendants had reached a horizontal monopoly agreement to fix product prices, they had not implemented it nor reached a joint boycott agreement. The court ordered the defendants to jointly pay Yimourun Dian 20,000 yuan in reasonable expenses, rejecting the other claims. Yimourun Dian was dissatisfied and appealed.

The Supreme People's Court, in the second instance, found that Runmou and Linmou Qiugu, along with other rice noodle manufacturers, had established a unified purchase price for rice noodles from the manufacturers through sales contracts. They then fixed the retail and supply prices for water rice noodles sold by the manufacturers to stalls and intermediaries via resolutions from Runmou's shareholders' meetings and price adjustment notices, thereby forming and implementing a horizontal monopoly agreement to fix the prices of water rice noodles. Additionally, Runmou and Linmou Qiugu, along with the other seven defendants, entered into cooperation agreements with intermediaries and supply agreements with rice noodle stalls, mandating that intermediaries and stalls could only deliver or sell rice noodles produced by the contracted manufacturers. If they violated this requirement, they had to pay Runmou a penalty of 50,000 yuan, while the contracted manufacturers would jointly cut off supplies to the intermediary or stall. The sales contracts also stipulated that Linmou Qiugu and other manufacturers could not sell to third parties outside of Runmou, and manufacturers signing the sales contracts could not accept purchases from intermediaries, with penalties of 20,000 to 50,000 yuan for violations. The defendants also took measures such as signing guarantees and forming special working groups, and established corresponding reward and punishment mechanisms to ensure the implementation of the joint boycott agreement. These actions led to a coordinated effort among the manufacturers, intermediaries, and retail stalls involved in the agreement, effectively excluding other rice noodle manufacturers from entering the local market and specifically targeting Yimourun Dian to suppress its operations, thereby implementing a joint boycott and restricting market competition.

Yimourun Dian did not provide evidence to substantiate its claimed losses. The Supreme People's Court, considering the subjective maliciousness of the defendants, the duration of the monopolistic behavior, and its impact on Yimourun Dian, ultimately ruled: to revoke the first-instance judgment; to order Runmou to compensate Yimourun Dian for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 1.1 million yuan, with Linmou Qiugu and the other seven defendants jointly liable for the compensation obligations of Runmou.

[Significance of the Case]: This case concerns a horizontal monopoly agreement involving fixed product prices and joint trading boycotts. The ruling provides a detailed analysis of the monopolistic behaviors, clarifying the horizontal and vertical contractual arrangements adopted by competing operators to jointly boycott other competing operators, thereby recognizing the joint boycott transaction as a horizontal monopoly agreement. Rice noodles are a daily consumer product beloved by the local populace in Yunnan. This ruling, by addressing issues that directly affect the public's interests, emphasizes the spirit of antitrust law and holds positive significance for regulating monopolistic behavior in the livelihood sector.

[Case Number] ：Supreme People's Court (2023) Intellectual Civil Final No. 383 [Dispute Case of Certain Chemical Fiber Video Maintenance Station and China Broadcasting Certain Network Co., Ltd. Anshan Branch's Abuse of Market Dominance]

[Basic Facts of the Case]: China Broadcasting Certain Network Co., Ltd. Anshan Branch (hereinafter referred to as "Anshan Branch") is the only enterprise in Anshan City, Liaoning Province, providing cable television scrambling signals and broadband services. On November 23, 2018, a three-year cooperation agreement was signed between Certain Chemical Fiber Video Maintenance Station (hereinafter referred to as "Maintenance Station") and Anshan Branch, which stipulated that Anshan Branch would transmit cable digital television scrambling signals within the cooperation area, and the Maintenance Station would connect to Anshan Branch's cable television network. After the set-top boxes supplied to customers by the Maintenance Station within the cooperation area were used up, they could only use the set-top boxes provided by Anshan Branch. Upon expiration of the cooperation period, the Maintenance Station had the right to priority renewal under the same conditions. On November 21, 2021, Anshan Branch notified the Maintenance Station that it would not renew the cooperation agreement upon its expiration. After unsuccessful negotiations, the Maintenance Station filed a lawsuit in the first instance court, requesting the court to order Anshan Branch to cease its refusal to deal, to renew the contract at the original agreed charging standard, to declare its bundling of set-top boxes and IC cards invalid, to allow the Maintenance Station to use set-top boxes and IC cards from other brands for network access, and to compensate the Maintenance Station for its legal fees. The first-instance court concluded that the actions of Anshan Branch did not constitute an abuse of market dominance and thus ruled to dismiss all claims made by the Maintenance Station. The Maintenance Station was dissatisfied and appealed.

The Supreme People's Court in the second instance concluded that the relevant market in this case should be defined as the cable digital television scrambling signal service market in Anshan City, Liaoning Province. Anshan Branch is the only entity capable of providing this service throughout the city, thus holding a dominant position in this market. Anshan Branch's demand that the Maintenance Station can only use set-top boxes it provides after exhausting the ones it purchased independently lacks a legitimate justification. This requirement not only restricts and deprives the Maintenance Station of its freedom to choose other trading partners in the cable television set-top box market, but also excludes and limits opportunities for other existing or potential set-top box suppliers to trade with the Maintenance Station, constituting bundling behavior. Due to a combination of historical, policy, technical, and other factors, the objective circumstances surrounding the cable digital television scrambling signal service market in Anshan City had naturally shifted towards extinction when the cooperation agreement expired. The cooperative model had lost its value for continuity, and Anshan Branch had completed the construction of the cable television network within the cooperation area on its own. Residents in that area can normally watch cable digital television programs, thus Anshan Branch's refusal to renew the contract does not constitute a refusal to deal. The legal fees of 5,000 yuan incurred by the Maintenance Station in this case were fully supported. Accordingly, the Supreme People's Court in the second instance decided to revoke the first-instance judgment, ordering Anshan Branch to compensate the Maintenance Station for its reasonable expenses of 5,000 yuan, while dismissing the Maintenance Station's other claims.

[Significance of the Case]: This case involves the determination of refusal to deal and bundling behaviors in the context of abuse of market dominance. Although the dispute arises between the suppliers and recipients of cable digital television scrambling signals, it directly impacts the well-being of end-users who watch cable digital television. The court’s ruling in this case plays a positive role in actively exercising the antitrust judicial function, scientifically defining the relevant market, accurately identifying abuses of market dominance, maintaining fair market competition, and achieving the legislative purpose of antitrust law in preventing and prohibiting monopolistic behavior.

[Case Number]: Supreme People's Court (2023) Intellectual Civil Final No. 1547 [Dispute Case of Bundling Transactions Between Haidong Hua Certain Gas Appliance Trading Co., Ltd. Minhe Branch and Qinghai Province Minhe Chuan Certain Petroleum and Natural Gas Co., Ltd.]

[Basic Facts of the Case]: Haidong Hua Certain Gas Appliance Trading Co., Ltd. Minhe Branch (hereinafter referred to as "Hua Gas Appliance Company") filed a lawsuit stating that in October 2017, it sold and installed gas wall-mounted boilers for more than ten villagers, including a villager named Ma, in Certain Wan Village, Minhe Hui Autonomous County, Haidong City, Qinghai Province (hereinafter referred to as "Minhe County"). When Qinghai Minhe Chuan Certain Petroleum and Natural Gas Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Chuan Natural Gas Company") processed the villagers' applications for natural gas usage, it required the villagers to install wall-mounted boilers designated by Chuan Natural Gas Company; otherwise, they would not be allowed to connect to the natural gas supply. As a result, the villagers were forced to dismantle the installed boilers, which could not be resold after removal, causing Hua Gas Appliance Company to suffer losses. The company requested the court to order Chuan Natural Gas Company to compensate for economic losses amounting to 107,200 yuan.

In May 2020, the Qinghai Provincial Market Supervision Administration issued an administrative penalty decision, determining that Chuan Natural Gas Company violated the antitrust law by bundling products without legitimate justification as a business with a dominant market position. Chuan Natural Gas Company was dissatisfied with the administrative penalty decision and filed an administrative lawsuit. After two rounds of administrative litigation, the administrative penalty decision had already taken effect during the lawsuit. The first-instance court held that the monopolistic behavior of Chuan Natural Gas Company constituted prohibited bundling behavior under antitrust law and ruled that Chuan Natural Gas Company should compensate Hua Gas Appliance Company for economic losses of 80,000 yuan. Chuan Natural Gas Company dissatisfied and appealed.

The Supreme People's Court in the second instance noted that this case is a follow-up civil compensation lawsuit after the penalty decision made by the antitrust enforcement agency. The administrative penalty decision found that Chuan Natural Gas Company, as the only urban natural gas supplier in Minhe County's main urban area, engaged in bundling behavior abusing its dominant market position from 2009 to 2018. Chuan Natural Gas Company failed to provide evidence to overturn the basic facts established by the administrative penalty decision. Since Hua Gas Appliance Company submitted the effective penalty decision, it was not required to provide further evidence to prove that Chuan Natural Gas Company engaged in the alleged monopolistic behavior. Due to Chuan Natural Gas Company's bundling behavior, the wall-mounted boilers sold and installed by Hua Gas Appliance Company could not be used because they could not connect to the natural gas supply, forcing Hua Gas Appliance Company to refund the villagers for the cost of the boilers. Hua Gas Appliance Company claimed economic losses totaling 107,200 yuan, which included the refunded boiler price and installation fees. Given that the installation fees had already been incurred and that wall-mounted boilers have high safety requirements, the resale value of the dismantled boilers would sharply decline. The first-instance court's determination of 80,000 yuan was not inappropriate. The Supreme People's Court in the second instance ruled to dismiss the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

[Significance of the Case]: This case represents a civil compensation lawsuit following a penalty decision made by an antitrust enforcement agency. The ruling legally reduced the plaintiff's burden of proof regarding the alleged abuse of market dominance and comprehensively considered the plaintiff's actual losses and lost profits in ordering the defendant to compensate for the losses. This has positive significance in punishing monopolistic behavior, safeguarding grassroots livelihoods, protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the public, regulating market competition order in the civil natural gas industry, and enhancing public awareness of antitrust law.

[Case Number]: Supreme People's Court (2024) Intellectual Civil Final No. 748  [Tan vs. Changsha Ma Certain Agricultural Products Co., Ltd. Dispute over Abuse of Market Dominance]

[Basic Facts of the Case]: Tan filed a lawsuit claiming that Changsha Ma Certain Agricultural Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Ma Certain Company") holds a dominant market position in the vegetable supply market in Changsha County, Hunan Province. In December 2017, Tan, as a vegetable wholesaler, signed a contract with Ma Certain Company to operate in the Ji Certain Logistics Park managed by Ma Certain Company. In June 2023, Ma Certain Company unilaterally raised Tan's service fee to three times the previous rate, citing that Tan was also operating in Hong Certain Market. They stated that Tan could only restore the original service fee rate by withdrawing from Hong Certain Market and refused to refund the excess service fees already collected. Tan believed that Ma Certain Company abused its dominant market position by limiting Tan to transactions only with them, imposing unfairly high service fees, and treating other merchants under the same conditions differently in terms of transaction prices. Therefore, Tan filed a lawsuit requesting the termination of the contract with Ma Certain Company, ordering Ma Certain Company to refund the remaining rent, entry fees, and the excess service fees collected, as well as compensating Tan for economic losses. The first-instance court found that the contract contained an arbitration clause and ruled that it had no jurisdiction over the case, dismissing Tan's lawsuit. Tan was dissatisfied and appealed.

The Supreme People's Court in the second instance held that although the contract stipulated that disputes arising during its performance could be resolved through arbitration, the case's examination was not limited to the contractual rights and obligations between Tan and Ma Certain Company. It also involved determining whether Ma Certain Company had a dominant market position and whether it had engaged in abusive conduct. Furthermore, whether Ma Certain Company had committed the alleged monopolistic behavior directly relates to fair market competition, consumer interests, and social public interests. Therefore, the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties does not automatically exclude the jurisdiction of the people's court over this case. This case falls within the jurisdiction of the people's court. The alleged abuse of market dominance occurred during the performance of the contract, and since Tan requested the termination of the contract, the case should be treated as a civil dispute regarding monopolistic behavior and determined according to the jurisdiction rules for contract disputes. The first-instance court has jurisdiction over this case. Consequently, the court revoked the first-instance ruling and instructed the first-instance court to hear the case. The first-instance court has since reopened the case and is currently in the process of hearing it.

[Significance of the Case]: This case recognizes that an arbitration agreement between parties cannot exclude the people's court from accepting monopolistic civil disputes, based on the provisions of the latest judicial interpretation of antitrust civil litigation. It also clarifies the standards for determining jurisdiction over disputes arising from abuse of market dominance in relation to contract performance, based on the plaintiff's claims. The ruling highlights the status of antitrust law as a fundamental law of the market economy and serves as a reference for regulating the acceptance and hearing of monopolistic disputes by people's courts.

[Case Number]: Supreme People's Court (2023) Intellectual Civil Final No. 1590 [Zhejiang Ji Certain Holding Group Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Ji Certain Automotive Research Institute Co., Ltd. vs. Wei Certain Automotive Technology Group Co., Ltd., Wei Certain Automotive Manufacturing Wenzhou Co., Ltd. and Others - Dispute over Infringement of Trade Secrets]

[Basic Facts of the Case]: Nearly 40 senior management personnel and technical staff from subsidiaries of Zhejiang Ji Certain Holding Group Co., Ltd. successively left to work for Wei Certain Automotive Technology Group Co., Ltd. and its affiliated companies (collectively referred to as Wei Certain), of which, 30 people joined immediately after leaving in 2016. In 2018, Zhejiang Ji Certain Holding Group Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Ji Certain Automotive Research Institute Co., Ltd. (collectively referred to as Ji Certain) discovered that the two companies under Wei Certain applied for 12 patents under the name of some of the departed personnel as inventors or co-inventors with the chassis application technology of new energy vehicles, as well as the technical information contained in 12 sets of chassis component drawings and digital models (hereinafter referred to as the "involved trade secrets") they learned and mastered in the former company. Furthermore, the Wei Certain EX series electric vehicles were suspected of infringing upon these involved trade secrets. Ji Certain filed a lawsuit in the first-instance court, requesting that Wei Certain cease the infringement and compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 2.1 billion yuan. After hearing the case, the first-instance court found that Wei Certain Automotive Manufacturing Wenzhou Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Wei Wenzhou Company") had infringed upon Ji Certain's trade secrets concerning five sets of chassis component drawings and ordered it to compensate Ji Certain for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 7 million yuan. Both Ji Certain and Wei Wenzhou Company were dissatisfied and appealed.

The Supreme People's Court in the second instance held that this case involved organized and planned large-scale infringement of trade secrets through improper means to extract technical talent and resources related to new energy vehicles. Through comprehensive analysis and judgment, it was determined that Wei Certain had improperly obtained all involved trade secrets, illegally disclosed part of the trade secrets by applying for patents, and used all the involved trade secrets. The second-instance ruling ordered Wei Certain to immediately cease disclosing, using, or allowing others to use the involved trade secrets and further specified the methods, content, and scope of the cessation of infringement. This included, but was not limited to: ceasing to disclose, use, or allow others to use the involved trade secrets in any manner without Ji Certain's consent; not implementing, licensing others to implement, transferring, pledging, or otherwise disposing of the 12 patents; destroying or transferring all drawings, digital models, and other technical materials containing the involved trade secrets to Ji Certain; and notifying Wei Certain and all its employees, affiliated companies, and relevant component suppliers of the judgment and its requirements through announcements and internal notifications, requiring relevant personnel and units to sign non-disclosure and non-infringement commitments. Considering the evident willfulness of the infringement, the severity of the infringement circumstances, and the serious consequences, the second-instance court applied a punitive compensation of double the profits obtained from the infringement by Wei Certain from May 2019 to the first quarter of 2022, ordering Wei Certain to compensate Ji Certain approximately 640 million yuan for economic losses and reasonable expenses. To ensure compliance with non-monetary obligations, the second-instance ruling further specified that if Wei Certain violated the judgment's requirements to cease infringement, it would incur a daily penalty of 1 million yuan for delayed performance; if Wei Certain unilaterally disposed of the 12 patents, it would pay a one-time penalty of 1 million yuan for each patent.

[Significance of the Case]:This case serves as a strong example of combating organized, planned, and large-scale infringement of trade secrets. The people's court, based on an overall assessment of the infringement of trade secrets, not only applied punitive compensation provisions to determine the compensation amount but also actively explored the specific responsibilities for ceasing infringement and the standards for calculating penalties for delayed performance of non-monetary obligations. This case highlights a clear stance on strictly protecting intellectual property rights and a firm determination to combat unfair competition, contributing to an environment that respects originality, promotes fair competition, and protects technological innovation within the rule of law.

[Case Number]: Yuhang District People's Court, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province (2022) Zhe 0110 Civil First Instance No. 8714 [Beijing Wei Certain Vision Technology Co., Ltd. vs. Hangzhou Da Certain Network Technology Co., Ltd. and Ai Certain (Hangzhou) Network Technology Co., Ltd. – Dispute over Unfair Competition]

[Basic Facts of the Case]: The Dou Certain platform is a short video sharing platform operated by Beijing Wei Certain Company (hereinafter referred to as "Beijing Wei Certain"). It recommends videos based on user demand, with its algorithm designed around several metrics, including video completion rate, number of comments, likes, shares, popularity of live broadcasts, and the number of followers. This algorithm relies on genuine user feedback on videos and live broadcasts for intelligent recommendations. Hangzhou Da Certain Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Hangzhou Da Certain") designed and developed a product called "Light Dou," aimed at the Dou Certain platform, in various formats such as an official website, app, and mini-program. This product allows users who desire to increase their follower counts and view counts to publish paid "tasks" to attract other users to complete tasks like following or watching videos on the Dou Certain platform in exchange for rewards. Ai Certain (Hangzhou) Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Ai Certain") acts as the payment collector for the "Light Dou" product. Beijing We Certain filed a lawsuit against the two defendants, claiming that their organized operation of the "Light Dou" series of service products constituted unfair competition and requested the court to order the defendants to cease infringement, eliminate negative effects, and jointly pay 4.5 million yuan in compensation.

The first-instance court ruled that Beijing Wei Certain has legitimate competitive interests in data such as video view counts, popularity of live broadcasts, and user follower counts on the Dou Certain platform. It affirmed that the operation of the Dou Certain platform and the commercial value and competitive interests derived from utilizing this data should be protected. The contested actions involved running a transaction platform that assisted and guided users seeking traffic to publish demands for tasks, while users "taking tasks" disguised themselves as normal users to complete engagement tasks, artificially creating false view counts and follower numbers, which disrupted the platform’s traffic distribution mechanism. This behavior was deemed an act of unfair competition as regulated by Article 8, Paragraph 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Consequently, the court ordered the two defendants to cease infringement, eliminate the negative effects, and jointly bear a compensation responsibility of 4 million yuan. After the first-instance ruling, the two defendants were dissatisfied and appealed. The Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original ruling.

[Significance of the Case]: This case serves as a typical example of combating the "follower count boosting" and other black and gray industry practices online. The people's court accurately applied the legal provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law regarding the cessation of false advertising behaviors, effectively regulating the unfair competition acts involving false promotional practices to organize "follower boosting" and improper acquisition of traffic for platform broadcasters. This plays a positive role in guiding and promoting the integrity of platform broadcasters, ensuring a healthy live-streaming business model, and creating a fair, competitive, and orderly market environment.

[Case Number]: High People's Court of Jiangsu Province (2021) Su Intellectual Final No. 19 [Sh Certain Electric (China) Co., Ltd. vs. Suzhou Sh Certain Elevator Co., Ltd. – Dispute over Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition]

[Basic Facts of the Case]: Sh Certain Electric Europe (hereinafter referred to as "Sh Certain Europe") licensed the registered trademark “image”and "Schneider" used on goods in Class 9, such as circuit breakers and electrical switches, to its invested company, Sh Certain Electric (China) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Sh Certain China"). Sh Certain China has invested in multiple electrical manufacturing enterprises across the country, many of which use "Schneider" as part of their business name. The trademarks “image”and "Schneider" and its related series have high market recognition in the electrical industry. Sh Certain China contended that Suzhou Sh Certain Elevator Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Suzhou Sh Certain") prominently using the "Schneider" and "SCHNEIDER" identifiers constituted trademark infringement. Additionally, the registration of a business name containing "Schneider" and the use of a domain name similar to the core element of the "Schneider Electric" trademark constituted unfair competition. Consequently, Sh Certain China filed a lawsuit requesting that Suzhou Sh Certain cease the infringement, change its business name, compensate for losses, and eliminate the negative impact. Suzhou Sh Certain argued that its use of the contested identifiers was authorized by an overseas company and that there was no subjective fault in attempting to ride on the goodwill of the involved trademark.

The first-instance court found that the contested actions constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, ruling that Suzhou Sh Certain must immediately cease the contested activities, complete the procedures for changing its business name, compensate for losses amounting to 40 million yuan, and cover reasonable expenses of 150,000 yuan. Furthermore, Suzhou Sh Certain was ordered to publish a statement to eliminate the negative impact. The Jiangsu Provincial High People's Court, in the second instance, determined that Suzhou Sh Certain was aware of the fame of the involved trademark and business name. By signing a brand usage agreement with the overseas company to obtain authorization for a similar identifier, Suzhou Sh Certain intended to benefit from the goodwill associated with the involved trademark. The second-instance court upheld the first-instance ruling regarding trademark infringement and unfair competition. Considering the fame and market value of the involved trademark, the subjective malice of Suzhou Sh Certain, and the duration and scale of the infringement, the compensation amount of 40 million yuan determined in the first instance was deemed appropriate. The Jiangsu Provincial High People's Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original ruling.

[Significance of the Case]: This case serves as a typical example of strictly punishing "free-riding" and confusion-related imitation behaviors. In situations where there is sufficient evidence proving that the profits from the infringement exceed the statutory maximum compensation limit, the people's court reasonably allocated the burden of proof and correctly applied discretionary compensation methods to determine the compensation amount. This effectively combats market confusion behaviors that exploit others' goodwill, significantly increases the costs of infringement, and clearly reflects a strong judicial orientation towards enhancing intellectual property protection.

[Case Number]: Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen City of Guangdong Province (2023) Yue 03 Civil Final No. 4897 [Shenzhen Chang Certain Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd. vs. Beijing Tian Certain Check Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Jin Certain Technology Co., Ltd. – Dispute over Unfair Competition]

[Basic Facts of the Case]:  Shenzhen Chang Certain Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Chang Certain Company") accused Beijing Jin Certain Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Jin Certain Company") and Beijing Tian Certain Check Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Tian Certain Company") of engaging in unfair competition through the following actions: 1. The data published on the "Tian Certain Check" website did not include its equity information registered at the Shenzhen United Property Rights Exchange; 2. The reported equity relationship between Chang Certain Company and Shenzhen Ao Certain Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Ao Certain Company") was inconsistent with the actual situation; 3. After receiving Chang Certain Company's lawyer's letter and attachments, they failed to correct the data on the "Tian Certain Check" website. Therefore, Chang Certain Company requested a court ruling to include them in the shareholder list of Ao Certain Company, eliminate the negative impact, and compensate for their legal expenses.

The Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court found that the original data involved was Chang Certain Company's external equity information. Enterprise's foreign investment and historical changes are directly related to their market competitive position. As the original data entity for the credit data system operated by Jin Certain Company and Tian Certain Company, Chang Certain Company had competitive rights concerning the external equity information published by the credit data system. Jin Certain Company and Tian Certain Company, as data users, had an obligation to ensure the quality of the data. If they released company data with quality issues, it could increase or diminish the competitive rights of the original data entity and also harm the interests of data consumers based on their reasonable reliance. In this case, the operators of the "Tian Certain Check" website had a duty to verify and update the relevant data upon receiving complaints and evidence regarding data accuracy from Chang Certain Company. However, they did not verify the authenticity of the complaint materials or take reasonable measures to correct the data discrepancies in the credit data system, leading to Chang Certain Company's external equity information not being displayed on the "Tian Certain Check" website for an extended period. Incorrect equity information inevitably causes data consumers to misjudge Chang Certain Company's operational status, thereby damaging Chang Certain Company's market competitive rights and infringing on consumers' right to know and undermining the normal market competition order in the internet credit industry. Consequently, the court ruled that Jin Certain Company and Tian Certain Company constituted unfair competition and should bear civil liability for ceasing the infringement and eliminating the impact. They were ordered to include Chang Certain Company's equity information on Ao Certain Company's shareholder information page on the "Tian Certain Check" website, publish a statement to eliminate the negative effects, and compensate Chang Certain Company for reasonable legal expenses amounting to 30,880 yuan.

[Significance of the Case]:This case serves as a typical example of identifying unfair competition behaviors by data users. The people's court thoroughly considered the current development stage of the big data industry, business models, technological status, and the realities and rules of digital economic development. They actively explored the application of principled provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, reasonably determined the scope of competitive rights for the original data entities, and clarified the data quality assurance obligations of data users. This has positive significance for promoting the healthy development of the data industry and fostering an open, healthy, and secure digital ecosystem.