Tag Archives: unfair competition

Why did Chinese Courts Reject Perfetti’s Counterclaim for Unfair Competition?

Posted on by
图片1

(By You Yunting) Perfetti Van Melle Confectionery (China) Co., Ltd. (“Perfetti”) has a well-known candy named Alpenliebe, whose slogan is “浓浓奶香情 Nong Nong Nai Xiang Qing”. “浓浓 Nong Nong” refers to a strong scent, while “浓浓奶香情 Nong Nong Nai Xiang Qing” in English refers to a “strong milk taste,” i.e., the candy is notable for its rather strong milky flavor. A Zhejiang-based company owned the “浓浓 Nong Nong” trademark under the classification for candies, and filed a lawsuit accusing Perfetti of infringement and unfair competition for its use of that slogan. In today’s post, we will introduce relevant legislation on substantiality and procedure in this particular case.

READ MORE

Is RSS Output in Websites Kinda Fair Use in the Copyright Law?

Posted on by

 (By You Yunting) A user on Zhihu.com asked some question about RSS

  1. Is it kinda fair use of RSS?
  2. Is it kinda fair use to transfer the excerpt context RSS to the full text RSS?
  3. Is it kinda fair use of Flipboard and similar applications’ excerpt context which do not use RSS?

In terms of the first question: ,Is it kinda fair use of RSS?

If a website supports full content RSS output, then it is actually the using on the license of the copyright holder instead of the fair use. While, where a website only supports excerpt context RSS and if a third party scraps the content into a full context RSS, it is infringing as it has used the content without any license.

Let’s first check the definition of RSS. We could find a clear definition in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rss.): If a website placed the RSS file on its page, user could use a RSS feed to read the latest contents if he cannot open the content page. Based on the said character of RSS, in author’s opinion, RSS actually is a form of authorization from the site owners. If the website provides RSS file, it licenses users to read the content without visiting its website. According to the Copyright Law, Fair use means that under the specific circumstance we can use the content without the copyright’s holder’s permit and with payment of remuneration. The transliteration of a published work into Braiile and into minority nationality languages and free performance of a published work belong to fair use.

READ MORE

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

Posted on by

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.

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

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

Posted on by

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.

READ MORE

Why China Supreme Court Agree with Resigned Employees Establishing Competing Businesses?

Posted on by

(By Luo Yanjie) Abstract: The experience an employee gains throughout the course of his employment is regarded as a personal right under the law, and even though an employer may spend a great deal of time and money cultivating the employee and improving their skill set, if there was no noncompete agreement entered into prior to this, the employer will usually not be able to impede or stop a resigned employee from starting another business to compete with his or her previous employer.

For most companies, talent is considered its most valuable asset. With the development of the economy, market competition grows ever more fierce, and many employers find themselves troubled at the prospect of a number of employees “job hopping” to competitors, bringing the benefit of the employers’ training, experience and expertise with them. The case introduced herein is a typical case in which the employee was not bound by a noncompete, nondisclosure, or similar agreement. Facing stiff competition, many employers file suit on the basis of unfair competition, and yet, due to lacking substantial evidence, many employers end up failing in bringing a successful case.

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

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

Posted on by
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.

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

What Information Could Be Considered as Trade Secret in Tech Product Transaction in China?

Posted on by

Abstract

(By Albert Chen) The tech product transaction involves the information of technology and business. Among such information, to judge which part could be considered as trademark secret, it shall be based upon Article 10 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law, which regulates that to determine the trade secret, the court shall evaluate “whether it is known to the public”, “benefiting”, “practicability” and “confidentiality”.

Case Summary

In 1998, Shanghai Zhenxing Aluminum Co., Ltd. (the “Zhengxing Company”) developed a manufacturing technology, which the company used to produce articles. This technology created by Zhenxing set the standard for the production of the article. Shanghai Huikai Aluminum Co., Ltd. (the “Huikai Company”) was founded on September 10th 2003, and afterwards carried out the business in the same product manufacturing as Zhenxing. As investigated, among the 70 clients of Huikai, 68 once transacted with Zhenxing. For these clients, most products they purchased from Huikaiu were almost the same as those they bought from Zhenxing. Furthermore, Qin and Pan, who are now working in Huikai, are former employees of Zhenxing. During their employment with Zhenxing, the company signed confidential article in the labor contract and also an independent confidential agreement.

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

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

Posted on by

Abstract: The Copyright Law and the Anti Unfair Competition Law supplement each other, but they also compete with each other. In the case introduced in this article, the first instance court denied the copyright infringement claim, but confirmed liability under the principles of unfair competition. This seems to be logically contradictory, and the court in the second instance corrected this glaring mistake.

(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. In this particular aspect, it shares a similar purpose with the Anti Unfair Competition Law. For this reason, the Copyright Law and the Anti Unfair Competition Law supplement each other, yet on the other hand they also compete with each other.

READ MORE

China’s New Civil Procedure Law behind the Application for an Injunction of Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Company

Posted on by
360截图-27985783

(By Albert Chen) Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Company’s lawsuit (GPC) against Jia Duo Bao (JDB) for false advertising was heard in January of this year at the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court. In addition to the arguments held by each party regarding the false advertising, they also disputed whether an injunction could be issued as applied to GPC. Ultimately, the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court approved the injunction, basing its decision on findings that  JDB had exploited GPC through false advertising, thereby confusing and misleading consumers. The Court  then prohibited JDB from making advertisements with claims that GPC’s vitamin drink “Wang Lao Ji” had changed its name to JDB, or any other similar slogans indicating that somehow GPC’s Wang Lao Ji product was the same as JDB’s as the result of a name change.

READ MORE

China Revised Its Law on Jurisdiction of Internet Infringement Involving Foreign Elements

Posted on by

 (By Albert Chen) On the issue of jurisdiction in online infringement cases, Article 1 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning Application of Law in Hearing Network Copyright Disputes Involving Computers (the “Network Dispute Interpretation”) previously stated that:

“Online copyright infringement dispute cases are within the jurisdiction of the court in the place where infringement occurred or the residence of the defendant. The place where infringement occurred includes the place where the network server or computer terminal used to conduct the accused infringement is located. For situations where it is difficult to determine the place where the infringement occurred or the residence of the defendant, the place where the computer terminal or other device that the plaintiff used to discover the infringement is located may be used as the place where the infringement occurred.”

READ MORE

The Court Ultimately Supported Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Holding Company’s Application for an Injunction

Posted on by
201302011-周一

(BY Albert Chen  ) Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Holding Company (“GPHC”) is the holder of the王老吉 (the “Wang Lao Ji”) trademark in mainland China. In 2000, it licensed Hongdao Group, a Hong Kong admitted company, to use the trademark. After Hongdao Group used the trademark and caused it to develop a definite business reputation, however, a dispute broke out between the two parties over the right to use the Wang Lao Ji trademark.

In the first round of the fighting between the parties, GPHC used arbitration with CIETAC to cancel the supplementary agreements signed between two parties in 2002 and 2003 based upon the fact that the agreements were executed under commercial bribery. This website has discussed the implementation problems arising in that case. After that, the subsidiary of Hongdao Group that had sold Wang Lao Ji, Jia Duo Bao (“JDB”) began to sell its herbal tea under the brand name 加多宝(the “JDB”) Additionally, JDB used disputed slogans, such as “Wang Lao Ji now calls itself JDB,” “China’s top selling red can herbal tea now call itself JDB.” Claiming that such slogans constituted false advertising or unfair competition GPHC filed for an injunction with the Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court and demanded an immediate halt to such advertisements.

READ MORE