Revised Draft Anti-Unfair Competition Law Released by State Administration for Market Regulation
Date: 2022-11-22
At the end of November 2022, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) issued a revised draft Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People’s Republic of China, with a deadline for feedback of 22 December 2022.
The current Anti-Unfair Competition Law has a total of thirty-three articles; the revised draft has forty-eight. It strengthens the regulation of unfair competition in key areas and provides enforcement guidelines in relation to some significant problems that have arisen in practice.
The main amendments include the following. (1) further regulation relating to activity in the digital economy; (2) expansion of the types of unfair competition to include acts that impair fair trade and acts of malicious trade; (3) the abuse of a position of relative advantage, in terms of technology, capital, number of users, industry influence etc, is classified as an act of unfair competition; and (4) the level of fines has been adjusted. Article 29 raises the upper limit of fines for commercial bribery from RMB 3 million (approx. US$ 442.000) to RMB 5 million (approx. US$ 737,000), and Article 30 cuts the lower limit of fines for false propaganda from more than RMB 200,000 (approx. US$ 30,000) to more than RMB 100,000 (approx. US$15,000).
Source: SAMR 2022-11-22
News link: https://www.samr.gov.cn/hd/zjdc/202211/t20221121_351812.html
国家市场监督管理总局发布《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法（修订草案征求意见稿）》
发文日期：2022-11-22
市场监管总局就《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法(修订草案征求意见稿)》，向社会公开征求意见，意见反馈截止日期为2022年12月22日。
现行《反不正当竞争法》共三十三条，而征求意见稿增加到了四十八条，整体上加强了对市场主体、消费者反映强烈的重点行业和领域不正当竞争的规制，对部分实践中存在的突出问题提供了执法指引。主要修改内容包括：在第四条明确规定经营者不得利用数据和算法、技术、资本优势以及平台规则等从事不正当竞争行为，这意味着“二选一”、强制搭售、屏蔽外部链接、大数据杀熟等数字经济领域的不正当竞争行为将进一步得到规制；扩展了不正当竞争行为的类型，增加了损害公平交易行为和恶意交易行为；滥用相对优势地位被再次列为不正当竞争行为，包括经营者在技术、资本、用户数量、行业影响力等方面的优势，以及其他经营者对该经营者在交易上的依赖等；处罚额度方面有所调整，第二十九条将商业贿赂行为的处罚上限从“三百万元”提高到“五百万元”，第三十条将虚假宣传的处罚下限从“二十万元以上”修改为“十万元以上”等。
资料来源：国家市场监督管理总局 2022-11-22
新闻链接：https://www.samr.gov.cn/hd/zjdc/202211/t20221121_351812.html
Damages Award of 50 Million Yuan (approx. US$ 7,500,000) Upheld on Appeal in Raumplus’s Trade Mark Infringement And Unfair Competition Case
Date: 2022-11-02
Raumplus Besitz-und Entwicklungs-GmbH & Co.KG (‘Raumplus’) and Shanghai Ledini Furniture Co., Ltd. entered into a joint venture agreement and established two joint venture companies: Delv Furniture (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. in 2008 and Nantong Delu Furniture Co., Ltd. in 2010. Pursuant to the agreement, the joint venture companies were authorized to use the trademark “raumplus德禄” during the joint venture period. On termination of the joint venture, the right to use the trademark would cease and the name of the joint venture companies would be changed.
In 2011, Raumplus withdrew from the joint venture, but the joint venture companies continued to use its trademarks and other intellectual property rights. Further, the two companies opened large-scale distribution stores nationwide and undertook bulk business such as engineering projects, registering the trademarks “raumplus德禄” and domain names “raumplus.com” and promoting their own brands as being high-end brands of Raumplus. Raumplus sent several letters requesting the two companies to cease the infringement. When the infringement continued, it commenced a trademark infringement and unfair competition action, seeking compensation for economic loss of RMB 50 million (approx. US$ 7,500,000). The court of first instance found in favour of the Plaintiff. The Defendants appealed unsuccessfully to the Jiangsu High People’s Court.
The appeal court found that the Defendant companies right to use the ” raumplus德禄” trade name and the “raumplus德禄” trademark was dependent on the continuation of the joint venture relationship. When that came to an end, the companies no longer had any right to use the name or trademark; however, they continued to use the trademark in relation to customized furniture, which fell within the scope of the registered trademark, thereby infringing Raumplus’s exclusive right to the trademark. The two defendants also continued to use the trade name ” raumplus德禄”, causing confusion and misunderstanding in the market and seriously damaging Raumplus’s normal market competition. They also advertised their own brands as high-end brands of Raumplus, opened large-scale distribution stores, and undertook a large number of engineering projects. All these activities constituted unfair competition and should be prohibited. The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal and upheld the original decision.
Source: XinHuaNet 2022-11-02
News link: http://js.news.cn/2022-11/07/c_1129108978.htm
德禄案5000万元赔偿请求获全额支持
日期：2022-11-02
2008年、2010年，德禄产业与发展有限责任两合公司（raumplus Besitz-und Entwicklungs-GmbH & Co.KG, 简称“德禄两合公司”）与案外人上海雷迪尼家具公司先后合资成立德禄上海公司和德禄南通公司，约定在合资期间内由德禄两合公司授权合资企业使用案涉“德禄”商标，合资关系结束后合资公司即不得再使用上述商标，同时需更改企业名称。2011年，德禄两合公司退出合资公司。但德禄上海公司、德禄南通公司并未停止对德国公司商标等知识产权的使用。相反，两家公司通过抢注“德禄”相关商标、“德禄.com”域名，将自有品牌宣传为德禄旗下高端定制品牌等方式在全国范围内大规模开设经销门店，大批量承接工程项目等大宗业务。德禄两合公司多次发函要求德禄南通公司和德禄上海公司停止侵权均未果，故诉至法院，请求判令两家被告公司等停止商标侵权及不正当竞争行为，并赔偿经济损失5000万元。一审法院判决被告公司停止商标及不正当竞争行为，并赔偿经济损失5000万元。被告不服该判决，上诉至江苏省高级人民法院。
江苏省高级人民法院认为，两被告公司 “德禄”字号和“德禄”“raumplus”商标的使用权利系基于合资关系的存续并经德禄两合公司专门授权所取得。在合资关系结束后，德禄上海公司、德禄南通公司理应停止使用德国公司的相应知识产权，但两公司未经德国公司许可，大量使用相关商标，生产、销售与涉案注册商标核定使用商品相同的定制家具，侵犯了德禄两合公司的商标专用权；继续使用“德禄”企业字号，造成市场混淆与误认，严重损害了德禄品牌正常的市场竞争利益，并将自有品牌宣传为德禄旗下高端定制品牌，大规模开设经销门店，大批量承接工程项目，构成不正当竞争行为，应予禁止。最终法院判决驳回上诉，维持原判。
资料来源：新华网 2022-11-02
新闻链接：http://js.news.cn/2022-11/07/c_1129108978.htm
The Supreme People’s Court Sets Criteria for Determining Ownership of Ex-Employee’s Invention
Date: 2022-12-05
In a dispute relating to patent ownership, the Supreme People’s Court confirmed that if an invention, made within one year of an employee leaving his employment, is related to his previous employment duties in terms of technical fields, technical subjects and technical ideas, it will constitute a service invention pursuant to Article 12 (1)(3) of the Rules for the Implementation of the Patent Law and, therefore, belong to the former employer, even if it does not fall within the scope of his employment in terms of specific technical problems, solutions, means or effects.
The Defendant, Bai Jubing, worked at MCC Southern Continuous Casting Technology Engineering Co., Ltd (‘MCC Southern Company’) from 2008 to April 2019. He was engaged in work such as process and software technology development. After leaving MCC Southern Company, he established Beijing Shuyu Technology Development Co. (‘Shuyu Company’) on 18 April 2019, holding 90% of the shares. Subsequently, Shuyu Company applied for the invention patent No. 201910721305.4, naming Bai Jubing as the inventor. MCC Southern Company filed a lawsuit claiming a right to the patent application, and seeking damages from Shuyu Company and Bai Jubing.
The Supreme People’s Court held that, as the main developer and department head at MCC Southern Company, Bai Jubing had, during his tenure, participated in research and development work relating to several projects. The invention concerned related to his work tasks with MCC Southern Company in terms of technical fields, technical subjects and technical ideas, and the technical solutions were also similar. Accordingly, the invention was related to his MCC Southern Company work. Further, the patent application in question, along with three other patent applications that relate to the invention was filed on 6 August, less than four months after Shuyu Company was established. The Supreme People’s Court held that Bai Jubing could not reasonably have completed all four inventions in that time frame, using only the resources of Shuyu Company.
The Court held that the invention involved was made within one year of termination of the employment relationship between Bai Jubing and MCC Southern Company, and was related to Bai Jubing’s duty or other tasks distributed to him during his work with MCC Southern Company. It should, therefore, be recognized as a service invention, and the patent application right belongs to the MCC Southern Company.
Source: IPHOUSE 2022-12-05
News Link: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/LY07HBIOzAVE9Z7VVXJejw
最高法院确认离职员工职务发明创造专利权利归属的判断标准
日期：2022-12-05
最高人民法院对中冶南方连铸技术工程有限责任公司与北京数钰科技发展有限公司、白居冰专利申请权权属纠纷案作出二审判决，确认员工离开原单位一年内作出的发明创造与原单位本职工作或者工作任务，在具体技术问题、技术方案、技术手段、技术效果上存在差异，但在技术领域、技术主题、技术思路等方面具有关联的，应当认定构成《中华人民共和国专利法实施细则》第十二条第一款第三项所称“与其在原单位承担的本职工作或者原单位分配的任务有关的发明创造”，因此构成职务发明创造。
白居冰在2008年至2019年4月期间在中治南方公司工作，从事工艺、软件技术开发等工作。离职后白居冰于2019年4月18日成立数钰公司，持股比例90%。随后数钰公司申请第201910721305.4号“连铸粘贴漏钢多级风险控制方法及控制装置”的发明专利，发明人为白居冰。中治南方公司就该发明专利的申请权提起诉讼，要求法院判令涉案专利申请权归中治南方公司所有，并主张数钰公司、白居冰承担损害赔偿。
最高法认为，作为主要研制人员、部门负责人，白居冰在中治南方公司任职期间参与了多个项目的研发工作。涉案发明创造与白居冰在中治南方公司的工作任务及所涉成果，在技术领域、技术主题和技术思路等方面均有关联，技术方案亦具有相似性，因此应认定白居冰在中治南方公司工作期间的工作内容与涉案发明创造具有关联性。同时，数钰公司成立于2019年4月18日，而涉案专利申请日为同年8月6日，同时还存在另外三个与本案相关联的发明创造专利申请，最高法认为白居冰在4个月内执行数钰公司工作任务并利用数钰公司物质技术条件，既作出四项发明创造，又完成四份专利申请不符合常理。因此，最高法认为，涉案发明创造属于白居冰与中治南方公司终止劳动关系后一年内作出的，与白居冰在中治南方工作期间承担的本职工作或工作任务有关的发明创造，应当依法认定为中治南方公司的职务发明，涉案专利的申请权归属于中治南方公司。
资料来源：知产宝 2022-12-05
新闻链接：https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/LY07HBIOzAVE9Z7VVXJejw
Defendant Fined More Than 4.2 Million Yuan (approx. US$ 620,000) for Selling Goods Bearing Counterfeit Trademark
Date: 2022-12-13
From September 2019 to December 2021, the Defendant Wu Moumou purchased ‘Alpenliebe candies’ at a low price and sold them in two stores on the 1688 platform, knowing that the candies were counterfeit. The total income derived from the sales was more than 4.2 million yuan (approx. US$ 620,000). At first instance, the Shanghai Putuo District People’s Court sentenced Wu Moumou to five years’ imprisonment and imposed a fine of 2.2 million yuan (approx. US$ 320,000) for the crime of selling product bearing counterfeit registered trademarks. Wu Moumou appealed to the Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court.
On appeal, the Defendant Wu Moumou proposed that the amount attributable to click farming (i.e. where low paid workers are hired to click on links), more than 1.3 million yuan (approx. US$ 192,000), should be deducted from the income amount determined by the first instance Court. The Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court found that the original prosecuting authority, the Shanghai Putuo District People’s Procuratorate, had deducted more than 540,000 yuan for click farming, when it initiated public prosecution. The Defendant Wu Moumou failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that amount was not appropriate.
The Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court dismissed the appeal, and upheld the original judgment.
Source: The High People’s Court of Shanghai Municipality 2022-12-13
销售假冒“阿尔卑斯Alpenliebe”糖果逾420万元被判刑，二审维持原判
日期：2022-12-13
2019年9月至2021年12月，被告人吴某某在未获得授权的情况下，在明知是假冒“阿尔卑斯Alpenliebe”注册商标糖果的情况下，仍低价购入后在1688平台的两家店铺予以出售，涉案金额共计420余万元。上海市普陀区人民法院经审理，以销售假冒注册商标的商品罪判处吴某某有期徒刑五年，并处罚金220万元。一审判决后，吴某某不服，向上海三中院提出上诉。
二审期间，被告人吴某某提出应当在原判认定金额上再扣除刷单金额130万余元。经查，原公诉机关上海市普陀区人民检察院提起公诉时已扣除相关刷单金额54万余元，被告对其主张的130万余元刷单金额未提供足够证据予以印证，不能成立。最终上海三中院驳回上诉，维持原判。
资料来源：上海市高级人民法院 2022-12-13
