涉垄断类案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
目录
Contents 1.北京锐邦涌和科贸有限公司诉强生(上海)医疗器材有限公司、强生(中国)医疗器材有限公司纵向垄断协议纠纷案
Beijing Ruibang Yonghe Technology & Trade Co., Ltd. v. Johnson & Johnson Medical (Shanghai) Ltd. and Johnson & Johnson Medical (China) Ltd. (dispute over vertical monopoly agreement)
2. 上海华美医疗美容医院有限公司与成都华美牙科连锁管理股份有限公司侵害商标权纠纷上诉案
Shanghai Huamei Medical & Beauty Hospital Co., Ltd. v. Chengdu Huamei Dental Chain Management Co., Ltd. (appeal of case regarding dispute over infringement of trademark rights)
3. 唐山人人信息服务有限公司与北京百度网讯科技有限公司滥用市场支配地位纠纷上诉案
Tangshan Renren Information Service Co., Ltd. v. Beijing BIDU Network Technology Co., Ltd. (appeal of case regarding dispute over abuse of market dominance)
4. 烟台华夏长盛葡萄酿酒有限公司诉中粮公司有限公司侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案
Yantai Huaxia Changsheng Grape Wine Co., Ltd. v. COFCO Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition)
一、北京锐邦涌和科贸有限公司诉强生(上海)医疗器材有限公司、强生(中国)医疗器材有限公司纵向垄断协议纠纷案
Beijing Ruibang Yonghe Technology & Trade Co., Ltd. v. Johnson & Johnson Medical (Shanghai) Ltd. and Johnson & Johnson Medical (China) Ltd. (dispute over vertical monopoly agreement)
【裁判要旨】
《中华人民共和国反垄断法》第十四条规定：“禁止经营者与交易相对人达成下列垄断协议：（一）固定向第三人转售商品的价格；（二）限定向第三人转售商品的最低价格；（三）国务院反垄断执法机构认定的其他垄断协议。”而经营者实施垄断行为，给他人造成损失的，应依法承担民事责任。经销合同纠纷中，经营者向交易相对人限定商品最低转售价格的，对其行为性质的判断，应当从相关市场竞争是否充分、经营者市场地位是否强大、经营者实施限制最低转售价格的动机、限制最低转售价格的竞争效果等四方面情况来考量。如果经营者的限制最低转售价格条款在相关市场产生了排除、限制竞争的效果，同时并不存在明显、足够的促进竞争的效果，则构成《反垄断法》第十四条所规定垄断协议。
[Judgment Abstract]
Under Article 14 of the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China, business operators are prohibited from reaching any of the following monopoly agreements with their trading counterparties: (1) fixing the price of products for resale to a third party; (2) restricting the minimum price of products for resale to a third party; and (3) other monopoly agreements as determined by the Anti-monopoly Law Enforcement Agency under the State Council. Moreover, a business operator who has implemented monopolistic conduct and thus caused losses to others shall assume civil liability. In a dispute over a sales contract, where the business operator limits the minimum resale price of its trading counterparty, the nature of the business operator's conduct can be judged by way of, inter alia, the following four considerations: the robustness of relevant market competition, the strength of the market position of the business operator, the motivation of the business operator for exercising the minimum resale price, and the competitive effect of limiting the minimum resale price. If the minimum resale price limitation clause provided by the business operator causes the effect of eliminating or restricting competition and concurrently does not have the effect of clearly and sufficiently promoting competition, then it is a monopoly agreement as provided for by Article 14 of the Anti-Monopoly Law.
来源：《最高人民法院公报》 2014年第2期(总第208期)
Source Note：SPC Gazette, Issue 2, 2014
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.2134356
[CLI Code] CLI.C. 2134356(EN)
二、上海华美医疗美容医院有限公司与成都华美牙科连锁管理股份有限公司侵害商标权纠纷上诉案
Shanghai Huamei Medical & Beauty Hospital Co., Ltd. v. Chengdu Huamei Dental Chain Management Co., Ltd. (appeal of case regarding dispute over infringement of trademark rights)
【裁判要旨】
企业字号的突出使用行为存在与合法注册商标所核定使用的商品或服务相同或类似，容易导致相关公众产生混淆或误认，造成对合法注册商标识别功能的损害的，应当承担赔偿损失、消除影响等商标侵权责任。但企业字号的合理使用行为，未造成市场混淆的不应认定为商标侵权。
[Judgment Abstract]
Where a firm name used by an enterprise is identical or similar to a legally registered trademark approved for commodities or services, resulting in confusion or misunderstanding on behalf of the relevant public and imperiling the recognition function of the legally registered trademark, the enterprise should compensate for the losses, eliminate the impact and assume the tort liability. However, if market confusion does not arise as a result, any reasonable use of an enterprise name should not be deemed as a trademark infringement.
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.73346858
[CLI Code] CLI.C. 73346858(EN)
三、唐山人人信息服务有限公司与北京百度网讯科技有限公司滥用市场支配地位纠纷上诉案
Tangshan Renren Information Service Co., Ltd. v. Beijing BIDU Network Technology Co., Ltd. (appeal of case regarding dispute over abuse of market dominance)
【裁判要旨】
根据《反垄断法》第十七条的规定，滥用市场支配地位的构成要件为：（1）经营者具有市场支配地位。所称市场支配地位，是指经营者在相关市场内具有能够控制商品价格、数量或者其他交易条件，或者能够阻碍、影响其他经营者进入相关市场能力的市场地位。（2）所实施行为属于《反垄断》第十七条明确规定的行为。搜索引擎公司以他人存在“垃圾外链”为由，减少其收录数量的，该行为不属于《反垄断法》第十七条所禁止的行为。此外，这种行为属于反作弊机制，是为了使搜索结果更为真实和可靠，从而保证广大搜索引擎用户的利益，故具有正当性。因此，搜索引擎公司以他人存在“垃圾外链”为由，减少其收录数量的，该行为不构成滥用市场支配地位。
[Judgment Abstract]
According to the provisions of Article 17 of the Anti-Monopoly Law, the elements of abuse of market dominance are as follows: First, an operator has market dominance. Market dominance means that an operator has a position in the relevant market where it can control the price, quantity, or other trading conditions of goods, or can hinder or affect other operators entering the relevant market. Second, the acts carried out are those stipulated in the provisions of Article 17 of the Anti-Monopoly Law. However, a search engine company reducing the collection number of others on the grounds of their junk chains does not belong to the acts prohibited by Article 17 of the Anti-Monopoly Law. Additionally, it is legitimate because it belongs to the anti-cheating mechanism, to make the search results more real and reliable, and thus to ensure the interests of most search engine users. Therefore, a search engine company reducing the collection number of others on the grounds of their junk chains does not constitute an abuse of market dominance.
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.855789
[CLI Code] CLI.C. 855789(EN)
四、烟台华夏长盛葡萄酿酒有限公司诉中粮公司有限公司侵害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案
Yantai Huaxia Changsheng Grape Wine Co., Ltd. v. COFCO Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over infringement of trademark rights and unfair competition)
【案例要旨】
根据商标法规定，未经商标注册权人许可，在同一种商品上使用与注册商标近似的商标，容易造成相关公众混淆的，构成侵犯注册商标专用权。注册商标经广泛宣传已具备较高知名度，争议商标与注册商标差异性较小的，两者构成近似商标。行为人擅自使用争议商标，使相关公众产生混淆的，侵犯了注册商标权人的注册商标专用权。
[Judgment Abstract]
In accordance with the provisions of the Trademark Law, use of a trademark similar to a registered trademark on the same kind of goods without the permission of the trademark owner, which may easily confuse the relevant public, constitutes an infringement of the exclusive right of the registered trademark. Based on the fact that a registered trademark has high popularity after extensive publicity, if there are small differences between a trademark at dispute and the registered trademark, the two constitute approximately similar trademarks. Thus, if an individual uses a trademark at dispute without authorization, causing confusion to the relevant public, it infringes on the exclusive right of the registered trademark of the registered trademark owner.
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.10883853
[CLI Code] CLI.C.10883853(EN)
-END-
点击相应图片识别二维码
获取更多信息
北大法宝
北大法律信息网
法宝学堂
法宝智能