商业秘密类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例

目录

Contents

1.阿迪达斯体育(中国)有限公司与广东美佳乐购物广场有限公司侵犯知名商品特有装潢权及商标专用权纠纷案

Adidas Sports (China) Co., Ltd. v. Guangdong Megalo Shopping Plaza Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over infringement of unique decoration right and exclusive trademark right of well-known commodities)

2. 北京百度网讯科技有限公司与上海汉涛信息咨询有限公司不正当竞争纠纷上诉案

Beijing Baidu Netcom Science and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Hantao Information Consulting Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over unfair competition)

3. 众诚汽车保险股份有限公司佛山中心支公司与李红烈责任保险合同纠纷案

Foshan Center Branch of Urtrust Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Li Honglie (case of dispute over a liability insurance contract)

一、阿迪达斯体育(中国)有限公司与广东美佳乐购物广场有限公司侵犯知名商品特有装潢权及商标专用权纠纷案

Adidas Sports (China) Co., Ltd. v. Guangdong Megalo Shopping Plaza Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over infringement of unique decoration right and exclusive trademark right of well-known commodities)

【裁判要旨】

《反不正当竞争法》规定，擅自使用知名商品特有的或近似的装潢，造成和他人的知名商品相混淆，使购买者误认为是该知名商品的，属于不正当竞争行为。此外，《最高人民法院关于审理不正当竞争民事案件应用法律若干问题的解释》第三条规定，由经营者营业场所的装饰、营业用具的式样、营业人员的服饰等构成的具有独特风格的整体营业形象，可以认定为反不正当竞争法规定的“装演”。第四条规定，足以使相关公众对商品的来源产生误认，包括误认为与知名商品的经营者具有许可使用、关联企业关系等特定联系的，应当认定为反不正当竞争法规定的“造成和他人的知名商品相混淆，使购买者误认为是该知名商品的情形”。因此，经营者未经他人许可，擅自使用了知名产品具有独特风格的专卖店整体营业形象，属于不正当竞争行为。

[Judgment Abstract] 

According to the provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, unauthorized use of the unique or similar decoration of well-known products which results in confusion with others' well-known products, making consumers mistakenly believe that they are such well-known products constitutes unfair competition. Additionally, under the provisions of Article 3 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Some Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases involving Unfair Competition, the decoration of the business place, the pattern of business tools, or the clothes of business staff of a business operator, and so on, all constitute an overall business image with a unique style, which may be affirmed as the “decoration” prescribed in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. In terms of Article 4, where it is sufficient to mislead the relevant public as to the source of commodities, including the misunderstanding of a specific relationship such as licensed use or affiliation with the business operator of well-known products, it shall be affirmed as “causing confusion with the well-known products of someone else, and causing purchasers to mistake such products as well-known products” prescribed in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Therefore, an operator using the overall business image of a store with a unique style of well-known products without the permission of others constitutes unfair competition.

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.3392477

[CLI Code] CLI.C.3392477(EN)

二、北京百度网讯科技有限公司与上海汉涛信息咨询有限公司不正当竞争纠纷上诉案

Beijing Baidu Netcom Science and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Hantao Information Consulting Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over unfair competition)

【裁判要旨】

经营者在市场交易中，违反诚信原则和公认的商业道德，损害其他经营者的合法权益，扰乱社会经济秩序的行为属于不正当竞争。在司法实践中，判断某一行为是否构成不正当竞争，关键在于以下两点：一是其他经营者的合法权益是否因该竞争行为而受到了实际损害；二是该种竞争行为是否属于违反诚实信用原则和公认的商业道德而具有不正当性或者说可责性。经营者通过技术手段从他人经营的网站上获取信息并大量使用于自己经营的网站之上的行为，实质上是替代其他经营者向用户提供信息的行为，其不仅给其他经营者造成损害，还违反了诚信原则和公认的商业道德。因此，经营者的上述行为构成不正当竞争。

[Judgment Abstract]

In market transactions, unfair competition refers to an act of, in violation of the principle of good faith and generally accepted business ethics, damaging the legitimate rights and interests of other operators and disrupting the social and economic order. In judicial practice, the determination of unfair competition should be made by looking at two aspects: on one hand, whether a competitive act has actually damaged the legitimate rights and interests of other operators; and on the other hand, whether it is illegitimate or accountable as a result of breaking the principle of good faith and generally accepted business ethics. The massive use of the information acquired by a person from a website of another person through technical means on their own website is, by nature, an act of providing information to users in lieu of other operators. This act not only causes damage to other operators, but also violates the principle of good faith and generally accepted business ethics. Therefore, any behavior as mentioned above constitutes unfair competition.

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.9814813

[CLI Code] CLI.C.9814813(EN)

三、众诚汽车保险股份有限公司佛山中心支公司与李红烈责任保险合同纠纷案

Foshan Center Branch of Urtrust Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Li Honglie (case of dispute over a liability insurance contract)

【裁判要旨】

肇事逃逸是法律、行政法规明确禁止的行为，但该违法事项并非法定免责事项，保险人将该等违法事项作为保险条款中的免责事由的，仍负有以适当方式对投保人进行提示和说明义务，提醒投保人注意违反该禁止性规定与保险人免责之间存在关联性，否则该免责条款不发生效力，保险人仍应承担保险责任。

[Judgment Abstract]

Hit-and-run is an act explicitly prohibited by laws and administrative provisions, but it is not a legally prescribed ground for exemption of liability. Where such an unlawful act is treated as a ground for exemption of liability in insurance clauses, an insurer should be still obliged to appropriately caution and make explanations to insurance applicants to enable them to be aware of the correlation between such violations and the exemptions of the insurer's liability; otherwise, the exemption clauses have no effect, and the insurer should still undertake the insurance liability as a result.

【法宝引证码】CLI.C.16533541

[CLI Code] CLI.C.16533541(EN)

更多详情请关注我们的海外社交平台，有更多的双语资讯内容等着您哦！（PS：Facebook和Twitter需要连vpn）

LinkedIn

北京北大英华

科技有限公司

LinkedIn

PKULaw

Chinalawinfo

Facebook

PKULaw

Chinalawinfo

Twitter

PKULaw

Chinalawinfo

-END-

责任编辑 | 吴珊稿件来源 | 北大法宝英文编辑组（Mani）审核人员 | 张文硕▼往期精彩回顾▼百万法律人都在用的北大法宝详细介绍！票据类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
涉港澳台案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例证券案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
涉外商事案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
物权案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例最高院公报案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
涉垄断类案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
商事合同案件汇编
涉外案件争议类案件汇编
涉外案件争议类案件汇编
知识产权类案件汇编
期货类案件汇编证券类案件汇编
金融案件汇编保险合同类型案件汇编知识产权侵权类型案件汇编
侵害商标权类型案件汇编
知识产权类型案件汇编

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

点击「在看」，就是鼓励