不正当竞争纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
本期双语案例推送北京极科极客科技有限公司与北京爱奇艺科技有限公司不正当竞争纠纷上诉案等有关不正当竞争纠纷类案例。
目录
Contents
1.北京极科极客科技有限公司与北京爱奇艺科技有限公司不正当竞争纠纷上诉案 Beijing Geek-Geek Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing IQIYI Technology Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over unfair competition) 2.广州立白企业集团有限公司与高锵益等擅自使用知名商品特有名称、装潢纠纷案 Guangzhou Liby Group Co., Ltd. v. Gao Qiangyi, et al. (case regarding dispute over unauthorized use of the unique name and decoration of a well-known commodity) 3.为你读诗（北京）科技有限公司与尚客圈（北京）文化传播有限公司不正当竞争纠纷上诉案 Weinidushi (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shangkequan (Beijing) Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. (appeal case regarding dispute over unfair competition)
一、北京极科极客科技有限公司与北京爱奇艺科技有限公司不正当竞争纠纷上诉案
【裁判要旨】
判断经营者之间是否存在“竞争关系”应着眼于行为，判断其行为是否具有竞争性。硬件厂商和软件厂商都可以从事软件经营和网络服务行为，主营业务或所处行业不同的经营者，随时可能因业务拓展而产生竞争关系，因此对技术的使用不能突破法律限制。非因公益必要，经营者一般不得直接干预他人的经营行为。使用“屏蔽视频广告”插件看似符合消费者眼前利益，会导致视频网站经营者“免费+广告”的商业模式难以为继，构成不正当竞争。
[Judgment Abstract]
A judgment on “competition” between business operators should be based on the existence of competitive behaviors. In spite of differences in main businesses or industries, hardware manufacturers or software manufacturers may all engage in the businesses of software and website services, they can thus have competitions whenever their business operations are expanded. Accordingly, the use of technologies should not overstep the legal limitations. A business operator should not directly hinder others' operating activities unless it's necessary for the public good. In the case where the use of a plug-in, seemingly in favor of the short-term interests of customers, will eventually bury the business mode of “free of charge plus advertising” of the video website operators, such conduct should constitute unfair competition.
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.6253211
[CLI Code] CLI.C.6253211(EN)
二、广州立白企业集团有限公司与高锵益等擅自使用知名商品特有名称、装潢纠纷案
Guangzhou Liby Group Co., Ltd. v. Gao Qiangyi, et al. (case regarding dispute over unauthorized use of the unique name and decoration of a well-known commodity)
【裁判摘要】
《反不正当竞争法》第五条规定，擅自使用知名商品特有的名称、包装、装潢，或者使用与知名商品近似的名称、包装、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，为不正当竞争行为。因此，侵犯他人商品的特有装潢的行为只有在被侵犯对象为知名商品且产生混淆后果的情况下才构成不正当竞争行为。法院在认定是否为特有装潢时，应当审查被侵犯商品的装潢的文字、图案、色彩及其组合是否具有独特的美感，即设计是否具有显著的独创性和区别性，是相关公众识别商品来源的重要依据。只有符合上述特征的，才能认定为特有装潢。
[Judgment Abstract]
In accordance with Article 5 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the acts of using the unique name, packaging, or decoration of a well-known commodity without permission, or using any name, packaging, or decoration similar to that of a well-known commodity, causing confusion with another's commodity so that purchasers would mistake its commodity for the well-known commodity are deemed as acts of unfair competition. Therefore, only when the infringed object is a well-known commodity and confusion has been made for the infringement of the special decoration, is unfair competition constituted. To determine the special decoration, a people's court should review whether the writing, design, color, and their combination attached to the packaging of a commodity is uniquely aesthetic, that is, whether the design is so ingenious and distinctive to be an important basis for public to identify the commodity. The special decoration can be determined only upon the satisfaction of the above-mentioned conditions.
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.3392430
[CLI Code] CLI.C.3392430(EN)
三、为你读诗（北京）科技有限公司与尚客圈（北京）文化传播有限公司不正当竞争纠纷上诉案
Weinidushi (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shangkequan (Beijing) Cultural Communication Co., Ltd. (appeal case regarding dispute over unfair competition)
【裁判要旨】
app与微信公众号均为移动互联网平台，其经营、提供的服务均为同类型的产品，二者在服务的内容、功能、平台、受众方面具有一致性，构成本服务领域内的竞争关系。同时，对竞争对手的营业活动、服务进行了虚假陈述而损害其商誉是认定是否构成商业诋毁的标准。经营者对于他人的服务或者其他经营活动如果有正当目的，不能误导公众和损人商誉，客观、真实、公允和中立的评论或者批评是法律允许的。
[Judgment Abstract]
Whereas both apps and WeChat Official Accounts are mobile Internet platforms operating and providing the same kind of services as products with consistency in content, function, platform and audience, they should thus constitute a competitive relationship in the same range of services. Besides, the criterion for the constitution of commercial defamation is to determine whether or not an operator's misrepresentation of any information about the operations and services of its competitors is sufficient to damage their goodwill. An operator may make any comments or criticism regarding another person's services or other business activities for legitimate purposes, such comments or criticism should be objective, authentic, evenhanded and neutral, as permitted by the law, without misleading the public and harming the goodwill of others.
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.8334776
[CLI Code] CLI.C.8334776(EN)
北京北大英华
科技有限公司
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
-END-
涉港澳台案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
证券纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
银行卡纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
最高人民法院公报案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
最高人民法院公报案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
无因管理类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
质押合同类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
知识产权类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
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