新华社的一篇报道让人惊呆了

2022我在大厂负责裁员

更多地从政治和法律角度看疫情管控

突发!中美正式摊牌?国内突然宣布,将大规模调整经济布局!

“老公隔离,我约男同事”南京女幼师6分钟“桃色视频”误传业主群,小区沸腾了!

生成图片,分享到微信朋友圈

自由微信安卓APP发布,立即下载! | 提交文章网址
查看原文

Christian Louboutin loses Red Sole TM case; Ericsson sues Apple

China IP 国际部 CIPToday 2022-05-06

编辑制作:China IP 国际部

录音:孙逸涵


OVERVIEW

一周概览

Focus

1. JPO Status Report 2021 released

日本专利局发布2021年度工作报告

2. World Intellectual Property Report issued by WIPO

世界知识产权组织发布《世界知识产权报告》


IP Practice

3. “Maserati”gained additional protection as well-known trademark

天津市知识产权法庭调解解决“玛莎拉蒂眼镜案”

4. IBM patent lawsuit against pet food retailer Chewy was rejected

IBM诉宠物食品零售商Chewy专利侵权一案被驳回

5. Costs to be paid to Google is ordered to be assessed in patent infringement case

合理支出正在评估——谷歌成功脱身专利侵权案

6. Christian Louboutin loses Red Sole trademark case in Japan

路铂廷“红底鞋”败诉日本

7. Synopsys probed on accusation of having given tech to Huawei, SMIC

新思科技因涉嫌向华为、中芯国际提供芯片技术而遭美商务部调查

8. Dutch shipbuilder Royal IHC wins trade secret case against ex-employee

全国首例以合理许可费确定损失数额案件宣判——荷兰IHC中国前员工侵犯商业秘密获刑

9. Ericsson sues to urge Apple clear proposed 5G patent licensing rate

5美元太贵?爱立信要求苹果就5G标准必要专利(SEP)费率明确表态

10. Fiat Chrysler “first sale” defense is revived in Bluetooth trademark case

适用“首次销售”原则,菲亚特克莱斯勒使用“蓝牙”商标不侵权


Case Analysis

11. International Financial Asset Exchange Co., Ltd. & Shanghai Lujinsuo Internet Financial Information Service Co., Ltd. v. Xi'an Luzhitou Software Technology Co., Ltd.

反不正当竞争典型案例:陆金所金融服务平台不正当竞争纠纷案


Focus


1

JPO Status Report 2021 released

日本专利局发布2021年度工作报告


On March 30, Japan Patent Office (JPO) released Status Report 2021, which shows in 2021,  289,200 patent applications have been filed in Japan, including 72,782 international patent applications under the PCT, with an increase compared to 2020, among which 238,557 patent examination requests were received by JPO, with 184,372 eventually granted, both data of examined patents and the actual granted ones also climbed compared to 2020. Except from domestic Japan (222,452 applications in 2021), Japanese patent applications have originated from various countries and regions, the U.S (24,999 applications), China (9,369 applications), Germany (5,965 applications), South Korea (5,936 applications) ranked the top four.The top three domestic patent holders are Mitsubishi, Toyota and Canon, while the top three foreign patent holders are LG Chem, Huawei and Philips. Additionally, the improvement of patent examination quality with shrunk of the cost time, the various measures taken to support diversified intellectual property activities held by multifarious bodies are also mentioned and described in the report.


3月30日,日本专利局发布2021年度工作报告,回顾了2021年一年的工作情况。内容涉及日本及全球知识产权动向、2021年日本专利局的施策成果。2021年,日本专利申请量289,200件,其中PCT国际专利申请72,782件。与2020年相比,专利申请总量和国际专利申请量均有所增加。JPO共受理专利审查请求238,557件,其中184,372件通过审查获得专利授权,审查量与授权量较2020年均有所增加。

日本专利申请人来源国家/地区中,除日本(222,452件专利申请)之外,美国(24,999件专利申请)、中国(9,369件专利申请)、德国(5,965件专利申请)、韩国(5,936件专利申请)位列前四。日本国内企业专利权人排名前三分别是三菱、丰田及佳能;而国外企业专利权人前三分别是LG化学、华为以及飞利浦。

除了以上数据的列举外,报告还提及2021年日本实现了在专利审查质量上升的同时审查周期的进一步缩短,并对2021年度日本专利局对各种主体举办的各式知识产权活动采取的多种支持措施做了概括性总结。

2

World Intellectual Property Report issued by WIPO

世界知识产权组织发布《世界知识产权报告》



On April 7, WIPO released WorldIntellectual Property Report, reviewing the characteristics of thedevelopment of science and technology innovation during the period from the lastcentury to present days and providing guidance to innovation development and protection under the background of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The report has examined the rate of patent applications filed over the last century, in which innovations were primarily driven by the transportation sector prior to 1925 (with an annual growth rate of about 21% , representing 28% of all applications in 1925), while from 1926 to 1960, the medical sector became an important boost (with an annual growth rate of about 5%, representing 7% of all applications in 1960). And from1961 to 2000, the sector of computer and related innovations (ICTs) were the main drivers (with an annual growth rate of about 8%, representing 24% of all applications in 2000).

Currently in the 21st century, digitalization is the new big innovation revolution, as digitalinnovation quadrupled in the 20 years up to 2020, when it represented12% of all patent applications, with a 13% annual growth rate. Moreover, new technologies can be leveraged to achieve economic development at a large scale. By 2020, Japan-based innovators held 25% of the world's ICT-relatedpatents, followed by Republic of Korea with 18% and China, at 14%.

In addition, since the oil price shock in 1973, global innovation inlow-carbon emission technologies has growing by 6% annually until 2012, but green innovation has stagnated since then.

 

4月7日,世界知识产权组织发布了世界知识产权报告,回顾了上个世纪至今的科学技术创新发展的特点,并对COVID-19疫情背景下创新活动的开展、保护指引了方向。报告研究了上世纪的专利申请率,其中1925年之前科技创新主要是交通领域驱动(在此期间年增长率约为21%,1925年占所有专利的28%),而1926年至1960年,医学领域又成为了重要的驱动力量(此期间年增长率约为5%,1960年占所有专利的7%),1961年至2000年则以信息通信技术领域作为主要驱动(此期间年增长率约为8%,2000年占所有专利的24%)。目前,即21世纪,数字化创新在创新生活中影响巨大,其在截至2020年的20年内20 年内翻了两番,年增长率为13%,2020 年占所有专利申请的12%。其中,新技术得到大规模利用,以实现经济发展。到2020 年,在世界信息通信技术相关专利的拥有情况上,日本以25%的占比排名第一,其次是韩国和中国,分别占比18%和14%。另外自1973 年石油价格冲击以来,全球低碳排放技术的创新每年增长6%,持续到2012 年,但此后绿色创新停滞不前。



IP Practice


3

“Maserati”gained additional protection as well-known trademark

天津市知识产权法庭调解解决“玛莎拉蒂眼镜案”



Recently, Tianjin Intellectual Property Court solved a case involving trademark infringement and unfair competition by mediation, in which the famous automobile company Maserati China Cars Trading Co., Ltd. sued an optical business operation of Tianjin. According to the filings of the case, the defendant of the case has used Maserati’s brand name “MASERATI S.P.A, the Chinese subsidiary’s name and registered trademarks “玛莎拉蒂”“MASERATI” “”  on its eyeglasses manufactured or for sale, as well as on its promoting stuffs such as product manuals or leaflets. The defendant of the case has registered trademarks similar to the disputed trademarks in the category of “eyeglasses and other related trademarks”.As the case was settled, the plaintiff’s well-known trademarks have successfully gained additional protection beyond class.

 

日前,天津市知识产权法庭通过调解解决了一起商标侵权及不正当竞争侵权案。案中,豪车品牌“玛莎拉蒂”控诉天津某眼镜经营部在其生产销售的眼镜及相关产品手册、宣传单中使用原告玛莎拉蒂股份公司(MASAERATI S.P.A.)、玛莎拉蒂(中国)汽车贸易有限公司的字号及注册商标“玛莎拉蒂”“MASERATI”及“”。双方的商标侵权纠纷已持续十余年,因被告在眼镜等相关商标类别上注册了与上述商标相近似的商标,而本案的成功解决实现了对原告知名字号及知名商标的跨类保护。

4

IBM patent lawsuit against pet food retailer Chewy was rejected

IBM诉宠物食品零售商Chewy专利侵权一案被驳回



On April 12, according to an order made public in Manhattan federal, District Judge Jed Rakoff  has thrown out a lawsuit from International Business Machines Corp (IBM) claiming online pet food retailer Chewy Inc's website and mobile app violated several IBM patents covering improvements to website functionality and targeted advertising, from which IBM would seek at least $83 million in damages.The judge said Chewy's online services do not infringe the patents for Chewy’s technology functions differently than IBM's.The court also found that one of the IBM patents was invalid for it covered an unpatentable abstract idea and another of the five patents in the case had been invalidated in November. Last year, Florida-based Chewy sued IBM to head off a potential lawsuit and accused tech giant IBM, one of the largest patent owners in the world, of seeking "exorbitant licensing fees for early Internet patents having no value.", after it supposedly rejected a $36 million IBM patent licensing offer. Moreover, IBM was said to have similarly sued other internet-based companies including Twitter Inc, Airbnb Inc and Zillow Group Inc, and that most of them had "basically surrendered" before the trial.


4月12日,美国纽约南区联邦地区法院公开的一份裁定显示,地区法官Jed Rakoff驳回了IBM对于佛罗里达州的在线宠物食品零售商Chewy Inc的侵权诉讼。IBM在该案中指控Chewy公司的网站和手机应用程序侵犯了IBM的几项涉及网站功能及定向广告改进的专利,并拟请求被告赔偿损失8300万美元。而法官认为Chewy的线上服务使用的技术与IBM专利有着不同的运行机制,故不构成侵权。同时,法官还裁定IBM的一个专利因涵盖了不具专利性的基础概念而归于无效,去年11月,涉案的五个专利中的其中一个专利也被宣告无效。据称,Chewy在去年疑似拒绝IBM的一份3600万美元专利许可报价后,先发制人地起诉IBM作为世界上最大的专利拥有者之一漫天要价,对没有价值的早期互联网专利收取高昂许可费。另外,据悉,IBM也同样起诉了包括包括Twitter Inc、Airbnb Inc和Zillow Group Inc在内的其他互联网公司,其中大多数公司在审判之前就 "基本上缴械投降了"。

5

Costs to be paid to Google is ordered to be assessed in patent infringement case

合理支出正在评估——谷歌成功脱身专利侵权案


On April 11, the Federal Court of Canada has ordered an assessment of costs in the long-running patent infringement case between Paid Search Engine Tools, LLC and Google Canada Corporation., as Google’s fees should be assessed in accordance with the upper range of the Federal Court’s Column of IV of Tariff B, “and that Google shall be reimbursed for the disbursements that are shown to be reasonable and necessary.”

The court’s public judgement and reasons were handed down by Justice McDonald in January, having dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for infringing a patent, “Paid Search Engine Bid Management,” designed to support advertisers in managing their bids for online advertising space on paid search engines. The disputed patent was eventually found invalid on several grounds including anticipation, obviousness, and insufficiency. Google’s counterclaim was allowed and it claimed costs of nearly $2.6 million in fees and disbursements. However, Paid Search Engine Tools, LLC, submitted that costs should be limited to $507,866, and that Google should not be allowed to recover certain expert witness fees.


4月11日,加拿大联邦法院要求对Paid Search Engine Tools, LLC和谷歌(加拿大)公司之间旷日持久的专利侵权案进行费用评估,称Paid Search Engine Tools作为败诉原告应偿还谷歌被证明为合理、必要的支出。并要求评估费用符合联邦法院的关税B第四栏的上限范围。

今年1月,麦克唐纳法官作出了法院的公开判决和理由,驳回了原告要求被告因侵犯其"付费搜索引擎竞价管理 "专利而进行赔偿请求,该项专利用于支持广告商管理他们在付费搜索引擎上在线广告位的竞价。该争议专利因缺乏新颖性,具有显而易见性且未充分公开而最终被认定无效。谷歌的反诉得到了支持,并要求对方支付近260万美元的费用和支出。然而,Paid Search Engine Tools, LLC提出,费用应限制在507,866美元,且不应当允许谷歌回收特定专家证人的费用。

6

Christian Louboutin loses Red Sole trademark case in Japan

路铂廷“红底鞋”败诉日本




On April 5, Cisco Systems Inc told a U.S.appeals court that a $2.7 billion patent award against it should be thrown out because the presiding judge's wife owned stock in the company. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit seemed receptive to Cisco's argument that U.S. District Judge Henry Morgan should have recused himself from the case, though it did not signal how it would rule. The disputed case was a lawsuit started by Centripetal Networks Inc in 2018, alleging that Cisco has infringed its cyber security patents, and Morgan as the judge of the first instance ordered Cisco to pay Centripetal over $2.7 billion for infringing the patents will fully plus royalties.


4月5日,美国科技巨头思科系统(Cisco Systems, Inc.)就与网络安全公司Centripetal争诉一案向上诉法院辩称,由于案件一审的主审法官的妻子拥有该公司的股票,对它的27亿美元的专利裁决应被撤销。该上诉法院——美国联邦巡回区上诉法院(C.A.F.C)合议庭的三位法官似乎接受了思科的论点,即美国地方法官Henry Morgan本应回避此案,但合议庭没有明确表达此案最终将如何裁决。该争议案件起于2018年,当时Centripetal状告思科侵犯其网络安全专利,而Morgan作为当时的一审法官对此案于2020年作出判决,判令思科支付19亿美元作为故意侵犯专利权的赔偿。思科方表示,加上专利授权许可费,它需向Centripetal支付的赔偿金额共计逾27亿美元。

7

Synopsys probed on accusation of having given tech to Huawei, SMIC

新思科技因涉嫌向华为、中芯国际提供芯片技术而遭美商务部调查

Synopsys Inc., the biggest supplier of software used to design semiconductors, is under investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) for possibly passing key technology to banned Chinese companies, according to people familiar with the matter.It is said that Investigators are looking into allegations that Synopsys, working with affiliates in China, provided chip designs and software to Huawei Technologies Co.’s HiSilicon unit (华为的海思半导体部门) for manufacture at Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp..(SMIC,即中芯国际集成电路制造有限公司)Yet the details of the process haven’t been made public. U.S. companies are barred from selling some types of technology to Huawei and SMIC because they’ve been designated as threats to national security by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security. In December Synopsys disclosed it had received a subpoena from BIS relating to “transactions with certain Chinese entities,” without specifying when it received the request or providing further details. At the time, the company said it was in compliance with all regulations and was working to respond to the inquiry.


据悉,用于半导体设计相关软件的最大软件供应商 Synopsys Inc.(新思科技)正在接受美国商务部的调查,原因是其涉嫌将关键技术转让给被禁止的中国公司华为和中芯国际。知情人士表示,根据对新思科技与中国的关联公司合伙向华为的海思半导体部门提供了芯片设计和软件以便中芯国际进行生产的指控,调查人员正展开调查,而调查细节没有公布。美国公司被禁止向华为和中芯国际出售某些类型的技术,因为商务部工业和安全局认为该类行为会对国家安全构成威胁。12月时,新思科技即透露收到了BIS发出的传票,称其与"与某些中国实体的交易 ”,但没有提供如收到该传票的具体时间等进一步的细节。当时,新思科技回应称其所有经营行为全部合规,并将竭力配合调查。

8

Dutch shipbuilder Royal IHC wins trade secret case against ex-employee

全国首例以合理许可费确定损失数额案件宣判——荷兰IHC中国前员工侵犯商业秘密获刑

China’s No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court of Tianjin Municipality in March ruled in favor of IHC Dredging Technology (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. (艾曲西疏浚技术装备(天津)有限公司), Royal IHC’s Chinese unit, in an action brought by it against its ex-employee Zhao for misappropriating its trade secrets. The defendant was sentenced to 10 months in prison and a criminal fine of 60,000 yuan, an amount the court determined to equal a royalty payment due to the plaintiff if and when the misappropriated confidential information is legally licensed.The methodology underpinning the court’s award of damages in this case has set a precedent for damages assessment in trade secret misappropriation lawsuits in China, which has long been commonplace in many other jurisdictions worldwide.


3月31日,天津三中院就荷兰挖泥船巨头皇家IHC诉前员工赵某不当使用商业秘密一案作出判决,宣告被告赵某侵犯商业秘密罪成立,依法判处十年有期徒刑并处罚金6万元。在该案中,法院是以合理许可使用费计算方式来确定知识产权侵权损害赔偿数额的,并且这也是全国首例以合理许可费确定损失数额的案件。据介绍,这种定损方法在国外的司法实践中已成为普遍做法,但在中国此前的司法实践中尚未普及。

9

Ericsson sues to urge Apple clear proposed 5G patent licensing rate

5美元太贵?爱立信要求苹果就5G标准必要专利(SEP)费率明确表态

On April 6, Swedish telecom giant Ericsson Inc has sued Apple Inc in federal court in Texas seeking a declaration that the rates it offered Apple to license its 5G wireless patents are fair and reasonable. Typically, Ericsson requires licensees to be pay $2.50 to $5 for each 5G device. In the renewal negotiations with Apple, Ericsson asked the price to be $5. But Apple is suspected to deem the price too high and refused to sign a new license contract by sticking to its position that Ericsson's rates aren’t FRAND. Ericsson requests the court to allow Apple to confirm whether Apple will accept the terms of Ericsson's 4G and 5G patent licensing and thus sign the contract if the terms are confirmed to be complied with the "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND)" principles by the court. The case is scheduled to be heard in June 2023.


4月6日,瑞典电信巨头爱立信集团(Ericsson)向美国德克萨斯东区联邦地区法院提交了一个动议,请求法庭确认其向苹果的5G无线专利的许可报价是合理的。通常,爱立信要求授权制造商为每个5G设备向其支付2.5至5美元不等。在与苹果的续约谈判中,爱立信向苹果的要价为5美元。而苹果方疑认为价格过高,以爱立信的专业许可费率不符合FRAND原则为由拒绝签约。爱立信还请求法庭让美国苹果公司确认这一点:即如果法庭将来判爱立信的4G和5G专利的授权使用条件符合“公平、合理、 无歧视(FRAND)”原则,以及苹果是否将接受这些条件,从而完成签约。该案已确定将于2023年6月开庭。

10

Fiat Chrysler “first sale” defense is revived in Bluetooth trademark case

适用“首次销售”原则,菲亚特克莱斯勒使用“蓝牙”商标不侵权



On April 6, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave Fiat Chrysler (FCA US LLC) a new chance to argue that it did not violate a Bluetooth standards organization's trademark rights by using the Bluetooth name without permission and sent the case back to a Seattle federal court after finding a judge wrongly rejected defense arguments. In the case, Bluetooth SIG argued FCA violated its trademark rights by marketing the entertainment platforms in Fiat, Jeep, Chrysler, and other cars as being Bluetooth capable without going through its verification process, however FCA said it bought the systems from companies that had verified them with Bluetooth SIG, and according to the trademark “first sale” doctrine, it shouldn’t be legally liable for infringement.


4月6日,美国联邦第九巡回上诉法院给了菲亚特克莱斯勒汽车公司(Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V.)一个新的机会,来证明该公司未经许可使用“蓝牙”这个名称的行为没有侵犯商标权。该上诉法院判定,美国华盛顿西区联邦地区法院驳回克莱斯勒汽车集团(FCA US LLC)的抗辩理由的裁决是错误的。同时,上诉法院将案件发回该下级法院做进一步审理。蓝牙商标的所有人蓝牙技术联盟在华盛顿西区联邦地区法院起诉FCA侵犯了其蓝牙商标。该组织称,FCA没有进行资格验证而在其旗下多个品牌的汽车上安装了信息娱乐系统,并宣传这些系统具有蓝牙功能,侵犯了其商标权。 其中,涉案汽车品牌包括菲亚特、吉普、克莱斯勒等。而FCA认为其从第三方公司处购买了这些车载信息娱乐系统,且这些第三方公司均已通过蓝牙技术联盟的身份验证,地方法院应该根据美国商标法的“首次销售(first sale)”原则判决此案。



Case Analysis


11

International Financial Asset Exchange Co., Ltd. & Shanghai Lujinsuo Internet Financial Information Service Co., Ltd. v. Xi'an Luzhitou Software Technology Co., Ltd.

反不正当竞争典型案例:陆金所金融服务平台不正当竞争纠纷案


Lower Court Docket No.: 11133, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2019) Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court (沪0115)


SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

When an internet rushing buy service uses technical means to provide users of the target platform with an unfair rushing buy advantage, which destroys the established rushing buy rules of the target platform and deliberately bypasses its regulatory measures, causing serious damage to the user stickiness and business environment of the target platform, it shall be deemed to have constituted unfair competition.


裁判要旨

当网络抢购服务利用技术手段,为目标平台的用户提供不正当抢购优势,破坏目标平台既有的抢购规则并刻意绕过其监管措施,对目标平台的用户粘性和营商环境造成严重破坏的,应认定构成不正当竞争。


Plaintiff-Appellant: Shanghai Lujiazui International Financial Asset Exchange Co., Ltd. ("LUFAX") and Shanghai Lujinsuo Internet Financial Information Service Co., Ltd. ("LUp2p.com").

Defendant-Appellant: Xi'an Luzhitou Software Technology Co.,Ltd. (“Luzhitou”)


原告:上海陆家嘴国际金融资产交易市场股份有限公司(简称陆金所公司)、上海陆金所互联网金融信息服务有限公司(简称陆金服公司)

被告:西安陆智投软件科技有限公司(简称陆智投公司)

The plaintiff, LUFAX, is a well-known Internetbased wealth management platform, and LUp2p.com is the former's wholly-owned subsidiary. Both Plaintiffs have financial service websites and mobile applications, with the trading of debt transfer products being a popular service. To purchase the debt transfer products, members of the two Plaintiffs have to often log on to the aforementioned websites or mobile applications and frequently refresh and follow the information of the debt transfer products. The Defendant was the provider of the software "LUFAX purchase tool". By installing and running the software, users could automatically purchase the debt transfer products based on preset conditions without having to follow the information of the products released by the two Plaintiffs on their platforms, and could complete a transaction before the members who made purchases manually.


原告陆金所公司是知名互联网财富管理平台,陆金服公司系其全资子公司。两原告均开设有金融服务网站及手机应用,债权转让产品交易是其中的热门服务。为抢购债权转让产品,两原告的会员需经常登录上述网站或手机应用,频繁刷新关注债权转让产品信息。被告系“陆金所代购工具”软件的提供者,用户通过安装运行该软件,无需关注两原告平台发布的债权转让产品信息即可根据预设条件实现自动抢购,并先于手动抢购的会员完成交易。


The two Plaintiffs argued that the unfair competition act carried out by Luzhitou had damaged the competitive advantages accumulated by the two Plaintiffs through years of operation, resulting in the loss of members, the decline of attention to the products, and the damage to the goodwill of the two Plaintiffs, which had caused large losses to the two Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the two Plaintiffs requested the court to order the Defendant to stop the latter's unfair competition act, eliminate the impact and compensate the Plaintiffs a total of RMB 500,000 for economic losses and reasonable costs. The Defendant argued that: there was no competition between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, and that the core of the rushing buy service provided by the Defendant was to make it more convenient for users to purchase the debt transfer products of the two Plaintiffs' platforms under the premise of the users' authorization; the rushing buy service neither prevented users from logging into the two Plaintiffs' platforms normally to carry out transactions nor did it affect the normal purchase behavior of other registered users of the two Plaintiffs' platforms. The Defendant thus requested the court to reject all the claims proposed by the Plaintiffs.


两原告认为,陆智投公司实施的不正当竞争行为损害了两原告通过多年经营所积累的竞争优势,导致两原告会员流失、产品关注度下降、商誉受损,对两原告造成了较大损失。据此,两原告诉请法院判令被告停止涉案不正当竞争行为、消除影响并赔偿原告经济损失及合理费用共计50万元。被告辩称,原、被告不存在竞争关系,被告提供的抢购服务核心是在用户授权的前提下,使其更为便捷地购买两原告平台的债权转让产品。该抢购服务既不阻碍用户正常登录两原告平台进行交易,也不影响两原告平台其他注册用户的正常购买行为。故请求驳回两原告的全部诉讼请求。


After hearing, the Pudong Court held that operators, in their providing online rushing buy services, should follow the provisions of Article 12 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and not use technical means to hinder or disrupt the normal operation of internet products or services legally provided by other operators by manipulating users' choices or in other ways. In the event that the Internet rushing buy service is not within the scope of the types of behaviors explicitly listed in the Internet-specific article of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and is thus applicable to the underwriting clause of the article, consideration should be given to whether it is unfair in addition to whether it would cause damage to the target platform and users of the rushing buy service.


浦东法院经审理认为,经营者提供网络抢购服务,应当遵循《反不正当竞争法》第十二条之规定,不得利用技术手段,通过影响用户选择或者其他方式,妨碍、破坏其他经营者合法提供的网络产品或者服务的正常运行。在网络抢购服务不属于反法互联网专条明确列明的行为类型从而适用该条兜底条款时,除应考量其对抢购服务目标平台及用户是否造成损害外,还应审查其是否具有不正当性。


The Defendant's behavior of providing rushing buy services through operating software caused serious damaging consequences to the Plaintiffs: first, the impairment to the interests of platform traffic. The rushing buy service resulted in a decrease in the frequency of user visits to both Plaintiffs' platforms, which in fact reduced the opportunity of both Plaintiffs to present other financial products. Second, the deprivation of potential trading opportunities for users. The rushing buy service changed the distribution of the proceeds of the debt transfer products among the users of the two Plaintiffs' platforms, which resulted in the reduction in the opportunity interests of a significant number of users. Third, the destruction of the business environment of the platforms. The rushing buy service would affect investors' confidence, which both Plaintiffs' platforms have relied on the most, resulting in a reduction in user stickiness and an exodus of the investors and capital to other investment channels.


被告通过运营软件提供抢购服务的行为,给原告造成严重的损害后果:一是平台流量利益的减损。抢购服务导致用户对两原告平台的访问频度下降,客观上减少了两原告其它金融产品的展示机会。二是用户潜在交易机会的剥夺。抢购服务改变了债权转让产品在两原告平台用户间的收益分配,造成了大量用户机会利益的减损。三是平台营商环境的破坏。抢购服务将冲击两原告平台最为依赖的投资者信心,导致用户粘性降低、投资者与资本流向其他投资渠道。


Also, the rushing buy service in question in the case was clearly unfair. On the one hand, the rushing buy service has subverted the rules of both Plaintiffs' platforms, which has undermined the fair basis for the rushing buy of the products. The overall success rate of the rushing buy was heavily leaning in favor of users who had used the rushing buy service, causing the complete missing of the basis for fair competition among users. On the other hand, the rushing buy service in question deliberately circumvented the monitoring and regulation mechanism of the two Plaintiffs, reflecting the subjectiveintent of the Defendant's act.


同时,涉案抢购服务行为明显具有不正当性。一方面,抢购服务对两原告平台规则的颠覆破坏了产品抢购的公平基础。抢购成功率整体上向使用抢购服务的用户严重倾斜,用户间公平竞争的基础丧失殆尽。另一方面,涉案抢购服务刻意规避两原告的监管机制,反映了被告对该行为所持的主观故意。


ANALYSIS

The fintech industry has been developing in recent years, and fintech products launched through online platforms have been widely welcomed by users. However, they have also given rise to various kinds of online rushing buy services. How to evaluate and regulate, according to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, online rushing buy services as market competition behaviors implemented by operators is not only relevant to the protection of the competitive interests of fintech enterprises and of the interests of consumers as investor users, but also important for the maintenance of the business environment of financial platforms.


典型意义

近年来科技金融产业不断发展,通过网络平台推出的科技金融产品广受用户欢迎,但同时也催生了各类网络抢购服务。网络抢购服务作为经营者实施的市场竞争行为,如何通过反不正当竞争法加以评价与规范,不仅关乎科技金融企业竞争利益的保护和投资用户消费者利益的保护,更对维护金融平台营商环境具有重要意义。


英文投稿及市场合作:

jane.jiang@chinaipmagazine.com

18911449529(微信同号)

文章有问题?点此查看未经处理的缓存