1. Shuang Feiren Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. vs. Guangzhou Wrights Business Consulting Co., Ltd. (case of trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute) (Civil Judgment No. 23 [2020], Retrial, Civil, SPC of the Supreme People's Court)
2. Jiaxing Zhonghua Chemical Co., Ltd., Shanghai Xinchen New Technology Co., Ltd, vs. Wanglong Group Co., Ltd. (case of know-how infringement dispute) (Civil Judgment No. 1667 [2020], Final, Civil, IP, SPC of the Supreme People's Court Supreme)
3. Taizhou Luqiao Geely Motor Vehicle Driving Training Co., Ltd., Taizhou Luqiao Chengrong Driver Training Co., Ltd. vs. Taizhou Luqiao Donggang Driving Training School, Taizhou Luqiao Zhedong Driver Training Service Co., Ltd. (case of horizontal monopoly agreement dispute) (Civil Judgment No. 1722 [2021], Final, Civil, IP, SPC of the Supreme People's Court Supreme)
4. Huai'an Jindi Seeds Industry Technology Co., Ltd. vs. Jiangsu Qingengtian Agricultural Industry Development Co., Ltd. (case of dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights) (Civil Judgment No. 816 [2021], Final, Civil, IP, SPC of the Supreme People's Court Supreme)
5. Zhou Qin vs. Wuxi Ruizhishun Machinery Equipment Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (case of dispute over infringement of an invention patent) (Civil Judgment No. 1122 [2019], First, Civil, IP, 05, Jiangsu, of the Suzhou City Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province), (Decision No. 1 [2020], Judicial Punishment, 05, Jiangsu, of the Suzhou City Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province)
6. Wyeth LLC, Wyeth (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd vs. Guangzhou Wyeth Baby Products Co., Ltd.(case of trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute) (Civil Judgment No. 294 [2021], Final, Civil, Zhejiang of the High People's Court of Zhejiang)
7. Tongzhou District China Acrobatics Group vs. Wuqiao Songyuan Zhang Shuo Acrobatic Troupe, etc. (case of copyright ownership and copyright infringement dispute) (Civil Judgment No. 2823 [2019], Final, Civil, 73, Beijing of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court)
8. Jining Luohe Network Technology Co., Ltd. vs. Guangzhou Playmate Network Technology Co., Ltd., etc (case of dispute over computer software copyright infringement) (Civil Judgment No.207 [2019], First, Civil, IP, 73, Guangzhou of the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court)
9. Shanghai Hantao Information Consulting Co., Ltd. vs. Qingdao Simple Payment Network Technology Co., Ltd., etc.(case of unfair competition dispute) (Civil Judgment No. 2265 [2020], First, Civil Division, 02, Shandong, of the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City, Shandong Province)
10. People vs. fifteen persons including Liang Yongping, Wang Zhenghang (case of crime of copyright infringement) (Criminal Judgment No. 101 [2021], First, Criminal Division, 03, Shanghai, of the Third Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai Municipality) (Criminal Judgment No. 826 [2021], First, Criminal Division, 0110, Shanghai, of the People's Court of Yangpu District,Shanghai Municipality)
A Brief Introduction of the Top 10 Intellectual Property Cases in Chinese Courts in 2021
1. Case regarding Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute over Shuang Feiren Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. vs. Guangzhou Wrights Business Consulting Co., Ltd.
Shuang Feiren Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. vs. Guangzhou Wrights Business Consulting Co., Ltd. (case of trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute) (Civil Judgment No. 23 [2020], Retrial, Civil, SPC of the Supreme People's Court)
[Case Facts]
Shuang Feiren Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shuang Feiren Company) is the owner of the registered trademark of "Shuang Feiren ", which is approved for the use of goods in the third category of floral water, cosmetics, etc. Meanwhile, Shuang Feiren Company is also two double-flying tridimensional trademarks’ holder, which are approved being used in cool aquatic products. Lijia Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Lijia) owns the registered trademark "Lijia" designated for use in category 3. While Guangzhou Wrights Business Consulting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Wrights) is the exclusive agent in China for the promotion, distribution and sale of Lijia peppermint water and other Lijia brand cosmetics. Shuang Feiren Company filed a lawsuit with the court on the grounds that Wrights infringed on its exclusive right to use its registered trademark by producing and selling Lijia peppermint water and engaged in unfair competition. The court of first instance believes that Lijia peppermint water and "double flying people" trademark approved use of "double flying people cool aquatic products" belongs to the same goods. Through comparison, the packaging of the infringing products is similar to the tridimensional trademark of Shuang Feiren Company, which may mislead the relevant public. Wright infringes on the exclusive right to use the tridimensional trademark of Shuang Feiren Company. At the same time, in order to achieve commercial purposes, Wrights emphasized its product as "Shuang Feiren" product (Double Flying Potion) in the product publicity, which constitutes the infringement of the word trademark of "Shuang Feiren Company ".
In addition, the packaging of Lijia peppermint water was similar to that of the well-known products of Shuang Feiren Company, so Wrights' actions constituted unfair competition. Wrights and others institute an appeal, but the court of second instance rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. Again, Wrights applied to the Supreme People's Court for a retrial. However, according to The Supreme People's Court, the evidence submitted by Wrights could prove that since the 1990s, Lijia had published the "Double Flying Potion" advertisement in newspapers in some parts of the Chinese mainland for a long time, with a large distribution area and circulation. It can be proved that the "blue, white and red" packaging of the "Double Flying Potion" used by Lijia has a certain influence. However, Shaung Feiren Company has already known the existence of "double flying potion", but still register and exercise the rights of using tridimensional trademark, which is similar with "double flying potion" packaging.
Shuang Feiren Company’s behavior is so unjustified that Wrights’ prior use defense stands. Shuang Feiren Company’s claim that Wrights infringes upon the exclusive right to use registered trademark and unfair competition cannot be established. The Supreme People's Court then decided to cancel the first instance, the second instance judgment and rejected Shuang Feiren Company's lawsuit request.
[Case Significance]
This case involves the examination of trademark preemption defense. The purpose of the preemption defense system is to protect the interests of well-meaning prior users to continue using the commercial marks with certain influence in the original scope, and it is an important embodiment of the principle of honesty and credibility in the field of trademark law. The retrial judgment protects the use rights and interests brought by the honest and credible operation effectively, and is a beneficial exploration for the People's Court to strengthen the construction of the honesty and credibility system of intellectual property litigation.
2. Case regarding Know-How Infringement Dispute over Vanillin
Jiaxing Zhonghua Chemical Co., Ltd., Shanghai Xinchen New Technology Co., Ltd, vs. Wanglong Group Co., Ltd. (case of know-how infringement dispute) (Civil Judgment No. 1667 [2020], Final, Civil, IP, SPC of the Supreme People's Court Supreme)
[Case Facts]
Jiaxing Zhonghua Chemical Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Zhonghua Company") and Shanghai Xinchen Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Xinchen Company") jointly developed a process for producing vanillin by the glyoxylic acid method and protected it as know-how. Zhonghua Company became the world's largest vanillin manufacturer based on the process, gaining a share of about 60% in the global vanillin market. However, Wanglong Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Wanglong Group") and its legal representative, as well as others, obtained the technical secret illegally through the deputy director of vanillin workshop of Zhonghua Company and used the vanillin production process without license, and infringed upon their know-how. The large-scale production of vanillin products led to the decline of vanillin product prices and the reduction of Zhonghua Company’s market share. Therefore, Zhonghua Company and the others brought a lawsuit to the Zhejiang Higher Court, claiming an order for stoppage of the infringement. The court of first instance determined that there was infringement, and ordered the stoppage of the infringement and damages of 3 million yuan for economic loss plus 500,000 yuan for reasonable right enforcement expenses. When entering the first-instance judgment, the Zhejiang Higher Court entered a ruling in favor of conduct preservation, ordering Wanglong Group to immediately stop using the case-related know-how.
However, Wanglong Group failed to do so after the first instance. The parties on both sides to the present case appealed against the first-instance judgment to the Supreme People's Court. At second instance, the Supreme People's Court determined that Wanglong Group is an enterprise established by its legal representative for the purpose of infringement, and its legal representative actively participates in the implementation of the infringement. Therefore, Wanglong Group and its legal representative constitute a joint infringement of all technical secrets, and shall bear joint liability for compensation. Moreover, The SPC Intellectual Property Tribunal, based on the economic loss data provided by the right holders, taking into account factors such as the considerable commercial value of the case-related know-how, the large scale of infringement, and the execrable nature of refusal to satisfy the effective ruling in favor of conduct preservation, entered a modified judgment that Wanglong Group and its legal representative as well as the involved companies should jointly and severally compensate the right holders for economic loss of 159 million yuan.
[Case Significance]
The compensation amount in this case is the highest among trade secret misappropriation cases tried by Chinese courts so far. By rendering judgment on the case, it increased the cost of infringement, protected the core technologies in an important industry in accordance with law, and improve the reference significance of the determination of damages in cases of infringement of technical secrets. Moreover, the action that transferred the clue to suspected crime in the present case to the public security authorities promoted the combination of remedies through both civil damages compensation and criminal penalties, and hence demonstrated the People’s Court’s clear judicial attitude in strictly protecting intellectual property rights in accordance with law and cracking down on malicious IP infringements.
3. Case Regarding Horizontal Monopoly Agreement over "Driving School Joint venture"
Taizhou Luqiao Geely Motor Vehicle Driving Training Co., Ltd., Taizhou Luqiao Chengrong Driver Training Co., Ltd. vs. Taizhou Luqiao Donggang Driving Training School, Taizhou Luqiao East Zhejiang Driver Training Service Co., Ltd. (case of horizontal monopoly agreement dispute) (Civil Judgment No. 1722 [2021], Final, Civil, IP, SPC of the Supreme People's Court Supreme)
[Case Facts]
Fifteen automobile driving training institutions in Luqiao District, Taizhou city, Zhejiang Province signed a joint venture agreement and self-discipline convention, agreeing to jointly invest and set up a joint venture company, namely Taizhou Luqiao East Zhejiang Driver Training Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as East Zhejiang Company), fix the price of driving training service, limit the flow of coach vehicles and coaches among driving training institutions. The previously scattered auxiliary services (such as registration, physical examination, business card printing, etc.) of the 15 driving and training institutions involved in the case were all handled by East Zhejiang Company at the same site, and East Zhejiang Company charged 850 yuan for the service fee. Besides, Article 3 of the joint venture agreement specifies the registered capital and capital structure of the joint venture.
Therefore, Taizhou Luqiao Geely Motor Vehicle Driving Training Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as Geely), Taizhou Luqiao Chengrong Driver Training Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Chengrong) citing the 15 driving training institutions form monopoly, appealed to the court, requesting confirmation associated protocols and self-discipline is invalid. The first-instance court determined that East Zhejiang Company unified handling of previously separate auxiliary service in order to improve the quality of service, reduce costs and improve efficiency. Therefore, all when the service charge 850 yuan, the provision of equity structure and service charges clause can be in accordance with the applicable antitrust immunity. Because of that, the first-instance judgment only confirm involved pool agreement and self-discipline of constitute the terms of the horizontal monopoly agreements shall be invalid.
However, Geely and others refused to accept that and filed an appeal to the Supreme People's Court, requesting to amend the judgment and confirm the invalidity of the share capital structure and service fee clauses in the joint venture agreement. The Supreme People's Court of the second instance determined that if a business operator who has reached a monopoly agreement asserts the application of monopoly immunity, it should provide sufficient evidence to prove that it conforms to the relevant statutory circumstances, and should not merely rely on general conjecture or abstract presumption of monopoly immunity in the absence of evidence support. The contract clauses that violate the provisions of the horizontal monopoly agreement of the anti-monopoly law, the clauses that are closely related to the provisions of the horizontal monopoly agreement, and the clauses that serve the implementation of the horizontal monopoly agreement shall be invalid. Otherwise, they are not enough to eliminate and reduce the risks of monopoly behavior. The Supreme People's Court of the second instance annulled the judgment of the first instance and confirmed that the joint venture agreement and the self-discipline convention involved in the case were invalid.
[Case Significance]
This case is a typical horizontal monopoly dispute case. The Supreme People's Court judge cleared the horizontal monopoly agreements exemption reason of applicable standards, illustrated that the horizontal monopoly agreements have violated the antitrust laws due to the general principles of the invalid. Moreover, the invalid range is not limited to the horizontal monopoly agreements terms itself, it also includes the terms that closely related to the agreements but lacking of independent existence, as well as the terms of service in horizontal monopoly agreements behavior. The judgment of this case has effectively maintained the order of fair competition in the market and is conducive to stopping monopolistic behavior from the source.
4. Case Regarding Infringement over New Plant Variety "Gold Rice 818"
Huai'an Jindi Seeds Industry Technology Co., Ltd. vs. Jiangsu Qingengtian Agricultural Industry Development Co., Ltd. (case of dispute over infringement of new plant variety rights) (Civil Judgment No. 816 [2021], Final, Civil, IP, SPC of the Supreme People's Court Supreme)
[Case Facts]
Huai'an Jindi Seeds Industry Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jindi) is the licensee of exclusive implementation of the new rice variety "Gold Rice 818". However, Jiangsu Qingengtian Agricultural Industry Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Qingengtian) looked for potential traders without permission by offline stores promotion and online publicity, such as releasing information of "Agricultural Industry Chain Information Matching" within WeChat group. What’s more, Qingengtian charged membership fees privately and provided members with seed trading information of "Gold Rice 818". Then it made the agreement with the buyer about transaction price, quantity, delivery time and arranged delivery and collection.
Jindi argued that Qingengtian's actions have constituted infringement, so Jindi appealed to Nanjing Intermediate People's Court in Jiangsu Province. The first-instance court held that Qingengtian only helped the infringement for the reason that it did not directly sell the involved infringing seeds. Therefore, Qingengtian was ordered to stop the infringement and compensate 3 million yuan for the loss and reasonable expenditure.
However, Qingengtian instituted an appeal an appeal. In the second trial, the Supreme People's Court considers that Qingengtian has released seeds selling information on the Internet, consulted the trading elements, such as seed packing, price, quantity, time of performance with the purchaser, which made Qingengtian a trading organizers and decision makers when the contract was established. Therefore, it should be deemed as selling infringement rather than help infringing. What’s more, the seeds released and traded by Qingengtian were far exceed the reasonable scale of farmers' self-reproduction and self-use, so the non-infringement defense of "farmers' self-reproduction and self-use" cannot be established. Moreover, the action that Qingengtian sold the infringing seeds in white bags without obtaining the seed production and operation license was a serious infringement. It also refused to provide the relevant account books as well. Therefore, the first instance ruled that adopting 2 times the punitive damages according to the compensation base was correct. The second instance of the Supreme People's Court rendered a judgment that the appeal should be dismissed and the original judgment should be affirmed.
[Case Significance]
This case is a typical case that against the infringement of seed sets. In this case, judges affirmed accurately that the organizations sold the infringing seeds in white bags with the help of the Internet and covered the infringement in the name of "peasant" or “large grain operators", and applied punitive damages in accordance with the law, which made the infringer pay a heavy price and reflected the judicial guidance that the People's Court would protect new plant varieties in a strict way and promote the innovation of agricultural science and technology.
5. Case Regarding Dispute over Infringement of An Invention Patent of "Drainage Board Forming Machine"
Zhou Qin vs. Wuxi Ruizhishun Machinery Equipment Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (case of dispute over infringement of an invention patent) (Civil Judgment No. 1122 [2019], First, Civil, IP, 05, Jiangsu, of the Suzhou City Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province), (Decision No. 1 [2020], Judicial Punishment, 05, Jiangsu, of the Suzhou City Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province)
[Case Facts]
Zhou Qin, the invention patentee of "Drainage Board Forming Machine", applied to the court for pretrial evidence preservation because he found that Wuxi Ruizhishun Machinery Equipment Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Ruizhishun Company) was suspected of infringement. The Suzhou City Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province ruled in favor of taking preservation measures, taking on-site photos of the accused products and making a written record. After that, Ruizhishun Company was told clearly that not to destroy or transfer the preservation evidence, and the legal representative of Ruizhishun Company signed for confirmation. Later that, Zhou Qin sued Ruizhishun Company for patent infringement.
During the trial of the case, Ruizhishun Company transferred the pretrial preservation product without informing the court, which resulted in the loss of the product. According to the first-instance court, the pretrial preserved evidence was the key evidence of the case, and Ruizhishun Company transferred the evidence without authorization and caused the loss of evidence, which directly affected the judgment of infringement of the case. Therefore, it concluded that the alleged infringing of Ruizhishun Company has constituted infringement of patent right and the plaintiff's claim for compensation was fully supported. At the same time, the first-instance court imposed judicial punishment on Ruizhishun Company for its unauthorized transfer of evidence preserved before litigation, which resulted in the loss of evidence and seriously interfered with civil litigation. So Ruizhishun Company was fined for 200,000 yuan. However, Ruizhishun Company refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and filed an appeal, but the second instance of the Supreme People's Court rendered a judgment that the appeal should be dismissed and the original judgment should be affirmed.
[Case Significance]
This case is a case in which the People's Court has made great efforts to solve the problem of "having difficulty in providing evidence", and improve the quality and efficiency of intellectual property trials and judicial credibility. This case clarifies the obligation of proof for those who hold evidence, and indicates the legal consequences of hindering proof or hindering the preservation of evidence, which has the important practical value for appropriately reducing the burden of producing evidence and guiding the parties to provide evidence actively, actively, comprehensively and honestly.
6. Case Regarding Punitive Damages over Wyeth Trademark
Wyeth LLC, Wyeth (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd vs. The former Guangzhou Wyeth Baby Products Co., Ltd.(case of trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute) (Civil Judgment No. 294 [2021], Final, Civil, Zhejiang of the High People's Court of Zhejiang Province)
[Case Facts]
Wyeth LLC is the owner of registered trademarks "惠氏" (Chinese Characters of Wyeth) and "Wyeth" (the cited trademarks). Wyeth (Shanghai) Trading Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai Wyeth) is authorized to use the trademark and protect its rights in China. The former Guangzhou Wyeth Baby Products Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Guangzhou Wyeth) was engaging in the large-scale production and sale of maternal and infant care products bearing Wyeth, 惠氏 (Wyeth's transliteration) and 惠氏小狮子 (Wyeth Little Lion in Chinese) in manufacturing and sales products in large-scale for long time. Further, it had registered the Wyeth marks, or obtained transfers of registrations, in classes in which Wyeth had not registered. Guangzhou Wyeth’s promotional activities also suggested that it was associated with Wyeth LLC. Moreover, Guangzhou Wyeth had authorized other accused companies to sell products online and the implementation of online and offline infringement has gain huge profits. Wyeth LLC and Shanghai Wyeth sued the Guangzhou Wyeth as the defendant.
The first-instance court affirmed the infringement and the judgment fully supported the lawsuit claims of Wyeth LLC and Shanghai Wyeth. However, the defendants appealed. The second instance of the High People's Court of Zhejiang Province held that according to the documented evidence of the Guangzhou Wyeth’s infringement profit, Wyeth LLC's financial claim about applying appropriate punitive damages, calculated according to the three times compensation base, was virtually fully supported of 30 million yuan by the Court. The second instance of the court rendered a judgment that the appeal should be dismissed and the original judgment should be affirmed.
[Case Significance]
This case is a typical case of punitive damages applied by the People's Court. In this case, punitive damages were imposed in accordance with the law to significantly increase the cost of infringement, so that the infringer's gain is not worth the loss. Meanwhile, the infringer can get sufficient relief. Furthermore, the idea that "infringement of intellectual property rights is stealing others' property" would be deeply rooted in people's minds.
7. Case Regarding Copyright Ownership And Copyright Infringement Dispute over Diabolo Acrobatic Work
Tongzhou District China Acrobatics Group vs. Wuqiao Songyuan Zhang Shuo Acrobatic Troupe, etc. (case of copyright ownership and copyright infringement dispute) (Civil Judgment No. 2823 [2019], Final, Civil, 73, Beijing of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court)
[Case Facts]
Tongzhou District China Acrobatics Group (hereinafter referred to as China Acrobatics Group) believes that the performances, as well as the show "Qiao Huadan" disseminated by Wuqiao Songyuan Zhang Shuo Acrobatic Troupe (hereinafter referred to as Zhang Shuo Acrobatic Troupe), has infringed China Acrobatics Group’s copyright, so it appealed to the court.
The court of first instance held that, according to the contract, in the absence of contrary evidence, China Acrobatics Group owns the copyright of the work "Qiaohuadan-Collective Diabolo" except the right of authorship. Therefore, Zhang Shuo Acrobatic Troupe was ordered to stop the infringement, compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses, and publish a statement to eliminate the impact performance. However, the defendants appealed. According to the second instance of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, the choreography and design of body movements in "Qiaohuadan-Collective Diabolo" reflects the individual choice of the creator. Therefore, the acrobatic works which belongs to the original expression is protected by the copyright Law. However, in Zhang Shuo Acrobatic Troupe’s “Qiaohuadan”, the opening part of the walk, action arrangement, cohesion and multiple occurrences of layout design such as the signature of the collective action, has constituted a substantial similarity with the original expression in "Qiaohuadan-Collective Diabolo". Therefore, it infringed the copyright in works of China Acrobatics Group so the appeal should be dismissed and the original judgment should be affirmed.
[Case Significance]
This case is a typical case in which the People's Court strengthens the copyright protection of traditional culture. There is a saying that to protect traditional culture is to protect national treasures. This case protects acrobatic art works in accordance with law, which is conducive to stimulating the vitality of cultural creativity and promoting the prosperity of cultural industry.
8. Case Regarding Computer Software Copyright Infringement over Open Source Software
Jining Luohe Network Technology Co., Ltd. vs. Guangzhou Playmate Network Technology Co., Ltd., etc (case of dispute over computer software copyright infringement) (Civil Judgment No.207 [2019], First, Civil, IP, 73, Guangzhou of the Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court)
[Case Facts]
Jining Luohe Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Luohe Company) sued Guangzhou Wanyou Network Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Wanyou Company) for infringing his software copyright. Luo Di, who is the shareholder of Luohe Company, developed the source code of an application called VirtualApp (VA) to be hosted on GitHub.com under the third version of the GNU General Public License (GPLV3). However, defendant Wanyou Company developed some paid WeChat-compatible applications using Luo Di’s source code hosted on GitHub.com and didn’t disclose the source code of the applications to its users. What’s more, the users can try the apps free for 30 minutes and then have to pay the membership fee. Therefore, Luohe Company believes that the sandbox duplexes in the four infringing software were substantially similar to the software involved in the case, and that the behavior of Wanyou Company not providing open source code and charging membership fee violates the terms of restricted commercial use and the GPLV3.
The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court found that there is no need for users to pay for downloading the infringing software and the membership fee charged by Wanyou Company is only used for operation maintenance and technical support, which does not violate the provisions of the GPLV3. However, commercial software developed by using the open source software involved is obliged to make its full source code public. In this way, Wanyou Company violated the GPLV3 and by abusing the free source code owned by Luohe Network. Furthermore, by copying and publishing the source code of the software involved, the copyright of Luohe Company involved was violated.
The Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court ordered Wanyou Company to stop providing download, installation and operation services of the four software containing the source code of sandbox duplexes function, and to pay 500,000 yuan ($79,000) in damages to the plaintiff. After the verdict of the first instance, neither party appealed.
[Case Significance]
This case is a new type of case involving open source software copyright protection. The People's Court has actively explored the subject qualification of open source software litigation, the revocation of open source license and the restriction of commercial using terms.
9. Case Regarding Unfair Competition Dispute over Brushing Practices
Shanghai Hantao Information Consulting Co., Ltd. vs. Qingdao Simple Payment Network Technology Co., Ltd., etc.(case of unfair competition dispute) (Civil Judgment No. 2265 [2020], First, Civil Division, 02, Shandong, of the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City, Shandong Province)
[Case Facts]
Shanghai Hantao Information Consulting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai Hantao) sued Qingdao Simple Payment Network Technology Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as Qingdao Simple Payment) for unfair competition. Shanghai Hantao maintained a website Dianping.com, which hosted consumer reviews of restaurants, similar to Yelp and TripAdvisor, and also offered group buying similar to Groupon. Qingdao Simple Payment provided paid click farming services via a WeChat Official Account named “铁鱼霸王餐” for restaurants listed on Dianping.com. The services includes organizing staff to give likes and door-to-door praise to specific merchants of Dianping, increase the number of visitors and page views on the website.
The court of first instance believes that Qingdao Simple Payment has constituted unfair competition because of its brushing practices with the purpose of making profits and helping other operators to carry out false commercial publicity, which violated the principles of fairness, honesty and credit and business ethics, damaged the relevant data of the rating system, analytics mechanism and goodwill. The Qingdao Intermediate People’s Court ruled against the defendant and ordered it to stop the brushing practices and pay 300,000 yuan ($46,000) in damages and costs. After the verdict of the first instance, neither party appealed.
[Case Significance]
This case involves the identification of unfair competition behavior of Internet brushing practices. The judgment of this case actively responds to practical needs, maintains market competition order, and protects the legitimate rights and interests of operators and consumers, which helps to form a market environment that is beneficial to forming fair competition by stopping brushing practices.
10. Case Regarding Copyright Infringement over YYeTs.com
People vs. fifteen persons including Liang Yongping, Wang Zhenghang (case of crime of copyright infringement) (Criminal Judgment No. 101 [2021], First, Criminal Division, 03, Shanghai, of the Third Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai Municipality) (Criminal Judgment No. 826 [2021], First, Criminal Division, 0110, Shanghai, of the People's Court of Yangpu District,Shanghai Municipality)
[Case Facts]
Defendant Liang Yongping successively established Wuhan Link World Technology Co., Ltd. and Wuhan Kuaiyixing Technology Co., Ltd. since 2018, and instructed defendant Wang Zhenghang to hire defendant Wan Mengjun and others as technical and operational personnel. All together, they developed and operated a website called YYeTs.com (人人影视字幕组) and other apps like Android, IOS, Windows, MacOSX, TV, etc. Furthermore, defendant Liang Yongping hired defendant Xie Minghong and others, to translate and subtitle foreign films and TV programs without authorization and uploaded to the website YYeTs.com.
According to the data, YYeTs.com. is a website where these translated works were released for viewing and downloading for free. 6.83 million users subscribed to the content pool of 32,824 translated films and TV programs made available on the website and other media outlets operated by Liang Yongping’s company. Since January, 2018, Liang Yongping and his employees generated 12 million yuan ($1.8 million) of subscription fees and advertising revenue from these infringing translated works.
The Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court, as well as the People's Court of Yangpu District held that Liang Yongping, Wang Zhenghang and other 15 defendants have constituted copyright infringement due to the copying and unauthorized works’ releasing for the purpose of making profits. Therefore, the Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court sentenced Liang Yongping to 3.5 years in prison and a fine of 1.5 million yuan ($240,000). The Yangpu District People’s Court of Shanghai municipality sentenced Wang Zhenghang’s employees to terms in prison ranging from 1.5 years to three years suspended for probation and fines in varied amounts. After the verdict of the first instance, neither defendants appealed.
[Case Significance]
In this case, there are a large number of film and television works, and the right holders are scattered as well. The judgment explains how to identify "unauthorized" and other legal application issues, such as the number of unauthorized film and television works, which effectively crack down on the criminal acts of infringing copyright. Furthermore, in this case, the criminal responsibility of the organizers and the main participants was investigated in accordance with the law, and the criminal policy of balancing justice with mercy was implemented.