A good order of fair market competition is related to the healthy development of enterprises, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, and the protection of the rights and interests of the people. It is an inherent requirement for promoting high-quality development and building a high-standard market system.
Hebei Provincial Market Supervision Administration attaches great importance to anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition work. Since the beginning of this year, the bureau has taken the lead in establishing a joint conference system for anti-unfair competition work in Hebei Province, achieving new breakthroughs in anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition enforcement.
Recently, the Hebei Provincial Market Supervision Administration released a typical case of anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition in Hebei Province. A reporter from the "Rules of Law Daily" sorted out the series of cases in order to pass the case interpretation and remind the majority of operators to abide by the transaction order and maintain The market economy has developed in a healthy and stable manner.
Confused packaging counterfeit wine
Confiscated products and imposed fines
On May 12, 2021, according to public reports, the Hebei Provincial Market Supervision Bureau led Baoding City Market Supervision Bureau and Xushui District Market Supervision Bureau law enforcement officers to conduct an on-site inspection of a Baoding Liquor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and found a large number of labels with " "Beijing Erguotou", "Revolutionary Liquor", "Jinghong" and other alcoholic products, whose logos and packaging decoration are suspected of confusing and counterfeiting products from well-known wine companies.
The Hebei Provincial Market Supervision Bureau designated the Baoding City Market Supervision Bureau to file a case for investigation.
After investigation, the company currently has 475 cases of "Jinghong" brand Beijing Erguotou, 511 cases of "Jinghong" Beijing Erguotou wine aged eight years, 40 cases of "Jinghong" Beijing Erguotou wine aged 10 years, and "Jinghong" brand 70 cases of revolutionary small wine.
Except for the "Jinghong" brand revolutionary small wine presented with 11 boxes of sample wines, the rest of the liquor products involved in the case were not sold.
The packaging and decoration of the "Jinghong" brand Beijing Erguotou liquor produced by the company is similar to the packaging and decoration of the Yongfeng brand "export-oriented small square bottle" liquor which has a certain influence by Beijing Erguotou Liquor Company. The packaging and decoration of the year-old and ten-year-aged wines are similar to the packaging and decoration of the "Red Star Blue Bottle Erguotou" series of liquor which has a certain influence by Beijing Red Star Company. The packaging and decoration of the affected "revolutionary small wine" series of liquors are similar.
The Baoding Municipal Market Supervision Bureau believes that the behavior of a certain alcoholic beverage manufacturing company in Baoding violated the provisions of Article 6 Item 1 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and constituted an act of market confusion. Therefore, according to Article 28 of the Administrative Penalty Law and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law According to Article 18 of the Unfair Competition Law, the parties are ordered to stop the illegal acts, confiscated the products involved, and imposed a fine of 170,000 yuan.
The employee violated the confidentiality agreement
Penalties for infringement of horizontal competition
On February 23, 2021, the Market Supervision Bureau of Anping County, Hengshui City, Hebei Province received a complaint from a company’s authorized agent that Li, a former employee of the company, was suspected of infringing on the company’s customer list and other trade secret information.
After investigation, Li joined the company on February 12, 2017, responsible for promoting products to customers, providing quotations and customer maintenance, and voluntarily signed the "Labor Contract" and "Employee Confidentiality Agreement" with the company on the day of entry. Both parties The agreement defines trade secrets as any technical information and operating information that Li obtains during his tenure that can bring economic benefits to the company, and stipulates that the confidentiality period is Li during his tenure in the company and 5 years after leaving.
During his tenure, Li obtained the contact information of the company's original customer, a technology company limited, and the product quotation information of his company.
On March 24, 2020, during his tenure in the company, Li registered and established a Hebei Environmental Engineering Co., Ltd. and served as the legal representative. The business scope is highly similar to the original company's business scope.
Moreover, Li did not fulfill the content of the confidentiality agreement after leaving his job. His newly registered Hebei Environmental Engineering Co., Ltd. and the original company's business scope belong to the same industry. Since then, he has successively signed with the original company customer a Technology Co., Ltd. and an Environmental Technology Co., Ltd. The transaction contract resulted in the loss of the original company’s customers and economic losses.
The Anping County Market Supervision Bureau believes that Li’s behavior violated the provisions of Article 9 Item 3 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and was an act of infringement of trade secrets. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 21 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the "Hebei Province According to the “Regulations on the Application of Administrative Penalty Discretion in Market Supervision and Administration”, the parties are ordered to stop illegal activities, the illegal gains are confiscated 15,900 yuan, and an administrative penalty of 120,000 yuan is imposed.
Teacher qualifications do not live up to their names
False propaganda agency fined
On March 29, 2021, the Market Supervision Bureau of Xiangdu District, Xingtai City, Hebei Province, when inspecting a Xingtai Training School Co., Ltd. found that the company’s business premises publicity column advertised 3 teachers as first-level teachers, but did not publicize the relevant levels Certificate, it is also unable to provide relevant supporting materials to prove the qualification level of the teacher.
Subsequently, the law enforcement officers asked the company to provide relevant material certification. The company entrusted its executive principal to the Xiangdu District Market Supervision Bureau for questioning, and provided the original and photocopy of the labor contract, teacher qualification certificate and second-level teacher grade certificate of the three teachers. Pieces.
After investigation, the company promoted 3 teachers as first-level teachers in its public announcement column on March 9, 2021, and the three teacher-level certificate qualification names it provided were all second-level teachers, which were inconsistent with their public information.
The purpose of the company's publicity and promotion of first-level teachers is to attract students and increase trading opportunities.
The Market Supervision Bureau of Xiangdu District, Xingtai City believes that the party’s behavior violated the provisions of Article 8 Paragraph 1 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and was an act of false propaganda, so it followed the provisions of Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. , Ordered the parties to stop the illegal acts and imposed a fine of 600,000 yuan in administrative penalties.
Paying to swipe orders to improve rankings
Administrative penalties for false transactions
On December 30, 2020, the Market Supervision Bureau of Yuhua District, Shijiazhuang City, based on the report, initiated an investigation into a certain auto parts sales company's suspected fraudulent behaviors.
After investigation, an auto parts sales company operated a flagship store for auto products on a certain platform, selling all kinds of driving recorders for automobiles.
From June to November 2020, in order to increase sales through false transactions, improve the ranking of operating stores on the platform, and gain a competitive advantage, Meng, an employee of the company, contacted a single hand through a referrer, and then used WeChat or The QQ account and Meng, an employee of the company, agreed in advance, after the payment of the order amount, the company sent the order paper to draw the parcel.
After swiping a single hand to confirm receipt of the goods, give a 5-point evaluation for the company's false swipe orders on the platform's flagship store.
After the order is successfully swiped, the company transfers the principal and commission of the single hand to the personal bank account of the company’s employee Meng through the corporate account and the personal bank account of the company’s financial officer Cao. The principal and the commission for the transaction are transferred to the recommender, and the recommender will return the commission for the transaction.
Within half a year, the parties made a total of 1,339 orders (false transactions), and the company returned a principal of 374,900 yuan for a single hand, and paid an order commission of 20,000 yuan.
The Market Supervision Bureau of Yuhua District believes that the party’s behavior violated the provisions of Article 8 Paragraph 1 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and was an act of false propaganda, so it ordered it in accordance with the provisions of Article 20 Paragraph 1 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law The party concerned stopped the illegal act and imposed an administrative penalty of 200,000 yuan.
Abuse of power to restrict competition
Suggest rectification to restore order
In August 2021, the Hebei Provincial Market Supervision Bureau investigated the Cangzhou Municipal Urban Management Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau for suspected abuse of administrative power to exclude and restrict competition based on the report.
After investigation, in December 2020, the Cangzhou Municipal Urban Management Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau formulated the "Basic Conditions for Access to Shared Electric Bicycles", "Competitive Negotiations and Selection Documents for the "Shared Electric Bicycles" Project" and "Announcement on Competitive Negotiations and Selection of "Shared Electric Bicycles" Project", a Shanghai Internet Technology Co., Ltd. was determined through competitive negotiations that month as the only shared electric bicycle operating company in the urban area of Cangzhou City.
In May 2021, the two parties signed the "Co-management Cooperation Agreement" stipulating that "According to the actual operating results of the cooperation between the two parties, after the expiration, Party B will have no illegal operations, no adverse social response, and the assessment will be extended with priority."
The Hebei Provincial Market Supervision Bureau believes that the actions of the Cangzhou Municipal Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau violated the provisions of Article 32 and Article 37 of the Anti-Monopoly Law and constituted an abuse of administrative power to exclude and restrict competition. According to Article 51 of the Law, an "Administrative Proposal" was issued to the Cangzhou Municipal People's Government, suggesting that the Cangzhou Municipal People's Government should order the Cangzhou Municipal Urban Management Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau to correct relevant behaviors and restore fair competition in the relevant market.
In November 2021, the Hebei Provincial Market Supervision Bureau received feedback from the Cangzhou Municipal People's Government. The Cangzhou Municipal Urban Management Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau has completed rectification in accordance with the rectification requirements of the "Administrative Proposal" and restored fair competition in the relevant market.
In the next step, Cangzhou City will continue to do a good job in the management of Internet rental electric bicycles in accordance with the requirements of relevant state departments.
Relevant provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law
Article 6 Business operators shall not carry out the following confusing behaviors to lead people to mistakenly believe that they are products of others or have specific connections with others: (1) Unauthorized use of the same or similar marks as the name, packaging, decoration, etc. of commodities that have a certain influence on others;
Article 8 Business operators shall not make false or misleading commercial publicity on the performance, function, quality, sales status, user evaluation, honors, etc. of their products, and deceive or mislead consumers.
Business operators shall not help other business operators conduct false or misleading commercial propaganda by organizing false transactions or other methods.
Article 9: Business operators shall not commit the following acts that infringe on business secrets: (3) Violating confidentiality obligations or violating the right holder’s requirements for keeping business secrets, disclosing, using or allowing others to use the business secrets in their possession;
Relevant provisions of the anti-monopoly law
Article 32: Administrative agencies and organizations authorized by laws and regulations to manage public affairs shall not abuse their administrative power to restrict or disguisely restrict units or individuals from operating, purchasing, or using commodities provided by their designated operators.
Article 37: Administrative agencies must not abuse their administrative power to formulate regulations that exclude or restrict competition.
Article 51: Where administrative organs and organizations authorized by laws and regulations that have the function of managing public affairs abuse their administrative powers to eliminate or restrict competition, the higher-level organs shall order corrections; the directly responsible persons in charge and other directly responsible persons shall be subject to law according to law. Give sanctions.
The anti-monopoly law enforcement agency may submit suggestions for handling in accordance with the law to the relevant higher authorities.
Our reporter Zhou Xiaopeng
Lao Hu Comments
Fair competition is the core of a society under the rule of law, and it is also the essential requirement of a market economy.
Only when market entities use proper methods to carry out fair competition on the track of the rule of law can promote the healthy and orderly development of the market and meet the expectations of consumers for a better life to the greatest extent.
As can be seen from the cases in this issue, various unfair competition behaviors still exist in the market.
Whether it is packaging confusion, false propaganda, or infringement of trade secrets, it is essentially an act of falsification and infringement of fair competition. It not only disrupts the market order, but ultimately damages the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.
Therefore, in view of the continuous renovation and changing methods of unfair competition behaviors in the current market, the legislative department, the regulatory department or the judicial department should keep pace with the times, innovate ideas, and constantly weave a network of secret law, fill loopholes, Tighten the cage and never give those unfair competitors a chance.
Hu Yong