Stimulate innovation vitality and regulate market competition
Judicial interpretation of anti-unfair competition law issued
□ Our reporter Zhang Chen
What is "counterfeiting and confusion" and "business ethics"?
In order to correctly hear civil cases arising from acts of unfair competition, the Supreme People's Court today issued the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation") to clarify relevant issues. clear.
The Supreme People's Court stated that the Interpretation is a measure to give full play to the role of intellectual property adjudication and to respond to the judicial needs of new fields and new formats in a timely manner.
The implementation of the Interpretation is of great significance for strengthening the anti-unfair competition judiciary, strengthening the basic position of competition policy, and promoting the formation of a domestic unified market with high efficiency, standardization and fair competition.
Improve case adjudication rules
With the rapid economic development, the substantial expansion of market players, and the accelerated integration of online and offline markets, the competitive relationship between market forces has undergone profound changes.
A large number of new types of legal disputes have emerged, and it has become more difficult to determine facts and apply laws. The boundaries of rights and the determination of responsibilities in new fields and new formats continue to put forward new requirements for the judiciary.
The person in charge of the Third Supreme Court and Civil Tribunal said that a complete system of intellectual property laws and regulations and an efficient law enforcement and judicial system are important guarantees for strengthening intellectual property protection.
The formulation of the Interpretation aims to strengthen the basic position of competition policy, further improve the rules for adjudication of competition cases, improve the quality, efficiency and credibility of trials, and promote innovation and sustainable and healthy economic development.
A reporter from Rule of Law Daily noted that the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Unfair Competition Civil Cases is aimed at the Anti-Unfair Competition Law before the revision, which can no longer meet the ever-changing practical needs.
The "Interpretation" focuses on stimulating innovation, regulating market competition, and responding to social concerns. It further clarifies and refines the unfair competition behaviors of social concern, such as counterfeiting and confusion, commercial slander, and unfair competition on the Internet, and strives to properly Handle the relationship between development and safety, efficiency and fairness, vitality and order, and create a fair, transparent, and predictable competitive environment for various market players to invest in business and regulate and develop soundly.
"The formulation of the "Interpretation" is an important rule of law measure by the people's courts to implement the legislative spirit of the revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law, summarize judicial practice experience, and unify judgment rules and standards. Through fair trial of various unfair competition cases, clear protection rules , clarify the boundaries of rights, encourage innovation and creation, and prevent and resolve the risk of disorderly competition." said the person in charge of the third court of the Supreme Court.
Emphasis on "Business Ethics"
The Interpretation has a total of 29 articles. According to the revised Anti-Unfair Competition Law, detailed provisions are made on Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, counterfeiting and confusion, false propaganda, and online unfair competition, and other issues. "Business ethics".
According to reports, since the implementation of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the general clause (Article 2) has become one of the main legal basis for people's courts to identify new types of unfair competition, and has played an important role in maintaining fair competition in the market order.
However, the phenomenon of non-uniform referee standards has occurred from time to time.
To this end, Article 1 of the Interpretation stipulates that an operator disrupts the market competition order, damages the legitimate rights and interests of other operators or consumers, and violates Chapter II of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the provisions of the Patent Law, Trademark Law, Copyright Law, etc. In other cases, the people's court may apply Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law to determine.
"In this way, it not only clarifies the applicable relationship between the general clauses and the specific behavior clauses, and the provisions of the special intellectual property law, but also clarifies the application status of the general clauses to other special intellectual property laws such as the anti-unfair competition law and the trademark law." The person in charge of the Supreme Court and the Civil Tribunal said.
The people's court uses general clauses to determine whether the market competition behavior is legitimate or not, and the core is to judge whether the business operator has violated business ethics.
According to Article 3 of the Interpretation, the "business ethics" in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law cannot simply be equated with daily ethical standards, but should be a code of conduct that is generally followed and recognized in specific business fields.
The "Interpretation" also stipulates that the people's court shall, in light of the specific circumstances of the case, comprehensively consider industry rules or business practices, the subjective state of the operator, the choice of the counterparty in the transaction, the impact on the rights and interests of consumers, the order of market competition, and social and public interests, etc. Factors to judge whether the operator violates business ethics according to the law.
In addition, considering the intersection of online business behavior and traditional business behavior, the bottom line of rules that are generally observed and recognized may not have been formed. The Interpretation stipulates that when the people's court determines whether an operator has violated business ethics, it may refer to industry authorities, industry associations or Practice norms, technical norms, self-discipline conventions, etc. formulated by self-regulatory organizations, in order to mobilize industry associations, chambers of commerce and other organizations to guide the enthusiasm of business operators to be honest and trustworthy by signing industry self-discipline agreements and issuing self-discipline charters.
Refinement of "counterfeiting and confusion" provisions
There are several provisions in the Interpretation related to the determination of "counterfeiting and confusion".
In 2021, courts at all levels across the country will conclude a total of 8,654 cases of unfair competition disputes, and the number of counterfeiting and confusion cases will account for a large proportion.
The "Interpretation" uses 11 articles to refine the provisions of Article 6 "counterfeiting and confusion" of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Article 4 of the Interpretation clarifies the meaning of the mark "with certain influence" and the factors for consideration.
Article 7 of the Interpretation makes it clear that signs that are prohibited by the Trademark Law cannot be protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
At the same time, with reference to the provisions of Article 2 of the Regulations on the Administration of Registration of Market Entities, the scope of market entities whose names can be protected is refined.
The person in charge of the Third Civil Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court stated that the people's court regulates the order of competition in the cyberspace market by hearing cases involving unfair competition on the Internet, such as "choose one from two", "fake online traffic", and blocking browser advertisements on e-commerce platforms; The product voice command case, sanction the artificial intelligence product market for maliciously confusing and misleading the public; trial cases such as unfair competition of data rights and interests in group control software, reasonably divide the ownership and boundaries of data rights and interests, and safeguard user data rights and privacy rights.
Resolutely punish acts such as excessive collection and use of personal information, use of algorithms to implement price discrimination, price fraud, etc.; properly try cases such as data rights confirmation, transactions, services, and privacy protection, explore and improve data intellectual property protection rules, and guide operators through technological innovation. Form healthy competition, purify the market environment, stimulate market vitality, and standardize market order.
Article 12 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (Online Unfair Competition Behavior) is a new clause after the revision of the law.
Taking into account the characteristics of rapid updating and development of technology and business models in the Internet industry, Articles 21 and 22 of the Interpretation do not further enumerate new behaviors, but strictly grasp the spirit of legislation and competition policies, and summarize judicial practices in a timely manner. Experience, make appropriate refinements to the conditions for legal application, provide necessary rule guidance for judicial adjudication, and at the same time leave room for market self-regulation and technological innovation.
Beijing News, March 17th