Article 1
From June 5438 to February 2007, the patented product "ShuiYisheng" micro-electrolysis water machine developed and produced by Beijing ShuiYisheng Technology Development Co., Ltd. was put on the market on a large scale, and a lot of advertising was carried out, which won various awards and honors many times and enjoyed a high reputation in society.
Since June 2008, a similar product named "Water Life Super Nano Active Water Cup" has appeared on the market. The pronunciation of the product name is exactly the same as that of Shuiyisheng Company, and the packaging and decoration are also very similar. Therefore, Beijing Shuiyisheng Company believes that Nanjing Biotechnology Co., Ltd., the producer of Shuiyisheng products, and Nanning Pharmacy operated by Lei disrupt the market order, violate the principles of voluntariness, equality, honesty and credit, and affect the commercial reputation of Beijing Shuiyisheng Company, which is an unfair competition behavior, so it takes Nanjing Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Lei to court.
The Higher People's Court of the Autonomous Region held that Nanjing Xiong Fei Biotechnology Co., Ltd. used the unique packaging and decoration of well-known products of Beijing Shuiyisheng Company on the same commodity without the permission of Beijing Shuiyisheng Company, and its behavior constituted unfair competition. Nanjing Xiong Fei Biotechnology Co., Ltd. was sentenced to compensate Shuiyisheng Company for its economic loss of 450,000 yuan, and to compensate Shuiyisheng Company for the cost of stopping the infringement of 50,000 yuan, and at the same time, it was announced in newspapers and periodicals distributed nationwide to eliminate the influence; From the effective date of the judgment, immediately destroy all the packaging and decoration of the super nano active water cup similar to the micro-electrolysis water maker produced by Beijing Shuiyisheng Company, and stop producing and selling the super nano active water cup similar to the micro-electrolysis water maker produced by Beijing Shuiyisheng Company.
Classic case of unfair competition II
A website, under the banner of "thousand lights", specializes in advertising for businesses in cities decorated with thousands of lights. To this end, Beijing Wanjia Denghuo Home Decoration Market Co., Ltd. sued the website and claimed a loss of 5 million yuan. Yesterday ***3 1 * * *, Haidian court found that the website constituted unfair competition and awarded it 20,000 yuan according to the actual situation.
Wanjiadenghuo Decoration Company said that they have a website called "Wanjiadenghuo" to advertise for its businesses. At the beginning of this year, the website operated by Beijing Zhongshangwang E-commerce Technology Co., Ltd. was also named "Thousands of Lights". The "company address" displayed on this website is the same as the business address of Wanjiadenghuo Decoration Company, and the merchants advertising in the website are also our own businesses. Wanjia Denghuo Decoration Co., Ltd. believes that the defendant's website impersonates itself and charges for advertising for merchants, which constitutes unfair competition, and requests the court to order the website to be published and compensate for the loss of 5 million yuan.
Classic case of unfair competition 3
1996 In the spring, Beijing Fangshan District Administration for Industry and Commerce investigated the unique name, packaging and decoration behavior of Beijing Lugouqiao Winery copying Deng Hua brand, a well-known commodity of Beijing Niulanshan Winery, according to the complaint of Beijing Niulanshan Winery.
After investigation, Deng Hua brand Beijing liquor is a high-quality product produced by Beijing Niulanshan Distillery, and it is a famous product in Beijing. In order to develop and strengthen "Beijing Liquor", Beijing Niulanshan Winery has invested 80 million yuan in research and advertising since 1992, which has led to a rapid increase in market share. However, since 1995 and 10, counterfeit products with unique names, packages and decorations have appeared in the market. Among them, Gude brand and Lugouqiao brand Beijing Jiugui Liquor produced by Beijing Lugouqiao Winery have the same commodity names as Huading brand Beijing Jiugui Liquor produced by Beijing Niulanshan Winery, and the packaging and decoration are similar, which is enough to cause misunderstanding among consumers. According to the investigation, from April 1995 to June 1996, Beijing Lugouqiao Winery produced 52 174 bottles of Beijing alcoholic liquor, printed 68,000 sets of boxes with the words "Beijing wine" and sold 47,436 bottles.
According to the above facts, Fangshan District Administration for Industry and Commerce determined that the above-mentioned behavior of Beijing Lugouqiao Winery violated the provisions of Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, which stipulated that it was not allowed to "use the unique name, packaging and decoration of well-known commodities without authorization, or use the name, packaging and decoration similar to well-known commodities, so that buyers mistakenly thought it was the well-known commodity", and ordered it to stop producing Beijing Jiugui Liquor and eliminate the infringing commodity names and packaging on existing commodities.
Classic case of unfair competition 4
Plaintiff Shanghai Equipment Co., Ltd. * * hereinafter referred to as Shanghai Equipment Co., Ltd. * * and defendant Foshan Shunde Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. * * hereinafter referred to as Shunde Electric Co., Ltd. are both enterprises that produce household appliances such as range hoods, and an equipment company in Shanghai registered a combined trademark of "multi-ring+multi-ring" and graphics.
From August to September, 2007, someone advertised the defendant's products in the commercial advertisement of Jiangxi Huicong, and issued a "solemn statement" at the lower right of the product advertisement, claiming that the XX series oil fume purifier was a patented product, and many products such as Konka and Shanghai Duohuan appeared in the market were counterfeit. After investigation, the advertisement was seriously inaccurate. According to some data, the advertiser Liu is responsible for the product promotion and sales of an electrical appliance company in Shunde in many areas of Jiangxi Province. After the second trial, the court found that Liu's act of issuing a "solemn statement" was authorized by the defendant, and both Liu and the defendant were at fault, and ordered them to jointly compensate10.5 million yuan for civil liability.