Page 94 - 2016_WhitePaper_web
P. 94
6 White Paper on the Business Environment in China
marks and international trademarks to protect the le- ber 2011 and claimed that Tecent Technology (Shenzhen)
gitimate rights of the IP owners and customers. Discov- Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tecent Inc. used their market domi-
er, investigate and punish illegal online infringing and nant position to expressly prohibit their users from using 360
pirating acts such as reprinting, etc. in a timely manner. software of the plaintiff; otherwise, they would stop rendering
Integrate new transmission modes with the copyright service. Meanwhile, they refused to provide corresponding
protection supervision, including APP, online cloud service to users who installed 360 software, compelled the
systems, Microblogs, Wechat, etc. Strengthen online users to delete 360 software, and took technical means to
patent disputes handling and patent administrative law prevent the users from visiting the QQ zone. Therefore, the
enforcement and right protection in e-commerce ar- plaintiff applied to the court to order the defendants to bear
eas. Promote invention patent protection for internet the legal liability for their acts of civil infringement, of mo-
business areas. Launch specialized law enforcement in nopolization, requested the defendants to promptly stop their
post and express channels and specifically crackdown monopolizing acts, compensate the plaintiff for its losses and
on various kinds of infringement in import and export reasonable expenses, and apologize.
such as “ants moving”.
3. Improve the informatizational level of supervision. Car- The court of the first instance held in this case the relevant
ry out internet real-name system, popularize the usage regional market should be the global market and that the de-
of RFID to realize online discovery, source trace inves- fendants did not have dominant ability in the relevant market,
tigate and handle, and detect the criminals address, IP and rejected all the requests of the plaintiff. The plaintiff dis-
address, bank account, etc. throughout the process. agreed and appealed. The Supreme People’s Court held that in
4. Implement the responsibility of e-commerce enterpris- the instant communication field where dynamic competition
es to protect Intellectual Property rights. Urge e-com- is prominent, high market share does not mean the existence
merce platform providers to strengthen their qualifi- of a market dominant position, which requires other elements
cation examination for internet operators, to establish to establish it, including the competition situation in the
a thorough complaint handling system, to implement relevant market, the defendant operator’s ability to control
inspection and cleaning of information regarding in- prices, quantity, and other transaction conditions of the com-
fringing and counterfeit commodities and retention of modities, said operator’s financial resources and technological
transaction records and blogs, to fulfil their responsi- conditions, other operators’ dependence on said operator in
bility and obligation to report clues of illegal acts and the transaction, the degree of difficulty for other operators to
crimes, and provide assistance to law enforcement enter the relevant market, etc. Base on the above elements in
departments in tracing the operators of infringing October 2014, taken together, the Supreme People’s Court
and counterfeit commodities on e-commerce plat- held, the appellee did not hold a market dominant position,
forms. Guide and urge the e-commerce enterprises to rejected the appeal, and maintained the original judgement.
strengthen internal commodity quality management
and control and IP rights management, strictly control (2) Significance:
the threshold of production and sale, and strictly pre- This is the first monopolizing case tried before the Supreme
vent the infringing counterfeit commodities from get- People’s Court, which discussed a series of detailed legal
ting into circulation domain channels and the market. issues related to intellectual property, including the standard
5. Implement the responsibility of the internet service for determining relevant markets under the Antitrust Law,
providers. Urge internet service providers to implement and the determination standard for determining a market
the obligation of “Notifying-Deleting”. Take necessary dominant role, the methods and principles employed to
measures such as deleting and blocking or disconnect- analyze abuse of a market dominant position, and clarified
ing the links for internet information that constitutes these various standards, where the Antitrust Law should apply.
infringing and counterfeiting acts.
2. Beijing Quna Information Technology Co., Ltd. v.
Significant Cases
Guangzhou Quna Information Technology Co., Ltd.
1. Beijing Qihu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Tecent Technolo-
gy (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tecent Inc. (1) Basic introduction to the case:
Zhuang Chenchao registered the domain name “qunar.
(1) Basic introduction to the case: com” and established qunar.com on May 9, 2005. Upon the
The plaintiff, Beijing Qihu Technology Co., Ltd. filed a establishment of Beijing Quna Information Technology Co.,
lawsuit with the Guangdong High People’s Court in Novem- Ltd., on March 17, 2006, the domain name “qunar.com” was
transferred by Zhuang Chenchao to the plaintiff. After many
94 years of use, the service logos including “qunar,” “qunar.com,”
etc. became the specialized name of a famous service. The
marks and international trademarks to protect the le- ber 2011 and claimed that Tecent Technology (Shenzhen)
gitimate rights of the IP owners and customers. Discov- Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tecent Inc. used their market domi-
er, investigate and punish illegal online infringing and nant position to expressly prohibit their users from using 360
pirating acts such as reprinting, etc. in a timely manner. software of the plaintiff; otherwise, they would stop rendering
Integrate new transmission modes with the copyright service. Meanwhile, they refused to provide corresponding
protection supervision, including APP, online cloud service to users who installed 360 software, compelled the
systems, Microblogs, Wechat, etc. Strengthen online users to delete 360 software, and took technical means to
patent disputes handling and patent administrative law prevent the users from visiting the QQ zone. Therefore, the
enforcement and right protection in e-commerce ar- plaintiff applied to the court to order the defendants to bear
eas. Promote invention patent protection for internet the legal liability for their acts of civil infringement, of mo-
business areas. Launch specialized law enforcement in nopolization, requested the defendants to promptly stop their
post and express channels and specifically crackdown monopolizing acts, compensate the plaintiff for its losses and
on various kinds of infringement in import and export reasonable expenses, and apologize.
such as “ants moving”.
3. Improve the informatizational level of supervision. Car- The court of the first instance held in this case the relevant
ry out internet real-name system, popularize the usage regional market should be the global market and that the de-
of RFID to realize online discovery, source trace inves- fendants did not have dominant ability in the relevant market,
tigate and handle, and detect the criminals address, IP and rejected all the requests of the plaintiff. The plaintiff dis-
address, bank account, etc. throughout the process. agreed and appealed. The Supreme People’s Court held that in
4. Implement the responsibility of e-commerce enterpris- the instant communication field where dynamic competition
es to protect Intellectual Property rights. Urge e-com- is prominent, high market share does not mean the existence
merce platform providers to strengthen their qualifi- of a market dominant position, which requires other elements
cation examination for internet operators, to establish to establish it, including the competition situation in the
a thorough complaint handling system, to implement relevant market, the defendant operator’s ability to control
inspection and cleaning of information regarding in- prices, quantity, and other transaction conditions of the com-
fringing and counterfeit commodities and retention of modities, said operator’s financial resources and technological
transaction records and blogs, to fulfil their responsi- conditions, other operators’ dependence on said operator in
bility and obligation to report clues of illegal acts and the transaction, the degree of difficulty for other operators to
crimes, and provide assistance to law enforcement enter the relevant market, etc. Base on the above elements in
departments in tracing the operators of infringing October 2014, taken together, the Supreme People’s Court
and counterfeit commodities on e-commerce plat- held, the appellee did not hold a market dominant position,
forms. Guide and urge the e-commerce enterprises to rejected the appeal, and maintained the original judgement.
strengthen internal commodity quality management
and control and IP rights management, strictly control (2) Significance:
the threshold of production and sale, and strictly pre- This is the first monopolizing case tried before the Supreme
vent the infringing counterfeit commodities from get- People’s Court, which discussed a series of detailed legal
ting into circulation domain channels and the market. issues related to intellectual property, including the standard
5. Implement the responsibility of the internet service for determining relevant markets under the Antitrust Law,
providers. Urge internet service providers to implement and the determination standard for determining a market
the obligation of “Notifying-Deleting”. Take necessary dominant role, the methods and principles employed to
measures such as deleting and blocking or disconnect- analyze abuse of a market dominant position, and clarified
ing the links for internet information that constitutes these various standards, where the Antitrust Law should apply.
infringing and counterfeiting acts.
2. Beijing Quna Information Technology Co., Ltd. v.
Significant Cases
Guangzhou Quna Information Technology Co., Ltd.
1. Beijing Qihu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Tecent Technolo-
gy (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tecent Inc. (1) Basic introduction to the case:
Zhuang Chenchao registered the domain name “qunar.
(1) Basic introduction to the case: com” and established qunar.com on May 9, 2005. Upon the
The plaintiff, Beijing Qihu Technology Co., Ltd. filed a establishment of Beijing Quna Information Technology Co.,
lawsuit with the Guangdong High People’s Court in Novem- Ltd., on March 17, 2006, the domain name “qunar.com” was
transferred by Zhuang Chenchao to the plaintiff. After many
94 years of use, the service logos including “qunar,” “qunar.com,”
etc. became the specialized name of a famous service. The
