Recently, in order to regulate online trading behavior, maintain a fair and orderly competition order, protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, and promote the healthy development of the platform economy, the Shenzhen Municipal Market Supervision Administration issued a typical case of "brush single speculation" to remind businesses to take caution and help consumers be vigilant.
Case 1: Shenzhen information technology Co., LTD. Word-of-mouth marketing false publicity case
Word-of-mouth Q&A maintenance is a kind of commercial publicity to help customers improve positive word-of-mouth. Its mode is to release question-and-answer or question-and-answer questions on platforms such as Baidu Know, 360 Q&A, Sogou Q&A, Zhihu and Douban on the commission of customers. The Q&A is mainly to release the content simulating the real user experience on the account of a third party posing as a real user commissioned by the party. According to the investigation, as of the time of the incident, the parties had signed a "product service purchase contract" with 92 customers, including the content of question and answer maintenance, and issued 7355 groups of questions and answers with false or misleading content, and the corresponding amount of question and answer service was 399,966.02 yuan. In addition, the parties also have illegal acts of falsely promoting their own beauty vocational training teachers. ,
The above acts of the parties violate the provisions of Article 8, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. According to the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 20 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the market supervision department ordered the party to stop the illegal act and imposed a fine of 1.5 million yuan.
Case 2: A marketing management company in Shenzhen organized false publicity case
After investigation, the party, as a brand promotion company, provides its customers with "question and answer submission" and "master grass" services, poses as real consumers in Baidu, Zhihu and other question and answer platforms to organize themselves, and publishes false "grass notes" on the small Red book platform to achieve the purpose of helping other operators to carry out false word-of-mouth marketing. The parties also have illegal acts of making false and misleading publicity to the media resources they own and the listed companies they have served.
The above acts of the parties violate the provisions of Article 8, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. According to the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 20 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the market supervision department ordered them to stop their illegal acts and imposed a fine of 200,000 yuan.
Case 3: A Shenzhen media Co., Ltd. organized the release of false "grass notes" case
The parties are mainly engaged in brand marketing planning and promotion business, and arrange employees to publish false product use experience on the Xiaohongbook platform according to the requirements of the brand, that is, false "grass planting notes", the note content is to impersonate the identity of real consumers, give positive evaluations of the brand's products and services, and deceive and mislead consumers.
The above behavior of the parties violates the provisions of Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. According to the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 20 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the market supervision department ordered them to stop their illegal activities and imposed a fine of 50,000 yuan.
Case 4: False publicity case of a watch industry Co., Ltd. in Shenzhen
The parties entrust a marketing company to organize a third party on Baidu Know, Zhihu and other platforms to do false or misleading commercial publicity through the question-and-answer mode. According to statistics, the marketing company has released 220 groups of questions and answers for the parties on Baidu Zhidao, Zhihu, Baidu Post bar, 360 Q&A, Toutiao Q&A and other question-and-answer platforms, of which 215 groups of questions and answers are user evaluations that contain user subjective experience and subjective judgment written by fake consumers.
The above acts of the parties have violated the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and the market supervision department shall order them to stop their illegal acts and impose a fine of 200,000 yuan in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 20 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Case 5: Shenzhen technology Co., Ltd. brush single speculation letter false publicity case
After investigation, the party in the process of operating his Tmall store, in order to attract consumers' attention and purchase, the goods sold by him were brushed and the sales volume was fabricated. The parties through the "shot A issued B" mode, that is, the order of stainless steel supplies, but the actual delivery of combs, toilet cleaners, sachet and other products, a total of 5928 brushes, the order amount totaled 1304739.1 yuan.
The above acts of the parties have violated the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and the market supervision department shall order them to stop their illegal acts and impose a fine of 100,000 yuan in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 20 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Case 6: A Shenzhen environmental protection technology Co., LTD. Brush single speculation unfair competition violation law
After investigation, the party is a trading company operating small household appliances, the party registered an account in a platform, and issued a single task through the platform. After receiving the task, the platform arranges the corresponding "test customers" to place orders and pay at the Alibaba platform store of the parties, and the parties actually deliver some small gifts. After confirming receipt of the goods, the platform will return the amount recharged by the parties to the "trial customer" account. As of the date of the incident, the parties issued a total of 36 brushing tasks through the platform, and the fictitious transaction amount was 85,736 yuan.
The above acts of the parties violated the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and the market supervision department ordered them to stop their illegal acts and imposed a fine of 20,000 yuan in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 20 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Case 7: A furniture manufacturing company in Shenzhen brushes a single letter false publicity case
During the "Double 11" period, the parties carried out false transactions through a platform. The client logs in to the website of the platform to contact the customer service to request the brushing, the platform arranges the brushes to place an order at the client's Tmall store and pay for the goods in advance. After the brushes make the payment, the customer service on the platform will notify the client that the order is a brushing order, and the client will contact the express company to send empty parcels for these brushing orders, and after the brushes confirm the receipt of the goods, The parties return the total fee to the platform through bank transfer to complete the brushing.
The above acts of the parties violated the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, and the market supervision department ordered them to stop their illegal acts and imposed a fine of 20,000 yuan in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 20 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Case 8: False publicity and price fraud of a technology Co., Ltd. in Shenzhen
The party is an Internet sales company with online mall and e-commerce as its main business, and sells all kinds of commodities through the "XX purchase" APP platform developed and operated by it. After investigation, the parties cheat and mislead consumers by fabricating the sales numbers, evaluation numbers, inventory numbers, etc. At the same time, deceptive or misleading price tags were used on the product sales page of the "XX Purchase" APP to induce others to trade.
The above acts of the parties violated the provisions of Article 8 (1) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and Article 14 (4) of the Price Law, and the market supervision department ordered them to stop the illegal acts according to the provisions of Article 20 (1) of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, Article 40 (1) of the Price Law, and Article 7 of the Provisions on Administrative Penalties for Price Violations. $250,000 fine for co-existence. (Source: Intellectual Property Frontier/Crystal Editor: Sharon)
More information and services
The official subscription number of "Deep Trusted Intellectual Property Rights" on the code
Code on the concern [deep trusted intellectual property service platform] official service number
Related Cases
Recently, according to the Guangdong Provincial High People's Court news, the game "My World" agency, v. the game "Mini World" development company, infringement of its copyright and unfair competition case final judgment. The court found that "Mini World" development company "Shenzhen Mini Play" constituted unfair competition, ordered it to delete 230 infringing elements in the game, and compensate "Minecraft" agency "NetEase" 50 million yuan.
2022-12-07
The use of "Beijing Erguotou" was convicted of infringement
The story starts with two enterprises Beijing Red Star Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Red Star Company) Xianghe Jingyun Distillery (hereinafter referred to as Jingyun Distillery) In 2018, Red Star found that the packaging of wine products produced by Jingyun Distillery and Red Star Company's No. 4600693 three-dimensional graphic trademark, whether from the overall composition or local information to compare, Both constitute substantial similarity and are suspected to constitute trademark infringement.
2022-12-05
Guangzhou Weimanduo Catering Enterprise Management Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Weimanduo Company) registered a number of trademarks ""," ", ""," and ". As of May 2018, Weimando has opened more than 50 "Tart Lime" hand tart lemon tea drink stores in Guangzhou, and the tea product packaging and decoration with "" pattern have been used and promoted for a long time, and have gained certain popularity. The trademark registered or authorized to be used by Guangzhou Shangyi Brand Operation Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Shangyi Company) is "" "", but the company uses "" "" logo in its model store and official website promotion, and authorized Guangzhou Dele Catering Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as Dele Company) on shop signs and beverage packaging.
2022-11-28
"A hemostatic clamp" invention patent infringement dispute Case No. 1: (2020) Zhejiang 02 Zhminchu 261 ★ Case Introduction ★ Plaintiff: Nanwei Medical Technology Co., LTD. (Nanwei Company for short) Defendant: Zhuji Pengtian Medical Equipment Co., LTD. (referred to as Pengtian Company) Nanwei Company is the patent holder of the invention of "a hemostatic clamp" with patent number ZL201410222753.7. Nanwei Company referred to as Pengtian company manufacturing and sales of "disposable hemostatic clamp" product suspected of infringement of its invention patent, to the court to request rights protection.
2022-11-22
32.4 million! Yunnan worm Valley IP dispute Tiktok was awarded a record amount of damages to Tencent
On October 26, Xi 'an Intermediate People's Court made a judgment of first instance on the lawsuit filed by Tencent on September 22, 2021, alleging that Tiktok infringed the copyright of Yunnan Worm Valley and unfair competition. The court held that Tiktok, as a platform, should undertake corresponding management obligations for the infringing content on its platform. At present, there are still a large number of users on the platform who have infringed on the works involved. Tiktok's failure to immediately take effective measures to delete, filter and intercept the relevant videos is an aid to infringement, and it must compensate Tencent for economic losses of more than 32.4 million yuan (an average of 2 million yuan per episode) and reasonable litigation costs of 426,931 yuan.
2022-11-03
The Court of second instance held that without the permission of HBI Company, the owner of the registered trademark of "Champion" brand, Weisi Company opened a number of "Champion" brand stores and sold counterfeit "Champion" brand products, which constituted infringement of the exclusive right to use the registered trademark of HBI company and unfair competition. The qualitative conduct of Jinshuangniu Company in this case should be reflected in the following aspects:
2022-11-02
"Walnut" music restaurant trademark rights, Taixing a restaurant was fined 120,000 yuan!
Food, wine, music... These elements come together to form a popular music restaurant. A restaurant in Taixing has been ordered to pay 120,000 yuan in compensation for trademark infringement and unfair competition, according to a ruling issued by the Taizhou Intermediate People's Court. 1. Brief description of the case A Walnut music restaurant in Nanjing illegally used the walnut trademark and was sued in court. Many young people are no strangers to Hu Taoli Music restaurant, which was founded in Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, and has opened stores in about 200 cities across the country in recent years. Its trademark owner is Shenzhen Helongitudinal Culture Co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as "Helongitudinal Company").
2022-11-01
Baidu, the appellant, believes that The "Anysay intelligent robot" developed by Wo Xi Company and sold by Ya LAN Company infringes the exclusive right of Baidu's registered trademarks No. 15668021, No. 24315163, No. 27165477, No. 30569391, No. 13754556, No. 15667594 and No. 24315397. At the same time, Wo Xi company claims that its products are the world's first Baidu voice intelligent robot, the strongest brain robot, claiming that the company is the official partner of Baidu /AI/DUEROS, and its legal representative claims to be the founder of Xiaodu robot, which constitutes false propaganda.
2022-10-25
Nanjing Dapai has won two trademark cases against it in Anhui. On July 11 and August 31, 2022, the Hefei Intermediate People's Court successively ruled in two judgments that Nanjing Dahui Enterprise Development Co., LTD. (referred to as Nanjing Dahui), the owner of Nanjing Dahui File, won the case.
2022-09-21
No. 38765119 "Lipstick First Brother" trademark objection case
Cui Shudong, Director of the Trademark Office of the State Intellectual Property Office, pointed out at the release and interpretation of the "2021 Typical Cases of Trademark Opposition and Review" that the trademark opposition and review procedure is an important part of the trademark authorization and confirmation, which plays an important role in strengthening the source protection of intellectual property rights and optimizing the business environment.
2022-09-20
Telephone：
Telephone：+86-755-82566227、82566717、13751089600
Head Office：13 / F, Building 14, Longhua Science and Technology Innovation Center (Mission Hills), No. 8 Golf Avenue, Guanlan Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen
Head Office：
13 / F, Building 14, Longhua Science and Technology Innovation Center (Mission Hills), No. 8 Golf Avenue, Guanlan Street, Longhua District, Shenzhen
Subsidiary Company：2808, Block B2, Yuexiu Xinghui Junbo, No.18 Tazihu East Road, Jiangan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province
Subsidiary Company：
2808, Block B2, Yuexiu Xinghui Junbo, No.18 Tazihu East Road, Jiangan District, Wuhan City, Hubei Province
Service Number
Subscription Number
Copyright ©2016 Shenzhen Shenkexin patent Agency Co., LTD All rights reserved | 粤ICP备2021174526号
Copyright ©2016 深圳市深可信专利代理有限公司 版权所有 | 粤ICP备2021174526号 SEO标签
Copyright ©2016 深圳市深可信专利代理有限公司 版权所有
