Beijing iQiyi Technology Co., Ltd. v. Hangzhou Feiyi Information Technology Co., LTD., Lv Mou, Hu Mou unfair competition dispute
brief
The plaintiff, Beijing iQiyi Technology Co., Ltd. is the operator of the iQiyi website. The defendant Hangzhou Feiyi Information Technology Co., Ltd. is a company specializing in providing video brush volume services, and the defendant Lv mou, Hu Mou through division of labor, the use of multiple domain names, constantly change access IP address and other ways, continuous access to iQiyi website video, in a short period of time to rapidly improve video visits, to achieve brush single results, for profit. The plaintiff petitioned the three defendants to stop the unfair competition, compensate for the loss and eliminate the impact. The three defendants argued that their business scope and profit model were different from the plaintiff, there was no competitive relationship, and the brush volume behavior involved was not prohibited by the anti-unfair competition law, and it did not constitute unfair competition. The Xuhui District Court held that the three defendants interfered with and destroyed the access data of iQiyi's website through technical means, violated recognized business ethics, damaged the legitimate rights and interests of iQiyi and consumers, and constituted unfair competition, which could be identified in accordance with Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The defendant refused and appealed. The Shanghai intellectual property Court found that the video brushing constituted false propaganda. The three defendants cooperated in the division of labor and jointly implemented the video brushing behavior involved in the case, and should bear joint liability for compensation. The appeal is therefore dismissed and the original judgment upheld.
Case revelation
In recent years, with the development of the Internet industry, new business models and business logic relying on the Internet have been introduced. Due to the lack of clear guidelines on the legal characterization and application of rules for new types of unfair competition, new challenges have been posed to the interpretation and application of existing legal rules. The new type of behavior may be a new manifestation of the specific types of behavior listed in Chapter 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, or it may belong to the behavior not listed in the law. The former can be regulated by the specific provisions of the anti-unfair competition law, while the latter can be regulated by the general provisions, that is, on the basis of balancing the interests of operators, consumers and the public, the legitimacy of competition behavior is determined. Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law has dual functions. First, as a general provision, it is the basic and general provision of the whole law. In particular, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law still has binding and guiding functions for the provisions of Chapter 2, which can be used as a guide for the understanding and application of specific provisions. Secondly, it has the function of general clauses that can be applied in an open manner, and it becomes an open applicable clause on which the judicial authority determines that the acts of unfair competition are not listed. When applying the general provisions of the anti-unfair competition law, we should pay attention to the connection between them and the specific provisions. The video brushing behavior in this case, as a new business model and competition means, is a typical case of new problems caused by the current Internet industry. In this case, the court of first and second instance adopted the general provisions of the competition law in Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the "false publicity" provisions in Article 9 to regulate the brushing behavior, which reflects the qualitative difference of the court of first and second instance in the brushing behavior. The court of second instance has accurately grasped the relationship between general clauses and specific clauses in terms of legal characterization and rule application, and has played a good model role in solving new types of unfair competition cases.
Source: China (Shenzhen) Intellectual Property Protection Center Case database Project team,
Supreme People's Court Intellectual Property Tribunal,
Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court Intellectual Property Division,
Beijing/Shanghai/Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court,
"Lexmachina", "Westlaw" and other legal analysis platforms
Please indicate the above information
Related Cases
Recently, Yuhang District People's Court in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, announced a case of Huawei trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute.
2022-06-21
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
