Involved in industries such as pharmaceuticals and automobiles! 10 Typical Cases of Anti Monopoly and Anti Unfair Competition Released

September 11th to 15th is the 2023 China Fair Competition Policy Promotion Week, and this year's theme is "Unifying the Big Market and Fair Competition for the Future". Today, the Supreme People's Court released typical cases of anti-monopoly and anti unfair competition by the People's Court in 2023. A total of 10 typical cases were released this time, including 5 typical antitrust cases and 5 anti unfair competition cases.

Among the 5 typical antitrust cases, 3 cases related to the abuse of market dominance involved four types of abusive behavior: unfair high prices, restricted transactions, attaching unreasonable transaction conditions, and refusing transactions. 2 cases related to monopoly agreements involved vertical and horizontal agreements, respectively. The case involves industries such as medicine, funeral, automobile sales, and building materials, all of which are closely related to people's livelihoods. The five typical cases mainly reflect the following three characteristics:

Firstly, respond to people's concerns and resolutely stop monopolistic behaviors that infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of enterprises and the people. In the cases of refusing to trade basic funeral services, vertical monopoly agreement disputes with General Motors, and anti-monopoly administrative penalties with commercial concrete joint ventures, monopolistic behaviors such as abusing market dominance by public enterprises in the funeral industry, and monopolistic agreements reached and implemented by operators in the automobile sales industry and building materials industry, will be resolutely stopped or compensated in full according to law, effectively safeguarding the interests of the people and small and medium-sized enterprises. The above cases can demonstrate that antitrust justice plays an important role in serving and safeguarding social livelihoods, maintaining fair market competition order, and promoting the construction of a unified national market.

Secondly, strengthen the guidance of rules and promote the fair and efficient trial of monopoly cases in accordance with the law. The case of the dispute over the abuse of market dominance of the raw material drug "Goudi loratadine" for the first time explains the correlation and judgment methods between the market blockade effect of the accused restricted trading behavior and the exercise of patent rights, as well as the basic considerations for identifying and regulating unfair high price behavior; Refusal of basic funeral services dispute case, attempting to order public utility enterprises with exclusive status to assume the obligation to resume transactions under legal and reasonable conditions; The proposal on jurisdictional differences in the refusal of trading disputes for raw materials of "Batroxobin" further clarifies the criteria for determining the jurisdictional connection points for refusal of trading disputes. The judgment of the above cases has guiding value for promoting the accurate application of anti-monopoly law.

Thirdly, improve the linkage mechanism and demonstrate collaborative efforts to maintain a fair competition order. The General Motors vertical monopoly agreement dispute case clarified the burden of proof in related civil compensation litigation cases after antitrust administrative penalties were imposed, effectively reducing the burden of proof for the plaintiff; The "Commercial Concrete Joint Venture" anti-monopoly administrative penalty case has refined the recognition criteria for horizontal monopoly agreements and supported the administrative enforcement of anti-monopoly administrative law enforcement departments in accordance with the law. The above cases have positive significance in promoting the coordination and unity of anti-monopoly administrative law enforcement standards and judicial standards, and promoting the formation of a joint force in anti-monopoly law enforcement and judicial work.

Five typical cases of anti unfair competition involve types of cases including the application of general provisions on unfair competition, confusion, false advertising, infringement of technological secrets, and disputes over online unfair competition. The areas involved in the case include both household appliances, short videos, online games, food and beverage reviews, as well as high-tech fields such as diagnostic reagents. The case mainly reflects the following three characteristics:

Firstly, we must effectively maintain a fair competition market order and fully protect the legitimate rights and interests of operators and consumers. In the "Siemens" counterfeit confusion dispute case, the people's court is guided by encouraging honest operation, strengthening the protection of well-known brands, and severely cracking down on dishonest trademark attachment and counterfeit hitchhiking behavior. In the case where the existing evidence cannot prove the specific amount of the defendant's profit and the plaintiff's loss, but is sufficient to determine that the defendant's infringement profit significantly exceeds the legal compensation limit, full consideration is given to factors such as popularity and improper means, fully supporting the plaintiff's lawsuit request and equally protecting the legitimate rights and interests of both domestic and foreign parties. In the case of infringement of technical secrets in the "General Liquid of Photoexcited Chemiluminescence Analysis System", the people's court clarified the relationship between technical secret information and its carrier documents, which has demonstrative significance for reasonable allocation of burden of proof and strengthening the protection of technical secrets.

Secondly, we will continue to explore and improve data protection rules to serve and ensure the high-quality development of the digital economy. In recent years, people's courts have adhered to the principle of balancing standardization and development, fully exerting judicial functions, properly handling cases of unfair competition in data rights, actively exploring judicial rules for big data protection, and reasonably dividing the ownership and boundaries of data rights. In the unfair competition dispute case of "Shubao App", the people's court explored and clarified the legal nature and independent economic value of non original data sets, protected the legitimate rights and interests of short video platform operators in collecting, storing, processing, and transmitting data, continuously met the judicial needs of new business models, and provided services to ensure the healthy and orderly development of the digital economy industry.

Third, actively create an honest and trustworthy market environment and guide the healthy development of the Internet. The People's Court actively adapts to the new situation and new requirements of the development of the Internet industry, and by giving play to the normative and exemplary role of the referee, it ensures the healthy development of new Internet technologies, new business types and new models on the track of the rule of law, so that the achievements of Internet development can better benefit the people. In the unfair competition dispute case of "Dai Lianbang App", the people's court held that the commercial agency practice that bypasses the minors' anti addiction mechanism and destroys the game operation mechanism constitutes an unfair competition act as stipulated in Article 2 of the Anti unfair Competition Law, which is of positive significance to the fair competition order of the Internet industry, the healthy development of the game industry, and the protection of social and public interests. In the unfair competition dispute case of "brushing orders and speculation", the people's court promptly and effectively stopped false propaganda behaviors that affect the healthy and orderly development of the platform economy, protected the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, and escorted the standardized and orderly development of the platform economy.

Typical Cases of Anti Monopoly and Anti Unfair Competition in People's Courts in 2023