In 2023, the People's Court issued typical cases of anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition!

of Typical Anti-Monopoly and Anti-Unfair Competition Cases

of the People's Court in

2023 1. Dispute over Abuse of Market Dominant Position of "Desloratadine Citrate" API [Supreme People's Court (2020) Supreme Law Zhimin Zhong No.1140]-Properly Handle Intellectual Property Protection and Anti-Monopoly

2. "Basic Funeral Service" Refusal to Trade Dispute Case [Supreme People's Court (2021) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhong No.242]-Determination and Legal Liability

of Public Enterprises Refusal to Trade 3. "General Motors" Vertical Monopoly Agreement Dispute Case [Supreme People's Court (2020) Supreme Law Zhi Min Zhong No.1137]-Allocation of Burden of Proof and Determination

of Compensation Liability in Civil Litigation Following Anti-monopoly 4. Anti-monopoly Administrative Penalty Case of "Commercial Concrete Joint Venture" [Supreme People's Court (2023) Supreme Law Zhixing Zhong No.29]-Determination

of Implementation of Horizontal Monopoly Agreement 5. Refusal to Trade "Batroxobin" API Discrepancy of Jurisdiction of Dispute [Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2022) Jing 73 Min Chu No.1136]-Determination

of Jurisdiction of Refusal to Deal 6. "SIEMENS" Counterfeiting and Confusion Dispute [Supreme People's Court (2022) Supreme Fa Min Zhong No.312]-Determination

of Counterfeiting and Confusion 7. Technical Secret Infringement Dispute Case of "General Solution for Chemiluminescence Analysis System" [Supreme People's Court (2020) SFZMZ No.1889] — — Determination

of Technical Scheme Constituting Technical Secret 8. Unfair Competition Dispute Case of "Brush APP" [Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2021) J73 MZ No.1011] — — Data Grasp Determination

of Unfair Competition Behavior 9. Unfair Competition Dispute Case of "Dai Lian Bang APP" [Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court (2022) Hu 0115 Min Chu No.13290]-Determination

of Unfair Competition Behavior of Online Game Business Dai Lian 10. Unfair Competition Dispute Case of "Scalping and Speculating" [People's Court of Longhua District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province (2022) Yue 0309 Min Chu No.2585]-Determination

of False publicity by Using False Transactions 1. The company and its subsidiaries and affiliated companies (collectively referred to as medical workers) are the sole suppliers of desloratadine citrate raw materials necessary for the production of "Beixue". In addition to producing desloratadine citrate raw materials, Yigongfang also produces desloratadine citrate hard capsules. Therefore, Yigong Fang and Yangzijiang Fang are not only the suppliers and demanders of the APIs involved, but also the competitors of the preparations involved. Taking advantage of its dominant position in the market of raw materials involved, the medical workers limited the Yangtze River Party to purchase the raw materials involved from it, raised the price of the raw materials involved by a large margin, threatened to stop the supply of the raw materials involved, and forced the Yangtze River Party to accept other commercial arrangements unrelated to the transaction of the raw materials involved, which caused huge losses to the Yangtze River Party. It constitutes an abuse of market dominance in the sense of anti-monopoly law, such as limited transactions, unfair high prices, tying and unreasonable conditions, and requests that the medical workers be ordered to stop abusing market dominance and compensate Yangzijiang for its losses and reasonable expenses of safeguarding its rights by 100 million yuan. The court of first instance held that the medical workers abused their dominant market position by limiting transactions, unfair high prices and attaching unreasonable trading conditions, and decided that the medical workers should immediately stop the above acts and compensate the Yangtze River side for more than 680 million yuan. Both sides refused to accept and appealed. The medical engineering party held that it did not have a dominant position in the relevant market and did not abuse its dominant position in the market, so it requested to revoke the original judgment and reject the claim of Yangzijiang Party in accordance with the law; Yangzijiang Party held that the amount of compensation awarded in the first instance was too low, and requested to change the judgment to compensate more than 780 million yuan. The second instance of the Supreme

People's Court held that although the medical workers had a dominant position in the market of desloratadine citrate raw materials in China, their dominant position in the market was weakened to a certain extent because of the strong indirect competition constraints from the downstream second generation antihistamine preparation market. Moreover, the existing evidence is difficult to prove that it has abused its dominant market position. Firstly, Desloratadine Citrate falls into the scope of patent protection of the Medical Engineering Party, and the Medical Engineering Party's restriction that Yangzijiang Party can only purchase the patent APIs from it within a certain period and scope is a legitimate exercise of the patent right, and the resulting market blockade effect does not exceed the scope of the legal exclusive effect of the patent, and does not constitute the act of restricting the transaction without justified reasons. Secondly, considering the internal rate of return after the price increase and the matching degree between the price and the economic value, it is more likely that the initial price of the patent API involved is the promotional price, and the subsequent price increase is more likely to be a reasonable adjustment of the promotional price to the normal price. It is not enough to determine the unfair high price behavior only because the price increase is significantly higher than cost increase. Thirdly, the existing evidence is not enough to prove the existence of the explicit or implicit bundling transaction between the project outside the case and the sale of the patent APIs involved, so it is difficult to identify the existence of additional unreasonable trading conditions. The final judgment of the Supreme People's Court revoked the first instance judgment and changed the judgment to reject Yangzijiang's claim.

[Typical Significance] This case involves a monopoly case in the field of APIs. It clarifies the consideration of indirect competition constraints from the downstream market when judging the dominant market position of intermediate input operators, the relevance and judgment method of the market blockade effect of the accused limited trading behavior and the exercise of patent rights, and the basic considerations of the identification and regulation of unfair high prices and additional unreasonable trading conditions. The case has made useful explorations in properly handling the relationship between patent protection and anti-monopoly, giving consideration to encouraging innovation and protecting market competition, and making good use of economic analysis to assist in judging monopoly behavior, which is of positive significance for promoting the accurate application of anti-monopoly law and effectively safeguarding fair competition in the drug market.

2. The court of first instance held that Lisheng Company did not prove that Jiying Company was the subject of administrative monopoly regulated by the Anti-monopoly Law, and decided to reject all the appeals of Lisheng Company. Lisheng Company refused to accept and appealed, claiming that the refusal of Jiying Company belongs to the refusal to trade by abusing its dominant market position prohibited by the Anti-monopoly Law. The second instance of the Supreme

People's Court held that the basic funeral service market of Jiying Company belongs to the upstream market, the funeral intermediary service provided by Lisheng Company is derived from the basic funeral service, and the funeral intermediary service market belongs to the downstream market. The accused monopoly occurred in the basic funeral service market and had an impact on the funeral intermediary service market. As a public enterprise with a monopoly position in the basic funeral service market in the downtown area of Quanzhou, the basic funeral service provided by Jiying Company is an indispensable specific service for Lisheng Company to carry out funeral intermediary services, and Lisheng Company has no alternative. Jiying Company refused to handle relevant business for Lisheng Company, which led to Lisheng Company being completely excluded from the funeral intermediary service market in the downtown area of Quanzhou, excluded and restricted the competition in the funeral intermediary service market, damaged the interests of the relatives of the deceased as consumers in the sense of anti-monopoly law, and constituted a refusal to trade prohibited by anti-monopoly law. Lisheng Company has been engaged in funeral intermediary services since its establishment, and has a long-term and stable trading relationship with basic funeral service providers, so restoring the original transaction does not impose trading obligations. In the final judgment of the Supreme People's Court, the judgment of the first instance was revoked and the judgment of Jiying Company was changed to resume Lisheng Company's application for cremation of remains on behalf of the relatives of the deceased under the conditions of complying with relevant laws, regulations and industry management norms; At the same time, according to the nature, degree, circumstances and duration of Jiying Company's refusal to trade, it was decided that Jiying Company should compensate Lisheng Company for the loss of 80000 yuan caused by its refusal to trade, which fully supported Lisheng Company's claim for compensation.

[Typical significance] This case clarifies that if a public utility enterprise with exclusive status is the sole provider of specific services indispensable to the production and operation activities of the trading counterpart, it should comprehensively evaluate the impact on the upstream and downstream market competition and whether it harms the interests of consumers when judging the anti-competitive effect of its refusal to trade. At the same time, this case explores the relief measures for refusal to trade and the criteria for determining the loss caused by refusal to trade. The judgment of this case is of positive significance to safeguard the basic livelihood of the people, standardize the market competition order of the funeral industry, and prevent and stop the monopoly behavior of public enterprises with exclusive status.

3. In 2014, Miao purchased the vehicle involved from Yilong Company. In 2016, the Shanghai Price Bureau issued a penalty decision, which found that in the process of distributing automobiles in 2014, GM had reached and implemented a monopoly agreement with dealers in Shanghai to limit the minimum price of goods resold to third parties, ordered it to stop the illegal act immediately, and imposed a fine of 4% of the sales in the previous year. Miu Mou believed that when he purchased the vehicle from Yilong Company in 2014, it was during the period when GM implemented the above-mentioned vertical monopoly agreement, and the purchase price was also the monopoly price determined by the penalty decision involved, and his legitimate rights and interests were infringed by the monopoly behavior involved, so he filed a lawsuit. Request to order GM to compensate for the loss of 10000 yuan in car purchase and the reasonable expenditure of 7500 yuan in rights protection, and Yilong Company shall bear supplementary liability for the above losses. The court of first instance held that the evidence in the case was not enough to prove that the minimum price of GM was binding on Yilong, and that GM and Yilong had implemented a monopoly agreement to limit the minimum price of goods resold to a third party, and decided to reject Miao's claim. Miao Mou refused to accept and appealed. The second instance of the Supreme

People's Court held that the decision of the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency to determine that a monopolistic act has not been brought an administrative lawsuit within the legal time limit or has been confirmed by the effective judgment of the people's court, and that if the plaintiff claims the establishment of the monopolistic act in the relevant monopolistic civil disputes, there is no need to prove it again. Unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. In this case, after Miao submitted the legally effective penalty decision, he only needed to prove that GM and Yilong were the perpetrators of the monopoly identified in the penalty decision, and that Miao was damaged by the monopoly identified in the penalty decision reached and implemented by GM and Yilong. According to the penalty decision and the facts in the case, Miao Mou purchased the vehicle involved at a monopoly price, and it should be recognized that GM and Yilong Company jointly committed the infringement. This case is a follow-up civil compensation lawsuit brought by consumers as victims, and the amount of compensation should be the difference between the non-competitive price and the competitive price limited between operators.The difference between the monopoly price paid by Miaomou when purchasing the vehicle involved and the market price of the vehicle involved after the administrative penalty decision was made was 1. The Supreme People's Court made the final judgment, revoked the first instance judgment, and changed the judgment to support all of Miaomou's claims.

[Typical Significance] This case is a civil lawsuit in which consumers claim damages for monopolistic acts after the anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies have imposed administrative penalties. The judgment of this case clarifies the burden of proof of the plaintiff in the subsequent civil litigation of anti-monopoly, which is conducive to effectively reducing the burden of proof of the plaintiff, effectively strengthening the civil relief of anti-monopoly, and has practical significance for improving the administrative law enforcement and judicial convergence mechanism in the field of anti-monopoly.

4. In October 2019, the Chongqing Municipal Market Supervision and Administration launched an investigation into the suspected monopolistic acts of Jiangdu Company and Jiandian Company, and found that the two companies had violated the anti-monopoly law by reaching and implementing fixed sales prices and dividing the commercial concrete sales market. Jiangdu Company (Jiandian Company shall be dealt with in another case) was imposed a total 12149260 of 5% of the sales of the previous year. Jiangdu Company refused to accept the decision and filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting to revoke the aforementioned administrative penalty decision. The court of first instance decided to reject the claim of Jiangdu Company. Jiangdu Company refused to accept and appealed. The second instance of the Supreme

People's Court held that "fixing or changing commodity prices" and "dividing the sales market" are typical types of horizontal monopoly agreements, and their manifestations in practice are diverse. Agree on the range of price change, use standard formula or algorithm to calculate the price, and not change the price without the consent of the parties to the agreement also belong to "fix or change the commodity price"; agree on the division of market share, sales target, sales revenue, sales profit, etc. Also constitute "split the sales market". Jiangdu Company and Jiandian Company reached an agreement to fix commodity prices and divide the sales market and implemented it, which directly led to no price competition in the region, and obviously had the effect of excluding and restricting price competition. The defendant's administrative penalty decision determines the nature of Jiangdu Company's behavior accurately, makes the procedure legally, and the penalty result conforms to the principle of excessive punishment. The Supreme People's Court made a final judgment, rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

[Typical Significance] By analyzing the specific manifestations of the horizontal monopoly agreements reached and implemented by the parties, this case refines the criteria for determining the horizontal monopoly agreements such as "fixing or changing commodity prices" and "dividing the sales market", so as to supervise and support the administrative law enforcement of the anti-monopoly administrative law enforcement departments by the people's courts according to law. It is of positive significance to jointly safeguard fair competition in the market.

5. In January 2021, the State Administration of Market Supervision and Administration made a penalty decision that the refusal of Xiansheng Group Company and Jiangsu Xiansheng Company to trade with Tobixi Company constituted a monopoly act of refusing to trade. Since then, Jiangsu Xiansheng Company and Tobixi Company signed a purchase and sale contract in 2022, but refused to perform, resulting in Tobixi Company has been in a state of shutdown since April 2022. Tuobixi Company requests to order Simcere Group Company and Jiangsu Simcere Company to immediately stop the monopolistic behavior of abusing the dominant market position; and jointly and severally compensate Tuobixi Company for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 200 million yuan. Simcere Group objected to the jurisdiction of this case, arguing that there was no evidence to prove that the place of implementation of the defendant's refusal to trade was Beijing, and that there was no evidence to prove that the domicile of Tobixi Company was the place where the infringement occurred, and that the Beijing Intellectual Property Court had no jurisdiction over this case.

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the place where the infringement result of the refusal to trade occurs should be the place where the direct result of the refusal to trade occurs. The administrative penalty decision has confirmed that Simcere Group refused to sell APIs to downstream pharmaceutical enterprises, which caused downstream pharmaceutical enterprises to stop production because of the lack of supply of APIs. It can be seen from this that the direct result of the alleged refusal to trade in this case on Tobixi Company was that it, as a downstream pharmaceutical enterprise, stopped production due to the lack of APIs, and the production plant of Tobixi Company was located in Beijing, so the direct infringement suffered by Tobixi Company due to the alleged refusal to trade occurred in Beijing. Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled to reject the jurisdictional objection of Simcere Group. Simcere Group refused to accept and appealed. The Supreme People's Court made a final ruling, rejected the appeal and upheld the original ruling.

[Typical significance] Monopolistic behavior damages the legal interests of fair competition order, consumer interests and social public interests protected by anti-monopoly law. This case determines the jurisdictional connection point of refusal to trade disputes through the place where the infringement results occur, which has reference value for the determination of the jurisdiction of refusal to trade monopoly cases.

6. The name "SIEMENS" of SIEMENS companies and SIEMENS Chinese companies also has a certain impact. Ningbo Qishuai Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter referred to as Qishuai Company) used the logo of "Shanghai SIEMENS Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd." In its production and sales of washing machine products, product packaging and related promotional activities; and Kunshan Xinweichuang Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter referred to as Xinweichuang Company), a sole proprietorship enterprise, sold the alleged infringing products. SIEMENS Company and SIEMENS China Company filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the aforementioned acts of Qishuai Company and Xinweichuang Company infringed upon their exclusive right to use registered trademarks and constituted unfair competition, requesting compensation for economic losses of 100 million yuan and reasonable expenses of 163000. The first instance of Jiangsu Provincial Higher People's Court held that the acts of Qishuai Company and Xinweichuang Company constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition, and fully supported the compensation claims of SIEMENS companies and SIEMENS Chinese companies. Qishuai Company and others refused to accept and appealed. The second instance of the Supreme

People's Court held that Qishuai Company's use of "Shanghai SIEMENS Electrical Appliances Co., Ltd." In washing machine body, commodity packaging and publicity activities constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition as stipulated in Items 2 and 4 of Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law for SIEMENS companies respectively. In view of the fact that Qishuai Company refused to provide financial information related to the infringement in the lawsuit, it was not improper for the court of first instance to calculate the total sales on the basis of the media reports in the case, and to calculate the proportion of sales of the alleged infringing products according to one fifteenth, so as to determine the amount of compensation. Although the existing evidence can not prove the profit and loss of infringement, it is sufficient to determine that the benefits of Qishuai Company from the production and sale of the alleged infringing products obviously exceed the statutory maximum compensation stipulated in Article 17, paragraph 4, of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, taking into account the names of SIEMENS companies and SIEMENS Chinese companies. Qishuai Company has obvious subjective malice, infringement scale, infringement duration, and combined with the profit margin of washing machine products and other factors, the amount of compensation determined in the first instance is not improper. The Supreme People's Court ruled in the second instance, rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

[Typical Significance] This case is a typical case of combating counterfeiting and confusion. In this case, the people's court held that the use of the same or similar logo in the name and registered trademark of an enterprise that has a certain influence on others as the name and engaging in business activities constituted an act of unfair competition as stipulated in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. At the same time, in the case that the existing evidence can not prove the specific amount of infringement profits and actual losses, the people's court has refined the considerations for determining the amount of compensation. The judgment in this case is of exemplary significance to the identification of confusing acts and the calculation of the amount of compensation.

7. A former employee of Boyang Company entered Chengdu Aixing Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter referred to as Aixing Company) after leaving his post, and disclosed the aforementioned technical secrets to Aixing Company. Aixing Company uses the aforementioned technical secrets to produce and sell in vitro diagnostic kits. Boyang Company filed a lawsuit in this case on the grounds that the aforementioned acts of Cheng Mou and Aixing Company constituted an infringement on their rights and interests in technical secrets. The Shanghai Intellectual Property Court ordered Cheng Mou and Aixing Company to stop infringing the technical secrets involved and jointly compensate Boyang Company for its economic losses of 1 million yuan and the reasonable cost of safeguarding its rights of 300000 yuan. Cheng Mou and Aixing Company refused to accept and appealed. The second instance of the Supreme

People's Court held that technical secrets are usually embodied in technical data such as drawings, process regulations, quality standards, operational guidelines and experimental data, and that the right holder proves the existence and content of t he technical secrets, usually on the basis of the carrier documents embodying the above-mentioned technical secrets. Summarize, summarize and refine the technical secret information that needs to be protected. The technical secret can be a complete technical scheme or part of the technical information that constitutes the technical scheme. When the obligee summarizes, generalizes and refines the secret information from its technical data and other carriers, it shall be allowed to combine its secret information with the existing technology and common knowledge to form a complete technical scheme for protection. The technical solutions reasonably extracted by the obligee from the technical documents such as process regulations and quality control standards that are not known to the public can be protected as technical secrets as long as they are not generally known to the public and are easy to obtain. Boyang Company advocates that eight complete technical schemes should be protected as technical secrets. After examination, the technical information such as the CV value and particle size of the particles are correspondingly recorded in the relevant technical documents. Boyang Company can reasonably summarize and refine the above technical solutions in combination with the existing technology and common knowledge in this field, which can be protected as technical secrets. The second instance judgment of the Supreme People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

[Typical Significance] This case is a typical case of stopping the infringement of technical secrets. In the process of hearing the case of infringement of technical secrets, the fact that the technical secrets are not known to the public makes the identification of the contents of technical secrets a difficult problem in judicial practice. In this case, the people's court made it clear that the technical scheme claimed by the obligee to constitute the technical secret could be a technical scheme reasonably summarized, generalized and refined on the basis of the technical information not known to the public recorded in a number of different technical documents. The judgment of this case is of exemplary significance for rationally allocating the burden of proof in cases of infringement of technical secrets and effectively improving the judicial protection of the legitimate rights and interests of technical secrets.

8. Without permission, Beijing Chuangrui Culture Media Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter referred to as Chuangrui Company) uses technical means or manual means to obtain more than 50000 video files, more than 10000 user information and 127 comments from Tik Tok APP and provides them to the public through Brush Bao APP. The micro-broadcasting company filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the aforementioned acts of Chuangrui Company constituted unfair competition. In the first instance, the People's Court of Haidian District of Beijing held that the accused acts of Chuangrui Company constituted unfair competition and ordered compensation of 5 million yuan for the economic losses of the micro-broadcasting company. Chuangrui Company refused to accept and appealed. The second instance of

Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the video files, user information and comments involved in the case constituted the data set of the tremolo platform. The data collection is presented in a non-original way, and the content can be retrieved separately and has independent value. Through legal operation, micro-broadcasting companies invest huge human, material and financial resources to collect, store, process and transmit tremolo platform data, forming a non-original data set including user personal information, short videos and user comments. The scale agglomeration effect of the data set can bring huge economic benefits to micro-broadcasting companies and form competitive advantages in the market competition.The competitive interests of micro-broadcasting companies based on the non-original data set involved in the case are not stipulated in the copyright law or other special intellectual property laws, and should belong to the legitimate rights and interests protected by the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Chuangrui Company, as the main operator of Brush Treasure APP, takes improper measures to grab the substantive content of the non-original data set in Tik Tok APP, seizes the competitive resources of micro-broadcasting companies, weakens the competitive advantages of micro-broadcasting companies, damages the welfare of consumers, and destroys the market competition order of the short video industry. The damage caused by the accused act is far greater than benefits obtained by consumers and the public based on the act. Therefore, the accused acts of Chuangrui Company violate the principle of good faith and business ethics and constitute unfair competition. The Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled in the second instance, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment.

[Typical significance] This case is a typical case of standardizing data capture behavior. In the era of Internet and big data, data has become an important means of production. With the development of data industry and data transaction, legal disputes arising from data collection, processing and utilization among enterprises are increasing. In this case, the people's court explored and clarified the legal nature of non-original data collection, distinguished the rights protected by copyright law from the legal interests of anti-unfair competition law, and protected the legitimate rights and interests of platform operators formed by collecting, storing, processing and transmitting data. The judgment of this case has actively explored the application of anti-unfair competition law to regulate data utilization.

9. The game provides users with free downloads, and the user agreement requires real-name registration, and the account shall not be provided to others for commercial use such as training and playing. The game is equipped with "anti-addiction" measures, and minors can only log on to the game within the time period stipulated by the State Press and Publication Administration. Foshan Nanhai Beisheng Network Technology Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter referred to as Beisheng Company) operates "Dai Lian Bang APP" in the form of "issuing bills and returning cash" and setting up special zones to lure users, including minors, to conduct commercial game trading through its platform and gain profits from it. The person who receives the order can log on to the game without his real identity, and the minor can also receive the order to get the game account of others to bypass the "anti-addiction" mechanism to enter the game and earn fees. "Dai Lian Bang APP" guarantees transactions through "security margin" and other means, from which a certain proportion is extracted as platform revenue. Tencent Chengdu Company and Shenzhen Tencent Company filed a lawsuit in this case on the grounds that the aforementioned acts of Beisheng Company constituted unfair competition. In the first instance, the People's Court of Pudong New Area of

Shanghai held that the "King of Glory" game has a fair matching mechanism of "ELO grading system", which can attract and accumulate users according to the competitive level of game behavior data analysis and evaluation, and ultimately gain game revenue. This competitive advantage should be protected by law. The game involved implements the requirements of the state on the prevention of minors'addiction to games, and the good reputation obtained based on this should also be protected by law. Beisheng Company organizes commercial training services through "Dai Lian Gang APP", which results in the failure of the real-name system of the games involved and the anti-addiction mechanism for minors, hinders the operation order of online games, is not conducive to the governance of network ecology and the protection of minors'rights and interests, and damages the public interest. At the same time, it bypassed the real-name system of the game "Glory of the King" and the anti-addiction mechanism for minors, which led the relevant public to question the compliance operation and social responsibility of enterprises. In addition, the accused behavior led to other real-name game users unable to match their opponents and teammates at the same level, unable to obtain a fair competitive game experience, increase the risk of minor players indulging in games, and affect the physical and mental health of minors. The accused behavior of Beisheng Company constitutes unfair competition. The People's Court of Shanghai Pudong New Area ordered Beisheng Company to compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses in the first instance. After the first instance judgment, neither party appealed.

[Typical Significance] This case is a typical case of stopping unfair competition by means of online game commercial training. With the rapid development of the online game industry, the legal and social problems caused by the commercial training behavior have attracted much attention. In this case, the people's court applied the principled provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, based on the damage consequences and illegitimacy of the accused acts, and determined that the commercial training acts that bypassed the minors'anti-addiction mechanism and destroyed the game operation mechanism constituted unfair competition. The judgment of this case is conducive to maintaining the fair competition order of the Internet industry, the healthy development of the game industry and the social and public interests, and also reflects the judicial orientation of protecting the competitive advantages formed through fair, honest and law-abiding operation.

10. Wumou's Shiweixian (Shenzhen) Food and Beverage Management Co., Ltd. (Hereinafter referred to as Shiweixian Company) is an agent operating company, which helps operators in the public comment platform to quickly improve their scores and stars by brushing false transactions and false praise, so as to obtain platform traffic. Hantao Company filed a lawsuit in this case on the grounds that the aforementioned acts of Shiweixian Company constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition. In the course of litigation, the company was cancelled first. In the first instance, the People's Court of Longhua District, Shenzhen City,

Guangdong Province, held that user comment is the real advantage of the public comment platform, that comment data is an important basis for Hantao Company to obtain user traffic and user stickiness, and that Hantao Company enjoys legitimate rights and interests in the platform data generated by the real consumer evaluation and the commercial value derived from it. Shiweixian Company helps the operators in the public comment platform to carry out false commercial publicity by means of false transactions and "brushing good comments and speculating letters", so as to rapidly improve the ranking and star rating of the operators in the public comment platform, violate the evaluation rules of the platform, affect the credit system of the platform, and adversely affect the normal development of the business model of the platform. This behavior constitutes unfair competition of false publicity. The People's Court of Longhua District, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, ordered Wu to compensate for economic losses and reasonable expenses totaling 227880 yuan. After the first trial, neither party appealed.

[Typical Significance] This case is a typical case of cracking down on false publicity by using false transactions in the Internet environment. In recent years, in the field of e-commerce, the phenomenon of fabricating trading volume, trading volume and user praise through the way of "brushing bills and speculating letters" to improperly seek competitive opportunities or competitive advantages is more prominent. In this case, the people's court timely and effectively stopped the false publicity and unfair competition behavior of helping platform operators to organize false transactions and improperly obtain traffic by means of "brushing good comments and speculating letters", which helped to guide and promote the honest operation of platform operators, protect consumers'right to know and choose, and maintain fair competition and orderly development of platform economy.