[introduction of the lawyer in this case] Cao Yuanjun, deputy secretary of the Party committee and executive director of Liaoning Tongfang law firm. Deputy of Shenyang Municipal People's Congress, member of the Party committee of Shenyang lawyers industry, vice president of Shenyang Lawyers Association, etc. He has successively won the honorary titles of the first top ten young lawyers in Shenyang, the first excellent young lawyers in Liaoning Province, the excellent lawyers in Liaoning Province, the model of honest lawyers in Shenyang, the excellent party affairs worker in the judicial system of Shenyang, the excellent Party member lawyer in the lawyer industry of Shenyang, the excellent Party member lawyer in the lawyer industry of Liaoning Province, and the excellent Party member lawyer in the national lawyer industry.
[judgment points] in nature, industry associations are non-profit social organizations. The appellant China weighing apparatus Association, as an industrial social organization and legal person, is not specialized in commodity management or profit-making services. However, the appellant in this case is an exclusive operator when hosting the exhibition, because only the appellant can host an international professional Weighing Instrument Exhibition. This is because the market access of international science and technology exhibition operators is specially restricted by the Interim Measures for the management of international science and technology conferences and exhibitions. In the international professional weighing instrument exhibition market, except for the 2007 China International Weighing Instrument Exhibition hosted by the appellant, exhibitors and visitors have no choice. At the same time, the appellant collected fees from the exhibitors and issued invoices supervised by the tax authorities. This behavior has met the substantive characteristics of the business behavior.
For enterprises that do not accept their unreasonable conditions, refusing to provide the exhibition services of China International weighing instrument exhibition does not conform to the principles of voluntariness, equality and fairness that should be followed in market transactions. In essence, it limits the users' purchase of the exhibition services provided by the plaintiff national weighing instrument industry information center, which is an unfair competition act.
Trade associations engaged in paid services or other business activities can be identified as operators as specified in paragraph 3, Article 2 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law of the people's Republic of China. Operators other than public enterprises who are granted the exclusive operation qualification of specific goods or services by laws, regulations, rules or other legal normative documents can generally be recognized as "other operators with exclusive status" as stipulated in Article 6 of the anti unfair competition law.
[basic case] on July 20, 2006, the appellant China weighing apparatus Association issued the "zhonghengxie [2006] No. 33" document to relevant weighing apparatus units nationwide, requiring all member units to only participate in professional weighing apparatus exhibitions once a year, and other comprehensive exhibitions can be attended by enterprises according to their own needs. For the member units that participate in other professional weighing instrument exhibitions (such as the Ninth National weighing equipment and technology exhibition held by the national weighing instrument industry information center in Nanjing from October 30 to November 3, 2006), the China International Weighing Instrument Exhibition 2007 will not be arranged. Therefore, the appellee sued the appellant for seriously damaging the exhibition recruitment work organized by him and violating the Anti Unfair Competition Law of the people's Republic of China.
The appellant claims that the appellant is not an exclusive operator. It is a non-profit social organization that provides services to the enterprise rather than conducting business activities.
The appellee argued that the Appellant was an operator with exclusive status according to law. According to the reply of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce on how to identify other operators with exclusive status according to law (Gong Shang Gong Zi [2000] No. 48): "the" other operators with exclusive status according to law "stipulated in Article 6 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law refers to the operators other than public enterprises who are subject to laws, regulations Operators who are authorized by regulations or other legal normative documents to engage in exclusive operation of specific goods (including services). The so-called monopolistic status refers to a business operator whose market access is specially restricted by laws, regulations, rules or other legal normative documents. The business operator operates exclusively in the relevant market or does not have sufficient competition, and the users or consumers have a strong dependence on the commodities it provides. "
The notice on strengthening the administration of foreign economic and technological exhibitions held in China (GBF [1997] No. 25) issued by the general office of the State Council and the Interim Measures for the administration of international scientific and technological conferences and exhibitions issued by the Ministry of science and technology have made detailed provisions on the administration of International exhibitions held in China. According to the provisions of the above documents, the appellant became the operator granted the exclusive operation qualification of "China International Weighing Instrument Exhibition". The market access of the operators of China International weighing instrument exhibition is subject to the special restrictions specified in the above documents, which makes the appellant operate exclusively in the relevant market or lack sufficient competition, and the users or consumers have a strong dependence on the commodities they provide. Therefore, there is sufficient factual and legal basis for determining that the appellant has "exclusive status".
At present, the appellant is the sole operator who has been approved by the Ministry of science and technology and is operating the China International weighing instrument exhibition. The appellant admitted this during the first instance hearing. However, the China National Light Industry Machinery Corporation referred to by the appellant in the appeal petition is actually its original superior department.
[judgment result] i. the defendant China weighing apparatus Association, within 15 days from the effective date of this judgment, made a public apology on the weighing apparatus industry news and the home page of China weighing apparatus network. The content of the apology on the home page of China weighing apparatus network shall be kept for no less than 15 days. If the judgment is not executed within the time limit, the main contents of the judgment will be published in public newspapers and periodicals, and the expenses shall be borne by China weighing apparatus Association:
2、 The defendant China weighing apparatus association shall, within 15 days from the effective date of this judgment, compensate the plaintiff national weighing apparatus industry information center for the loss of 150000 yuan;
3、 Other claims of the plaintiff national weighing industry information center were rejected.
[reason for adjudication] the main dispute focus of this case is whether the China weighing apparatus association is an operator. When hosting the exhibition involved, it collected fees from the exhibitors, issued invoices supervised by the tax authorities, and provided services to the market.
In nature, trade associations are non-profit social organizations. However, the appellant in this case is an exclusive operator when hosting the exhibition, because only the appellant can host an international professional Weighing Instrument Exhibition. This is because the market access of international science and technology exhibition operators is specially restricted by the Interim Measures for the management of international science and technology conferences and exhibitions. In the international professional weighing instrument exhibition market, except for the 2007 China International Weighing Instrument Exhibition hosted by the appellant, exhibitors and visitors have no choice. At the same time, the appellant collected fees from the exhibitors and issued invoices supervised by the tax authorities. This behavior has met the substantive characteristics of the business behavior.
In response to this case, the Supreme Court has issued a reply on the case of unfair competition dispute between the national weighing apparatus industry information center and the China weighing apparatus Association. The reply is as follows: if an industry association engages in paid services or other business activities, it can be recognized as an operator specified in paragraph 3, Article 2 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Anti Unfair Competition Law). Operators other than public enterprises who are granted the exclusive operation qualification of specific goods or services by laws, regulations, rules or other legal normative documents can generally be recognized as "other operators with exclusive status" as stipulated in Article 6 of the anti unfair competition law.
[relevant articles] Article 2, paragraph 3, Article 6, Article 20 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law of the people's Republic of China and Article 134, paragraph 1 (7) and (10) of the Anti Unfair Competition Law of the people's Republic of China
[lawyer's opinion] first, "whether to identify international exhibitions in proportion to foreign exhibitors" is not a question to be discussed in this case. Because the exhibition held by our side is not an "International Exhibition" at all, but the other party unilaterally imagined and imposed us as an "International Exhibition". At present, there is no evidence to prove that the exhibition we will hold is an international exhibition.
First of all, according to our exhibition notice, there is no word "international" and there is no content of overseas exhibition; Secondly, from the objective fact, we have not conducted overseas exhibition activities. As for the two reports of the national electronic weighing apparatus information network on February 10, 2006, entitled "Nanjing Weighing Apparatus Exhibition sends invitations to all countries" and "electronic weighing apparatus information express" on the second issue of the third issue of 2006, entitled "sincerely invite customers from all over the world and never show fake goods", if you read the full text, you can clearly understand that you want to support enterprises investing in China to participate in the exhibition. It is absurd to speculate that our exhibition is an "International Exhibition".
2、 The above-mentioned person called our exhibition a "scam" without any factual basis, which is slander. I hereby request the court to ask the other party to pay attention to his words.
Article 5 of the measures for the administration of commodity fairs stipulates that "commodity fairs shall be held only after the registration certificate of commodity fairs has been issued by the administrative department for Industry and commerce. Commodity fairs shall not be held without registration." Our exhibition was originally planned to be held in Nanjing from October 30 to November 3, 2006. In August 2006, we obtained the registration certificate of Commodity Fair issued by Nanjing Administration for Industry and commerce.
3、 The appellant's determination as an "operator with exclusive status according to law" has sufficient legal and factual basis.
The reply of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce on how to identify other operators with monopolistic status according to law (Gongshang Gong Zi [2000] No. 48) stipulates that "other operators with monopolistic status according to law" as stipulated in Article 6 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law refers to the operators other than public enterprises who are governed by laws, regulations Operators who are authorized by regulations or other legal normative documents to engage in exclusive operation of specific goods (including services). The so-called monopolistic status refers to the business operator's market access is specially restricted by laws, regulations, rules or other legal normative documents. The business operator operates exclusively in the relevant market or does not have sufficient competition, and the users or consumers have a strong dependence on the commodities provided by the business operator.
4、 The appellant claimed that "the resolution of the fifth session of the Seventh Council that the member units only participate in the professional Weighing Instrument Exhibition once a year is the wish and requirement of all members" has no factual basis. If this is the case, all should be chosen by the enterprise voluntarily. Why did the appellant abuse its exclusive position in holding China International Weighing Instrument Exhibition and force the member units (i.e. users) that did not accept its unreasonable conditions to refuse to arrange booths? What is more, why should restrictions or contests be adopted to exclude the appellees from fair competition? The appellant simply could not justify himself.
5、 According to the facts and the law, the compensation for losses in the original judgment is very appropriate and accurate.
1. In fact, the loss caused by the appellant's infringement to the appellee should be more than 450000 yuan, and the specific loss is difficult to calculate.
2、 According to Article 20 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law: "If an operator violates the provisions of this Law and causes damage to the infringed operator, it shall bear the liability for damages. If the losses of the infringed operator and the infringed operator are difficult to calculate, the amount of compensation shall be the profits gained by the infringer due to the infringement during the period of infringement; and it shall bear the reasonable expenses paid by the infringed operator for investigating the unfair competition behavior of the infringed operator in dividing its legitimate rights and interests."
6、 The Supreme People's court attached great importance to this case and gave a reply.
The case has attracted extensive attention and discussion from national industry associations. The Supreme People's court specially made a judicial interpretation on the focus of the dispute in this case ((2007) mstz No. 16 Reply of the Supreme People's Court on the case of unfair competition dispute between the national weighing apparatus industry information center and the China weighing apparatus Association). The content of the reply is: an industry association engaged in paid services or other business activities can be identified as an operator specified in paragraph 3, Article 2 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Anti Unfair Competition Law). Operators other than public enterprises who are granted the exclusive operation qualification of specific goods or services by laws, regulations, rules or other legal normative documents can generally be recognized as "other operators with exclusive status" as stipulated in Article 6 of the anti unfair competition law.
[judgment points] in nature, industry associations are non-profit social organizations. The appellant China weighing apparatus Association, as an industrial social organization and legal person, is not specialized in commodity management or profit-making services. However, the appellant in this case is an exclusive operator when hosting the exhibition, because only the appellant can host an international professional Weighing Instrument Exhibition. This is because the market access of international science and technology exhibition operators is specially restricted by the Interim Measures for the management of international science and technology conferences and exhibitions. In the international professional weighing instrument exhibition market, except for the 2007 China International Weighing Instrument Exhibition hosted by the appellant, exhibitors and visitors have no choice. At the same time, the appellant collected fees from the exhibitors and issued invoices supervised by the tax authorities. This behavior has met the substantive characteristics of the business behavior.
For enterprises that do not accept their unreasonable conditions, refusing to provide the exhibition services of China International weighing instrument exhibition does not conform to the principles of voluntariness, equality and fairness that should be followed in market transactions. In essence, it limits the users' purchase of the exhibition services provided by the plaintiff national weighing instrument industry information center, which is an unfair competition act.
Trade associations engaged in paid services or other business activities can be identified as operators as specified in paragraph 3, Article 2 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law of the people's Republic of China. Operators other than public enterprises who are granted the exclusive operation qualification of specific goods or services by laws, regulations, rules or other legal normative documents can generally be recognized as "other operators with exclusive status" as stipulated in Article 6 of the anti unfair competition law.
[basic case] on July 20, 2006, the appellant China weighing apparatus Association issued the "zhonghengxie [2006] No. 33" document to relevant weighing apparatus units nationwide, requiring all member units to only participate in professional weighing apparatus exhibitions once a year, and other comprehensive exhibitions can be attended by enterprises according to their own needs. For the member units that participate in other professional weighing instrument exhibitions (such as the Ninth National weighing equipment and technology exhibition held by the national weighing instrument industry information center in Nanjing from October 30 to November 3, 2006), the China International Weighing Instrument Exhibition 2007 will not be arranged. Therefore, the appellee sued the appellant for seriously damaging the exhibition recruitment work organized by him and violating the Anti Unfair Competition Law of the people's Republic of China.
The appellant claims that the appellant is not an exclusive operator. It is a non-profit social organization that provides services to the enterprise rather than conducting business activities.
The appellee argued that the Appellant was an operator with exclusive status according to law. According to the reply of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce on how to identify other operators with exclusive status according to law (Gong Shang Gong Zi [2000] No. 48): "the" other operators with exclusive status according to law "stipulated in Article 6 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law refers to the operators other than public enterprises who are subject to laws, regulations Operators who are authorized by regulations or other legal normative documents to engage in exclusive operation of specific goods (including services). The so-called monopolistic status refers to a business operator whose market access is specially restricted by laws, regulations, rules or other legal normative documents. The business operator operates exclusively in the relevant market or does not have sufficient competition, and the users or consumers have a strong dependence on the commodities it provides. "
The notice on strengthening the administration of foreign economic and technological exhibitions held in China (GBF [1997] No. 25) issued by the general office of the State Council and the Interim Measures for the administration of international scientific and technological conferences and exhibitions issued by the Ministry of science and technology have made detailed provisions on the administration of International exhibitions held in China. According to the provisions of the above documents, the appellant became the operator granted the exclusive operation qualification of "China International Weighing Instrument Exhibition". The market access of the operators of China International weighing instrument exhibition is subject to the special restrictions specified in the above documents, which makes the appellant operate exclusively in the relevant market or lack sufficient competition, and the users or consumers have a strong dependence on the commodities they provide. Therefore, there is sufficient factual and legal basis for determining that the appellant has "exclusive status".
At present, the appellant is the sole operator who has been approved by the Ministry of science and technology and is operating the China International weighing instrument exhibition. The appellant admitted this during the first instance hearing. However, the China National Light Industry Machinery Corporation referred to by the appellant in the appeal petition is actually its original superior department.
[judgment result] i. the defendant China weighing apparatus Association, within 15 days from the effective date of this judgment, made a public apology on the weighing apparatus industry news and the home page of China weighing apparatus network. The content of the apology on the home page of China weighing apparatus network shall be kept for no less than 15 days. If the judgment is not executed within the time limit, the main contents of the judgment will be published in public newspapers and periodicals, and the expenses shall be borne by China weighing apparatus Association:
2、 The defendant China weighing apparatus association shall, within 15 days from the effective date of this judgment, compensate the plaintiff national weighing apparatus industry information center for the loss of 150000 yuan;
3、 Other claims of the plaintiff national weighing industry information center were rejected.
[reason for adjudication] the main dispute focus of this case is whether the China weighing apparatus association is an operator. When hosting the exhibition involved, it collected fees from the exhibitors, issued invoices supervised by the tax authorities, and provided services to the market.
In nature, trade associations are non-profit social organizations. However, the appellant in this case is an exclusive operator when hosting the exhibition, because only the appellant can host an international professional Weighing Instrument Exhibition. This is because the market access of international science and technology exhibition operators is specially restricted by the Interim Measures for the management of international science and technology conferences and exhibitions. In the international professional weighing instrument exhibition market, except for the 2007 China International Weighing Instrument Exhibition hosted by the appellant, exhibitors and visitors have no choice. At the same time, the appellant collected fees from the exhibitors and issued invoices supervised by the tax authorities. This behavior has met the substantive characteristics of the business behavior.
In response to this case, the Supreme Court has issued a reply on the case of unfair competition dispute between the national weighing apparatus industry information center and the China weighing apparatus Association. The reply is as follows: if an industry association engages in paid services or other business activities, it can be recognized as an operator specified in paragraph 3, Article 2 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Anti Unfair Competition Law). Operators other than public enterprises who are granted the exclusive operation qualification of specific goods or services by laws, regulations, rules or other legal normative documents can generally be recognized as "other operators with exclusive status" as stipulated in Article 6 of the anti unfair competition law.
[relevant articles] Article 2, paragraph 3, Article 6, Article 20 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law of the people's Republic of China and Article 134, paragraph 1 (7) and (10) of the Anti Unfair Competition Law of the people's Republic of China
[lawyer's opinion] first, "whether to identify international exhibitions in proportion to foreign exhibitors" is not a question to be discussed in this case. Because the exhibition held by our side is not an "International Exhibition" at all, but the other party unilaterally imagined and imposed us as an "International Exhibition". At present, there is no evidence to prove that the exhibition we will hold is an international exhibition.
First of all, according to our exhibition notice, there is no word "international" and there is no content of overseas exhibition; Secondly, from the objective fact, we have not conducted overseas exhibition activities. As for the two reports of the national electronic weighing apparatus information network on February 10, 2006, entitled "Nanjing Weighing Apparatus Exhibition sends invitations to all countries" and "electronic weighing apparatus information express" on the second issue of the third issue of 2006, entitled "sincerely invite customers from all over the world and never show fake goods", if you read the full text, you can clearly understand that you want to support enterprises investing in China to participate in the exhibition. It is absurd to speculate that our exhibition is an "International Exhibition".
2、 The above-mentioned person called our exhibition a "scam" without any factual basis, which is slander. I hereby request the court to ask the other party to pay attention to his words.
Article 5 of the measures for the administration of commodity fairs stipulates that "commodity fairs shall be held only after the registration certificate of commodity fairs has been issued by the administrative department for Industry and commerce. Commodity fairs shall not be held without registration." Our exhibition was originally planned to be held in Nanjing from October 30 to November 3, 2006. In August 2006, we obtained the registration certificate of Commodity Fair issued by Nanjing Administration for Industry and commerce.
3、 The appellant's determination as an "operator with exclusive status according to law" has sufficient legal and factual basis.
The reply of the State Administration for Industry and Commerce on how to identify other operators with monopolistic status according to law (Gongshang Gong Zi [2000] No. 48) stipulates that "other operators with monopolistic status according to law" as stipulated in Article 6 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law refers to the operators other than public enterprises who are governed by laws, regulations Operators who are authorized by regulations or other legal normative documents to engage in exclusive operation of specific goods (including services). The so-called monopolistic status refers to the business operator's market access is specially restricted by laws, regulations, rules or other legal normative documents. The business operator operates exclusively in the relevant market or does not have sufficient competition, and the users or consumers have a strong dependence on the commodities provided by the business operator.
4、 The appellant claimed that "the resolution of the fifth session of the Seventh Council that the member units only participate in the professional Weighing Instrument Exhibition once a year is the wish and requirement of all members" has no factual basis. If this is the case, all should be chosen by the enterprise voluntarily. Why did the appellant abuse its exclusive position in holding China International Weighing Instrument Exhibition and force the member units (i.e. users) that did not accept its unreasonable conditions to refuse to arrange booths? What is more, why should restrictions or contests be adopted to exclude the appellees from fair competition? The appellant simply could not justify himself.
5、 According to the facts and the law, the compensation for losses in the original judgment is very appropriate and accurate.
1. In fact, the loss caused by the appellant's infringement to the appellee should be more than 450000 yuan, and the specific loss is difficult to calculate.
2、 According to Article 20 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law: "If an operator violates the provisions of this Law and causes damage to the infringed operator, it shall bear the liability for damages. If the losses of the infringed operator and the infringed operator are difficult to calculate, the amount of compensation shall be the profits gained by the infringer due to the infringement during the period of infringement; and it shall bear the reasonable expenses paid by the infringed operator for investigating the unfair competition behavior of the infringed operator in dividing its legitimate rights and interests."
6、 The Supreme People's court attached great importance to this case and gave a reply.
The case has attracted extensive attention and discussion from national industry associations. The Supreme People's court specially made a judicial interpretation on the focus of the dispute in this case ((2007) mstz No. 16 Reply of the Supreme People's Court on the case of unfair competition dispute between the national weighing apparatus industry information center and the China weighing apparatus Association). The content of the reply is: an industry association engaged in paid services or other business activities can be identified as an operator specified in paragraph 3, Article 2 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Anti Unfair Competition Law). Operators other than public enterprises who are granted the exclusive operation qualification of specific goods or services by laws, regulations, rules or other legal normative documents can generally be recognized as "other operators with exclusive status" as stipulated in Article 6 of the anti unfair competition law.
Legal consultation hotline