China’s Beijing Intellectual Property Court on March 16 published an overview of anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition lawsuits since its inception in 2014 and a list of top 10 exemplary cases the court ruled on as of 2017.

Statistics show that 1,436 anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition cases were heard by the specialized court from 2014 through 2021 and the court issued rulings in 1,244 of them. The court heard 529 cases as a trial court and ruled on 470 of them. And the court heard 907 cases as an appellate court and ruled on 774 of them. Of the 1,244 cases closed, 652 ended with trials issued by the court, accounting for 52%; 43 ended in settlements, accounting for 3%; 45% of them ended up remanded for further proceedings, withdrawn by plaintiffs or appellants, dismissed by the court, or transferred to proper jurisdictions.

The volume of anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition complaints filed has been surging year by year. 184 anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition cases were heard by the court in 2020 and 306 cases in 2021, with a year-on-year increase of 66%. Over 500 cases are estimated to be heard in 2022.

The top 10 anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition cases are as follows.

Case 1

BEIDOU SATELLITE DIGITAL NEW MEDIA (BEIJING) CO., LTD. (北斗卫星数字新媒体（北京）有限公司 ), Plaintiff

CHINA AUDIO-VIDEO COPYRIGHT ASSOCIATION (CAVCA) (中国音像著作权集体管理协会), Defendant

Case docket no.: （2018）京73民初1527号

Case docket no. English transliteration: 1527, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2018) Beijing Intellectual Property Court (（2018）京73)

Analysis: The association has been identified to be a business operator with a dominant market position by the court applying the Anti-Monopoly Law (AML).

Case 2

HYTERA COMMUNICATIONS CORP. LTD. (海能达通信股份有限公司), Plaintiff

MOTOROLA (CHINA) INVESTMENT LTD. (摩托罗拉系统（中国）投资有限公司), Defendant

MOTOROLA (CHINA) CO., LTD. (摩托罗拉系统（中国）有限公司), Defendant

BEIJING UNIT OF MOTOROLA (CHINA) INVESTMENT LTD. (摩托罗拉系统（中国）投资有限公司北京分公司), Defendant

Case docket no.: （2017）京73民初1671号

Case docket no. English transliteration: 1671, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2017) Beijing Intellectual Property Court (（2017）京73)

Analysis: The case exemplifies the identification of the primary defendant not to be a business operator with a dominant market position.

Case 3:

PANJIN DONGXING OIL WELL FACILITY SERVICES CO., LTD. (盘锦东兴油井措施服务有限公司), Plaintiff

PETROCHINA CO., LTD. (中国石油天然气股份有限公司), Defendant

BECKBURY INTERNATIONAL LTD. (BECKBURY国际有限公司), Defendant

Case docket no.: （2017）京73民初1788号

Case docket no. English transliteration: 1788, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2017) Beijing Intellectual Property Court (（2017）京73)

Analysis: The case exemplifies non-monopolistic behavior.

Case 4:

NUCOM ONLINE (BEIJING) INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. (新传在线（北京）信息技术有限公司), Appellant-Defendant

SECA SHANGHAI SPORTS CULTURE DEVELOPMENT CO. (盛力世家（上海）体育文化发展有限公司), Appellant-Defendant

CHINA CENTRAL TELEVISION INTERNATIONAL NETWORK CO., LTD. (央视国际网络有限公司), Appellee-Plaintiff

Case docket no.: （2019）京73民终2989号

Case docket no. English transliteration: 2989, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2019) Beijing Intellectual Property Court (（2019）京73)

Analysis: The case exemplifies an anti-unfair competition practice where the defendants developed and maintained a browser to stream the content available on the plaintiff’s website in real time without authorization.

Case 5:

HANGZHOU LONGHUN NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. (杭州龙魂网络科技有限公司), Appellant-Defendant

HANGZHOU LONGENE NETWORK TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. (杭州龙境科技有限公司), Appellant-Defendant

BEIJING IQIYI SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. (北京爱奇艺科技有限公司), Appellee-Plaintiff

Case docket no.: （2019）京73民终3263号

Case docket no. English transliteration: 3263, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2019) Beijing Intellectual Property Court (（2019）京73)

Analysis: The case exemplifies an anti-unfair competition practice where the defendants developed and maintained an application to rent the plaintiff’s VIP membership without its authorization and compromise some features of the plaintiff’s application.

Case 6:

QIHOO 360 TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. (奇虎360科技有限公司), Appellant-Defendant

BEIJING IQIYI SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. (北京爱奇艺科技有限公司), Appellee-Plaintiff

Case docket no.: （2021）京73民终496号

Case docket no. English transliteration: 496, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2019) Beijing Intellectual Property Court (（2021）京73)

Analysis: The case exemplifies an anti-unfair competition practice where the defendant provided a feature on its browser allowing users to record the plaintiff’s video content to broadcast on a third-party platform without its permission.

Case 7:

RUBIK’S CUBE RECRUITMENT (BEIJING) TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. (魔方网聘（北京）科技有限公司), Appellant-Defendant

BEIJING WANGPIN CONSULTING CO., LTD. (北京网聘咨询有限公司), Appellee-Plaintiff

Case docket no.: （2021）京73民终1092号

Case docket no. English transliteration: 1092, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2019) Beijing Intellectual Property Court (（2021）京73)

Analysis: The case exemplifies an anti-unfair competition practice where the defendant installed a plug-in on the plaintiff’s website without its permission to embed its own link to divert users and extract data to profit from.

Case 8:

HUNAN EEFUNG SOFTWARE CO., LTD. (湖南蚁坊软件股份有限公司), Appellant-Defendant

BEIJING WEIMENG INTERNET TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. (北京微梦创科网络技术有限公司), Appellee-Plaintiff

Case docket no.: （2019）京73民终3789号

Case docket no. English transliteration: 3789, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2019) Beijing Intellectual Property Court (（2021）京73)

Analysis: The case exemplifies the definition and identification of illegal data scraping.

Case 9:

BEIJING HAIYUANGE CATERING MANAGEMENT CO., LTD. (北京海缘阁餐饮管理有限公司), Appellant-Defendant

BEIJING JINGYIN HUATIAN ERYOUJU CATERING MANAGEMENT CO., LTD. (北京京饮华天二友居餐饮管理有限公司), Appellee-Plaintiff

Case docket no.: （2020）京73民终3501号

Case docket no. English transliteration: 3501, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2019) Beijing Intellectual Property Court (（2020）京73)

Analysis: The case exemplifies how no use or commercial exploitation of a brand or trademark didn’t compromise its ownership in cases involving China Time-honored Brands.

Case 10:

BEIJING ZHUOLU SPORTS CULTURE DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD. (北京卓路体育文化发展有限公司), Appellant-Plaintiff

ZHUOLU CULTURE DEVELOPMENT (BEIJING) CO., LTD. (卓路文化发展（北京）有限公司), Appellant-Plaintiff

BEIJING XILEFENG TOURISM CO., LTD. (北京禧乐峰旅游有限公司), Appellant-Plaintiff

BEIJING NEW MATCHPOINT SPORTS INVESTMENT CO., LTD. (北京新赛点体育投资股份有限公司), Appellant-Defendant

JIN YANSHU (金艳淑), Appellant-Defendant

XU ZHIPING (徐治平), Appellant-Defendant

YAO MENG (姚梦), Appellant-Defendant

SUN LU (孙露), Appellee-Defendant

WANG HONG (王红), Appellee-Defendant

Case docket no.: （2018）京73民终686号

Case docket no. English transliteration: 686, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2019) Beijing Intellectual Property Court (（2018）京73)

Analysis: The case exemplifies how the court determined the amount of punitive damages to award to the three golf service providers when their ex-employees misappropriated the confidential data about their high-value customers and profited from it with their new employer.