China Justice Observer

中司观察

EnglishArabicChinese (Simplified)DutchFrenchGermanHindiItalianJapaneseKoreanPortugueseRussianSpanishSwedishHebrewIndonesianVietnameseThaiTurkishMalay

SPC Revises Judicial Interpretation on Anti-Unfair Competition Law

Mon, 11 Apr 2022
Categories: China Legal Trends

On 17 March 2022, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued the “Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the PRC Anti-Unfair Competition Law” (hereinafter “the Interpretation”, 关于适用<中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法>若干问题的解释), with effect on 20 March 2022.

Prior to the Interpretation, the SPC issued the “Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases Involving Unfair Competition” (关于审理不正当竞争民事案件应用法律若干问题的解释) in 2017, which was replaced by this newly-released juridical Interpretation in 2022.

With 29 articles, the Interpretation provides guidance to Chinese judges regarding the application of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The highlights are as follows.

1. It clarifies the scope of application of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law

The Interpretation stipulates that, where an act of unfair competition is not construed as an act of infringement under the Patent Law, the Trademark Law or the Copyright Law, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law shall apply. This regulation has solved the overlap of the aforementioned laws.

2. It refines the criteria for determining “counterfeit and confusion”

To implement Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the Interpretation uses 11 articles to refine the rules in determining “counterfeit and confusion” from the following three aspects.

First, it specifies the circumstances under which the court may find that the business operator has committed any acts of confusion, sufficient to mislead consumers into believing that the goods belong to or are specifically related to another party.

Second, it made clear the circumstances under which the court may find that the business operator has committed untrue or misleading commercial publicity to defraud or mislead the consumers.

Third, it also lays out the circumstances under which the court may find that the online operator has utilized technology to interfere with or sabotage the legitimate online business of other business operators.

 

 

Cover Photo by Cajeo Zhang on Unsplash

Contributors: CJO Staff Contributors Team

Save as PDF

Related laws on China Laws Portal

You might also like

China Releases Typical Cases of Private Fund Crimes

In December 2023, China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) and Supreme People's Procuratorate (SPP) jointly released five typical cases of private fund crimes, aiming to establish uniform standards for handling such crimes nationwide and combatting criminal activities within the private fund sector.

SPC Releases IP Guiding Cases

In December 2023, China’s Supreme People's Court issued its 39th batch of guiding cases focused on intellectual property rights, covering various aspects such as IPR infringement disputes, patent ownership, and copyright ownership.

SPC Releases Judicial Interpretation on Contract Law

In December 2023, China's Supreme People's Court issued a judicial interpretation on the Contract section of the Civil Code, aimed at guiding courts in adjudicating disputes and ensuring nationwide consistency in application.

China Introduces New Drunk Driving Convictions Standards Effective 2023

In December 2023, China announced updated standards for drunk driving convictions, stating that individuals who drive with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 80mg/100ml or higher on a breath test may be held criminally liable, according to the recent joint announcement by the Supreme People's Court, Supreme People's Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, and Ministry of Justice.

SPC's Revised Rules Extend Reach of International Commercial Courts

In December 2023, China's Supreme People’s Court's newly amended provisions extended the reach of its International Commercial Courts (CICC). To establish a valid choice of court agreement, three requirements must be met - the international nature, the agreement in writing, and the amount in controversy - while the 'actual connection' is no longer required.