The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has Issued a Decision on Amending the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China
Issuance Date: 24 June 2022
Effective Date: 1 August 2022
Important amendments to China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML) will come into effect on 1 August 2022. The amended AML was first proposed by the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) in early 2020 and was given a first reading before the National People’s Congress in October 2021.
The most significant changes are as follows.
First, consistent with China’s continuing focus on regulation of the digital economy, the amended AML expressly stipulates that operators shall not use “data, algorithms, technologies, capital advantages, or platform rules to engage in monopolistic activities prohibited by this Law”, and that those operators with a dominant market role shall not use any of these things to abuse their dominant market position.
Secondly, a market-share based Safe Harbor is introduced for certain vertical monopoly agreements. Article 18 provides that when operators can prove that their market share in the relevant market is lower than the standards set by the AML Enforcement Agency of the State Council, and that other conditions set by the Enforcement Agency have been met, their vertical agreements shall not be prohibited.
Article 18 also provides that agreements that fix the price, or set a minimum price, for the resale of goods to a third party (resale price maintenance (RPM) agreements) shall not be prohibited if the undertakings can prove that the agreement does not have the effect of eliminating or restricting competition.
Lastly, Article 19 provides that the Enforcement Agency may require the parties to a merger agreement to notify the transaction “if the concentration of undertakings has or may have, the effect of eliminating or restricting competition”. This will apply to transactions that would otherwise fall outside the notification obligation. If the operators do not notify such a transaction, the Enforcement Agency shall investigate the concentration according to law.
Source: http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2022-06/25/content_5697697.htm
全国人民代表大会常务委员会发布关于修改《中华人民共和国反垄断法》的决定
发文日期：2022-06-24
生效日期：2022-08-01
《决定》共二十五条，对《反垄断法》主要作了以下五方面的修改。
一是进一步明确反垄断相关制度在平台经济领域的具体适用规则。明确规定经营者不得利用数据和算法、技术、资本优势以及平台规则等从事《反垄断法》禁止的垄断行为，具有市场支配地位的经营者不得利用数据和算法、技术以及平台规则等从事前款规定的滥用市场支配地位的行为。
二是完善垄断协议相关规则。增加了“安全港”协议，完善了纵向垄断协议的认定规则，并增加规定经营者不得组织其他的经营者来达成垄断协议或者为其他经营者达成垄断协议提供实质性的帮助。
三是对交易对手之间的垄断协议，第18条还规定，如果经营者能够证明该协议不具有消除或限制竞争的效果，则不禁止确定价格或设定向第三方转售商品的最低价格的协议（转售价格维持协议又称“RPM协议”）。
四是对未达到申报标准的经营者集中的调查、处理程序进行完善。对于未达到申报标准但有证据证明具有或者可能具有排除、限制竞争效果的经营者集中，国务院反垄断执法机构可以要求经营者申报，经营者不申报的，反垄断执法机构应当依法进行调查。
来源：中国政府网
链接：http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2022-06/25/content_5697697.htm
National Radio and Television Administration has issued Measures for the Administration of Brokerage Agencies in the Field of Radio, Television and Internet Audiovisual
Reference No.: [2022] No.34
Issuance Date: 30 May 2022
Effective Date: 30 June 2022
The Measures, containing twenty-one articles, have been introduced to regulate the activities of brokerage agencies operating in the field of radio, television and internet audiovisual (i.e. agencies providing contract signing and promotional services), and to guarantee the healthy and orderly development of the industry.
For the protection of minors, Article 9 of the Measures stipulates that, when providing brokerage services to minors, brokerage agencies and brokers shall obtain the prior consent of the minor’s legal guardian. Further, in providing brokerage services to minors, operators shall not use intimidation, enticement, or bribery. Article 12 stipulates that brokerage agencies shall not authorise minors to act as group owners or managers of relevant accounts.
Provision is also made for the strengthened management of accounts such as the accounts of official fan groups. Article 13 of the Measures imposes certain obligations on brokerage agencies and brokers relating to the management of these accounts, including the obligations not to release harmful information that might trigger disputes among fans; not to use false information to hype a celebrity or induce fans to purchase good.
Source:https://www.nrta.gov.cn/art/2022/5/30/art_113_60565.html
国家广播电视总局印发《广播电视和网络视听领域经纪机构管理办法》
发文字号： 广电发〔2022〕34号
发文日期：2022-05-30
生效日期：2022-06-30
《广播电视和网络视听领域经纪机构管理办法》（以下简称“《办法》”）共二十一条，旨在规范广播电视和网络视听领域经纪活动，加强经纪机构、经纪人员管理，明确经纪机构、经纪人员的权利和义务，保障行业健康有序发展。
针对未成年人保护，《办法》第9条规定：广播电视和网络视听领域经纪机构、经纪人员为未成年人提供经纪服务，应当事先征得其法定监护人同意。不得以恐吓、诱骗或者收买等方式为未成年人提供经纪服务。第12条规定：经纪机构不得授权未成年人担任相关账号的群主或者管理者。
针对粉丝经济治理，《办法》第13条规定：广播电视和网络视听领域经纪机构、经纪人员应当严格规范信息发布，不得发布或者雇佣营销号发布引发粉丝互撕、拉踩引战等有害信息，不得以打赏排名、刷量控评、虚构事实、造谣攻击等方式进行炒作，不得以虚假消费、带头打赏、应援集资等方式诱导粉丝消费。
来源：国家广播电视总局
链接：https://www.nrta.gov.cn/art/2022/5/30/art_113_60565.html
The Hangzhou Internet Court Rules on a Case of Unfair Competition Involving Live Streaming by Intelligent Robots
Date:21 June 2022
The Plaintiff in this case is a technology company that owns all the intellectual property rights in the intelligent robot ‘Erbai Robot’. For promotional purposes, it developed a program that allows robots to host live streaming on the TikTok and Weibo platforms. The robot live streaming allowed the Plaintiff's Tiktok and Weibo accounts to gain significantly more followers. Subsequently, the Plaintiff found that the Defendant, also a technology company, was using the image of ‘Erbai Robot’ in its TikTok account and using similar live streaming to promote sales of its ‘Dabai Robot live streaming software’. It was also providing incentives in the form of commissions to offline agents to expand the sales channel of its live streaming software.
The Plaintiff claimed that it was the copyright holder of relevant art and literary works relating to the Erbai robot and its live streaming and that the Defendant had infringed its copyright and engaged in unfair competition. It brought a copyright infringement and unfair competition action, seeking compensation of 300,000 yuan (approx. US$44,500).
The Defendant claimed that it had used the image of Erbai robot only to introduce its live streaming software, which instructs and guides users to build an intelligent robot live streaming room; that the two live interfaces and the live discourse were not similar; and that its actions did not, therefore, constitute copyright infringement.
The Hangzhou Internet Court held as follows:
In relation to copyright, the image of the Erbai robot satisfied the requirements of Copyright Law and constituted an artistic work. The Defendant had disseminated the image of Erbai robot online without permission, and, as a result, had infringed the Plaintiff’s Right of Dissemination on Information Networks. The live Erbai robot live streaming discourse and interface were not, however, sufficiently original to attract copyright protection.
In relation to unfair competition, the Court held that the Defendant's conduct constituted unfair competition under Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The promotional language used by the Defendant during the live streaming was used with the intention of free-riding and taking advantage of the goodwill of others; further, the Defendant’s live streaming interface and discourse were similar to those of the Plaintiff and obviously involved plagiarism. In addition, in order to promote sales of its software, the Defendant hired offline agents to make fake purchases. Because there is very little difference in user experience of both live the streamings the Defendant was unfairly gaining market attention and business opportunities through increased followers, clicks, network traffic and other business interests directly related to the live streaming industry, thereby damaging the Plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests and disrupting the order of market competition.
Ultimately, the Court ordered the Defendant to cease the copyright infringement and unfair competition and compensate the Plaintiff for economic loss and reasonable costs totaling 70,000 yuan (approx. US$10,000).
Source: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/8Ya4PNGpwifklazqtutGOA
杭州互联网法院对涉智能机器人直播不正当竞争案做出判决
日期： 2022-06-21
本案原告为一家科技公司，经授权享有智能机器人“二白机器人”的全部知识产权。为进行宣传推广，原告开发了机器人主持直播的智能程序，在抖音和微博平台进行直播。机器人直播的模式使得原告的账号增粉效果明显。随后，原告发现被告在其运营的抖音号中使用了“二白机器人”的形象，在直播销售“大白机器人智能直播软件”时使用了与原告近似的直播话术、直播界面，还通过佣金形式激励线下代理商扩大该直播软件的销售渠道。
原告认为，其对于二白机器人形象、直播界面、直播话术享有美术作品及文字作品著作权，被告的上述行为侵犯其著作权并构成不正当竞争，请求判令赔偿经济损失共30万元。被告则主张其使用二白机器人形象只是为了介绍其直播语音软件，该软件用于指导用户搭建智能机器人直播间，两者的直播界面、直播话术并不相似，不构成侵权。
杭州互联网法院经过审理做出如下分析：
在是否成立著作权侵权的问题上，法院认为涉案二白机器人形象是一种个性化表达且具有一定程度的美感，符合著作权法对美术作品独创性和艺术性的要求，构成美术作品。被告在线传播二白机器人形象，侵害原告作品信息网络传播权。但直播话术、直播界面并不构成作品。
在是否成立不正当竞争的问题上，法院认为被告的行为构成《反不正当竞争法》第二条规定的不正当竞争行为。首先，被告在直播时使用的宣传语言具有搭便车、攀附他人商誉的故意，且被告的直播界面、直播话术与原告近似，存在明显抄袭。此外，被告以佣金形式促使线下代理商扩大销售，考虑到两者在直播设计上给予用户的体验差异甚微，如果用户使用被告软件进行直播，将在粉丝、点击量、流量等与直播行业直接相关的经营利益上，不当攫取原告所应享有的市场关注和商业机会，损害原告的合法权益，扰乱市场竞争秩序。
最终，法院判令被告立即停止不正当竞争行为并赔偿经济损失及合理费用7万元。
来源：杭州互联网法院 2022-06-21
链接：https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/8Ya4PNGpwifklazqtutGOA
CNIPA’s rejection of ‘xiaomi’ trademark upheld by Beijing High People’s Court
Date: 6 June 2022
The Beijing High People's Court has given final administrative judgment in the case of Xiaomi Technology Co., LTD. (‘Xiaomi’) against the China National Intellectual Property Administration (‘CNIPA’), rejecting Xiaomi's claim to be entitled to register the ‘xiaomi’ trademark, and upholding the first instance judgment entered for CNIPA.
Xiaomi had previously registered the Chinese characters小米 (pronounced ‘xiaomi’), and in July 2019 it applied for registration of the English/Pinyin version ‘xiaomi’ - trademark No. 40025884. After examination, the CNIPA rejected the application on the grounds that the mark was similar to the trademarks of a third party ‘笑米 Xiaomi’ and ‘筱秘 XIAOMI’, and that the evidence submitted by Xiaomi was not sufficient to establish that its ‘xiaomi’ mark gained widespread recognition as a result of extensive use.
Xiaomi appealed to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, claiming that the Chinese character mark 小米 had been widely used as a trademark and was a famous brand. Given that that the characters 小米 are pronounced ’xiaomo’, there is such a close connection between them and the word ‘xiaomo’ that Xiaomi should be entitled to register ‘xiaomo’ as a trademark. It requested the Court to revoke the CNIPA decision and decide in its favour.
The Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the ‘xiaomi’ trademark was similar to the cited trademarks "笑米 Xiaomi" and "筱秘 XIAOMI" in terms of letter composition and pronunciation. Xiaomi’s Chinese character mark, however, differed from the trademark in dispute: the popularity of the Chinese character mark cannot simply be extended to the trademark ‘xiaomi’. The evidence submitted by Xiaomi was not sufficient to prove that the trademark ‘xiaomi’ had been widely used in relation to Xiaomi products. Therefore, the Court upheld the decision of the CNIPA to reject the trademark ‘xiaomi’. Xiaomi appealed to the Beijing High People's Court.
The Beijing High People's Court rejected the appeal. It held that trademark registrants enjoy their own independent exclusive rights to the different trademarks they have registered. There is no automatic continuity between successively registered trademarks, nor does the goodwill of an earlier registered trademark necessarily extend to a later trademark. The ‘xiaomi’ trademark is not identical to Xiaomi’s prior trademark “小米” , so even if the prior trademark has high visibility, that does not serve to distinguish the ‘xiaomi’ mark from the cited trademarks to allow registration.
Source:https://www.bjcourt.gov.cn/cpws/paperView.htm?id=db7b01ef401d494cae1b23cf992e0d91&n=2
小米未获“xiaomi”注册商标，起诉国知局败诉
日期： 2022-06-06
北京市高级人民法院对小米科技有限公司（以下简称“小米公司”）诉国家知识产权局一案作出终审行政判决，驳回小米公司诉讼请求，维持一审原判。
2019年7月，小米公司申请注册第40025884号“xiaomi”商标。国家知识产权局经审查认为，“xiaomi”商标与“笑米 Xiaomi”、“筱秘XIAOMI”等引证商标构成近似，且小米公司提交的证据不足以证明申请商标在指定使用商品上经过使用已具有一定知名度，故驳回了小米公司的注册申请。小米公司不服，将国家知识产权局诉至北京知识产权法院，称“xiaomi”商标系小米公司的商号及驰名商标“小米”的拼音，已与“小米”品牌建立一一对应关系，且与引证商标不构成近似，请求法院撤销被诉决定并责令被告重新作出决定。
一审法院经审理认为，“xiaomi”与引证商标“笑米”“筱秘”等商标的显著识别字母部分在字母构成、呼叫发音等方面相近，构成近似商标。且小米公司商标与争诉商标不同，“小米”商标的知名度不能简单延伸到“xiaomi”，小米提交的证据，亦不足以证明“xiaomi”商标经使用已经与小米形成稳定对应关系，故认定国家知识产权局驳回“xiaomi”商标并无不当，判决驳回了小米公司的诉讼请求。小米公司不服，上诉至北京市高级人民法院。
二审北京市高级人民法院认为，商标注册人对其注册的不同商标享有各自独立的商标专用权，先后注册的商标之间不当然具有延续关系，在先注册商标的商誉也不当然延续至在后申请的商标。“xiaomi”商标与小米公司主张的在先商标并不相同，故即使其在先商标具有较高知名度，亦不能使诉争商标获得足以与各引证商标相区分的可注册性。
最终北京市高级人民法院判决驳回了小米公司的上诉请求。
来源：北京法院审判信息网
链接：https://www.bjcourt.gov.cn/cpws/paperView.htm?id=db7b01ef401d494cae1b23cf992e0d91&n=2