| Guiding Case No. 78 of the Supreme People's Court: Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd. v. Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. | | 指导案例78号：北京奇虎科技有限公司诉腾讯科技（深圳）有限公司、深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司滥用市场支配地位纠纷案 |
| (Issued on March 6, 2017 as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court) | | （最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2017年3月6日发布） |
| Keywords | | 【关键词】 |
| civil; abuse of dominant market position; monopoly; relevant market | | 民事/滥用市场支配地位/垄断/相关市场 |
| Key Points of Judgment | | 【裁判要点】 |
| 1. In the trial of anti-monopoly cases, the definition of the relevant market is usually an important analytical step; however, whether the relevant market is explicitly defined depends on specific case circumstances. In the trial of a case regarding abuse of dominant market position, the definition of the relevant market is a tool for assessing the market power of operators and the impacts of the alleged monopoly on competition other than a purpose. If the market position of an operator and the market impacts of the alleged monopoly can be assessed through direct evidence on exclusion or hindering of competition, it is unnecessary to explicitly and clearly define the relevant market in each case regarding abuse of dominant market position. | | 1.在反垄断案件的审理中，界定相关市场通常是重要的分析步骤。但是，能否明确界定相关市场取决于案件具体情况。在滥用市场支配地位的案件中，界定相关市场是评估经营者的市场力量及被诉垄断行为对竞争影响的工具，其本身并非目的。如果通过排除或者妨碍竞争的直接证据，能够对经营者的市场地位及被诉垄断行为的市场影响进行评估，则不需要在每一个滥用市场支配地位的案件中，都明确而清楚地界定相关市场。 |
| 2. The Hypothetical Monopolist Test (“HMT”) is a universally applicable analytical thinking for defining the relevant market. In practical application, the HMT may be conducted on the basis of SSNIP or SSNDQ. Since the Internet instant messaging services are free of charge, users have high price sensitivity. The adoption of SSNIP may result in a too-wide definition of the relevant market and thus SSNDQ shall be adopted for making qualitative analysis. | | 2.假定垄断者测试（HMT）是普遍适用的界定相关市场的分析思路。在实际运用时，假定垄断者测试可以通过价格上涨（SSNIP）或质量下降（SSNDQ）等方法进行。互联网即时通信服务的免费特征使用户具有较高的价格敏感度，采用价格上涨的测试方法将导致相关市场界定过宽，应当采用质量下降的假定垄断者测试进行定性分析。 |
| 3. According to such characteristics of Internet instant messaging services as low costs and high coverage, in the definition of the relevant regional market, a comprehensive assessment shall be conducted by taking into account of such factors as the actual region where a majority of demanders select a commodity, the provisions of laws and regulations, the status quo of overseas competitors, and the timeliness of access to the relevant regional region. | | 3.基于互联网即时通信服务低成本、高覆盖的特点，在界定其相关地域市场时，应当根据多数需求者选择商品的实际区域、法律法规的规定、境外竞争者的现状及进入相关地域市场的及时性等因素，进行综合评估。 |
| 4. In the field of Internet, market share is only a rough and possibly misleading indicator for judging the dominant market position and its position and roles in identifying market domination must be determined according to the specific case circumstances. | | 4.在互联网领域中，市场份额只是判断市场支配地位的一项比较粗糙且可能具有误导性的指标，其在认定市场支配力方面的地位和作用必须根据案件具体情况确定。 |
| Legal Provisions | | 【相关法条】 |
| Articles 17, 18, and 19 of the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China | | 《中华人民共和国反垄断法》第17条、第18条、第19条 |
| Basic Facts | | 【基本案情】 |
| On October 29, 2010, Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Qihoo Company”) and Qizhi Software (Beijing) Co., Ltd. issued the software QQ Bodyguard. On November 3, 2010, Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tencent Company”) issued a Letter to QQ Users that QQ software stopped services on computers installed with 360 software. On November 4, Qihoo Company declared to recall the software QQ Bodyguard. On the same day, 360 Security Center declared that upon strong intervention of the relevant state departments, full compatibility between QQ software and 360 software has been realized. In September 2010, the instant messenger software, Tencent QQ, and QQ Software Manager were installed in package and in the process of installation, users were not prompted that QQ Software Manager would be installed simultaneously. On September 21, 2010, Tencent Company issued an announcement that QQ Software Manager and QQ Doctor in use would automatically be upgraded to QQ Computer Housekeeper. Qihoo Company filed a lawsuit with the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province against Tencent Company and alleged that Tencent Company abused its dominant positions in the relevant markets of instant messenger software and services. Qihoo Company alleged that Tencent Company and Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tencent Computer Company”) had dominant positions in the relevant markets of instant messenger software and services. Both companies explicitly prohibited their users from using 360 software of Qihoo Company; otherwise, QQ software services would stop; refused to provide the relevant software services to users whose computers were installed with 360 software and forced users to delete 360 software; by technical means, prohibited users whose computers were installed with 360 browsers from visiting Qzone. The aforesaid acts constituted restricted transactions; Tencent Company and Tencent Computer Company bound QQ Software Manager and instant messenger software and made users install QQ Doctor in the name of upgrading QQ Software Manager, which acts constituted tie-in sale. Qihoo Company requested the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province to order that Tencent Company and Tencent Computer Company should immediately cease the monopolistic behavior of abusing their dominant market positions and jointly and severally pay Qihoo Company CNY150 million for its economic loss. | | 北京奇虎科技有限公司（以下简称奇虎公司）、奇智软件（北京）有限公司于2010年10月29日发布扣扣保镖软件。2010年11月3日，腾讯科技（深圳）有限公司（以下简称腾讯公司）发布《致广大QQ用户的一封信》，在装有360软件的电脑上停止运行QQ软件。11月4日，奇虎公司宣布召回扣扣保镖软件。同日，360安全中心亦宣布，在国家有关部门的强力干预下，目前QQ和360软件已经实现了完全兼容。2010年9月，腾讯QQ即时通信软件与QQ软件管理一起打包安装，安装过程中并未提示用户将同时安装QQ软件管理。2010年9月21日，腾讯公司发出公告称，正在使用的QQ软件管理和QQ医生将自动升级为QQ电脑管家。奇虎公司诉至广东省高级人民法院，指控腾讯公司滥用其在即时通信软件及服务相关市场的市场支配地位。奇虎公司主张，腾讯公司和深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司（以下简称腾讯计算机公司）在即时通信软件及服务相关市场具有市场支配地位，两公司明示禁止其用户使用奇虎公司的360软件，否则停止QQ软件服务；拒绝向安装有360软件的用户提供相关的软件服务，强制用户删除360软件；采取技术手段，阻止安装了360浏览器的用户访问QQ空间，上述行为构成限制交易；腾讯公司和腾讯计算机公司将QQ软件管家与即时通信软件相捆绑，以升级QQ软件管家的名义安装QQ医生，构成捆绑销售。请求判令腾讯公司和腾讯计算机公司立即停止滥用市场支配地位的垄断行为，连带赔偿奇虎公司经济损失1.5亿元。 |
| Judgment | | 【裁判结果】 |
| On March 20, 2013, the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province rendered a civil judgment (No. 2 [2011], First, Civil DivisionIII, HPC, Guangdong) that the claims of Qihoo Company should be dismissed. Qihoo Company refused to accept the judgment and appealed. On October 8, 2014, the Supreme People's Court rendered a civil judgment (No. 4 [2013], Final, Civil DivisionIII, Supreme People's Court) that the appeal should be dismissed and the original judgment should be affirmed. | | 广东省高级人民法院于2013年3月20日作出（2011）粤高法民三初字第2号民事判决：驳回北京奇虎科技有限公司的诉讼请求。北京奇虎科技有限公司不服，提出上诉。最高人民法院于2014年10月8日作出（2013）民三终字第4号民事判决：驳回上诉、维持原判。 |
| Judgment's Reasoning | | 【裁判理由】 |
| In the effective judgment, the Supreme People's Court held that: The issues in this case were (1) how to define the relevant market in this case; (2) whether the appellee had the dominant market position; and (3) whether the acts of the appellee constituted the abuse of dominant market positions as prohibited by the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Anti-Monopoly Law”). | | 法院生效裁判认为：本案中涉及的争议焦点主要包括，一是如何界定本案中的相关市场，二是被上诉人是否具有市场支配地位，三是被上诉人是否构成反垄断法所禁止的滥用市场支配地位行为等几个方面。 |
| 1. How to define the relevant market in this case | | 一、如何界定本案中的相关市场 |
| This issue may be further described as some specific issues, which were selected and summarized as follows: | | 该争议焦点可以进一步细化为一些具体问题，择要概括如下： |
First, not in all cases regarding abuse of dominant market position, the relevant market should be explicitly and clearly defined. Competition usually occurs and develops within a certain market scope and the definition of the relevant market may specify the market scope of competition between operators and the competition restrictions they face. In cases regarding abuse of dominant market position, the rational definition of the relevant market is of great significance in accurately identifying the market positions of operators, analyzing the impacts of operators' acts on market operators, judging whether the acts of operators are illegal, and determining legal liabilities to be assumed in case of violations of law. Therefore, in the trial of anti-monopoly cases, the definition of the relevant market is usually an important analytical step. Even so, whether the relevant market can be clearly defined depends on the specific case circumstances, especially the availability of case evidence and relevant data and the complexity of competition in the relevant fields. In the trial of a case regarding abuse of dominant market position, the definition of the relevant market is a tool for assessing the market power of operators and the impacts of the alleged monopolistic conduct on competition other than a purpose. Even though the relevant market is not defined, the market position of the alleged operator and the possible market impacts brought by the alleged monopolistic conduct may also be assessed through direct evidence on exclusion or hindering of competition. Therefore, not in all cases regarding abuse of dominant market position, the relevant market must be explicitly and clearly defined. The court of first instance has defined the relevant market in this case. Since the boundary of the relevant market involved was obscure, the court of first instance only analyzed the possibility of such boundary other than arrived at a clear conclusion on the boundary of the relevant market. On that account, the ground of Qihoo Company that the court of first instance failed to clearly define the relevant commodity market involved, which was unclear finding of basic facts in this case, was untenable.
．．．．．． | | 首先，并非在任何滥用市场支配地位的案件中均必须明确而清楚地界定相关市场。竞争行为都是在一定的市场范围内发生和展开的，界定相关市场可以明确经营者之间竞争的市场范围及其面对的竞争约束。在滥用市场支配地位的案件中，合理地界定相关市场，对于正确认定经营者的市场地位、分析经营者的行为对市场竞争的影响、判断经营者行为是否违法，以及在违法情况下需承担的法律责任等关键问题，具有重要意义。因此，在反垄断案件的审理中，界定相关市场通常是重要的分析步骤。尽管如此，是否能够明确界定相关市场取决于案件具体情况，尤其是案件证据、相关数据的可获得性、相关领域竞争的复杂性等。在滥用市场支配地位案件的审理中，界定相关市场是评估经营者的市场力量及被诉垄断行为对竞争的影响的工具，其本身并非目的。即使不明确界定相关市场，也可以通过排除或者妨碍竞争的直接证据对被诉经营者的市场地位及被诉垄断行为可能的市场影响进行评估。因此，并非在每一个滥用市场支配地位的案件中均必须明确而清楚地界定相关市场。一审法院实际上已经对本案相关市场进行了界定，只是由于本案相关市场的边界具有模糊性，一审法院仅对其边界的可能性进行了分析而没有对相关市场的边界给出明确结论。有鉴于此，奇虎公司关于一审法院未对本案相关商品市场作出明确界定，属于本案基本事实认定不清的理由不能成立。
．．．．．． |
|
Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.
1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.
2. Binding to the account with access to this database.
3. Apply for a trial account.
4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【￥700.00】 for your single purchase. | |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户；您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买，支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | |
| | | |