|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Issuing the Sixteenth Group of Guiding Cases | | 最高人民法院关于发布第16批指导性案例的通知 |
| (No. 53 [2017] of the Supreme People's Court) | | （法〔2017〕53号） |
| The higher people's courts of all provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central Government; the Military Court of the People's Liberation Army; and the Production and Construction Corps Branch of the Higher People's Court of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region: | | 各省、自治区、直辖市高级人民法院，解放军军事法院，新疆维吾尔自治区高级人民法院生产建设兵团分院： |
| Upon deliberation and decision of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court, ten cases including Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd. v. Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. for dispute over abuse of dominant market position (Guiding Cases No. 78-87) are hereby issued as the sixteenth group of guiding cases for reference in the trial of similar cases. | | 经最高人民法院审判委员会讨论决定，现将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等十个案例（指导案例78-87号）作为第16批指导性案例发布，供在审判类似案件时参照。 |
| Supreme People's Court | | 最高人民法院 |
| March 6, 2017 | | 2017年3月6日 |
| Guiding Case No. 78 | | 指导案例78号 |
| Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd. v. Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. (Case about dispute over abuse of dominant market position) | | 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: civil; abuse of dominant market position; monopoly; relevant market | | 关键词 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 market. | | 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 conductmay 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。 |
| Second, with respect to whether the Hypothetical Monopolist Test (“HMT”) may apply to the filed of free commodities, in the effective judgment, the Supreme People's Court held that: (1) as an analytical thinking for defining the relevant market, the HMT had universal applicability. In practice, there were multiple methods in the HMT, including SSNIP where the amount of commodities was not large but significant and it was not a short-lived price increase and SSNDQ where the amount of commodities was not large but significant and it was not a short-lived quality decline. At the same time, as an analytical thinking or thinking method, the HMT may be conducted by either qualitative analysis or quantitative analysis where conditions permitted in the actual application. Second, in practice, the selection of which methods for conducting the HMT depended on the field of the market competition involved and specific circumstances of the relevant data available. If features of product homogeneity in specific market field were obvious and price competition was an important competition form, SSNIP was feasible. However, in fields where the product differentiation was obvious and such non-price competitions as quality, service, innovation, and consumer experience were major competition forms, it was difficult to adopt SSNIP. In particular, when the market equilibrium price of commodities in specific fields was zero, it was particularly difficult to adopt SSNIP. When adopting SSNIP, an appropriate base price needed to be determined in general and the response of the demander was then determined after the price was increased by 5% to 10%. Under the circumstance where the base price was zero, if the price was increased by 5% to 10%, the price was still zero after the increase; and if the price was increased from zero to a small positive price, it equaled to the infinite increase of the price increase range, which meant great changes in commodity features or business patterns, and thus it was difficult to conduct the HMT based on SSNIP. Third, with respect to the applicability of the HMT in this case, in competition in the Internet field, Internet service providers paid more attention to competition in the Internet field in aspects of quality, service, and innovation other than price competition. Under the circumstance where free basic Internet instant messenger services have long existed and become a common business pattern, users had high price sensitivity. Any change in the charge-free strategy and the charge of a small amount of expense may result in huge loss of users. At the same time, the change from free of charge to charge meant a great change in the commodity characteristics and business pattern. In other words, free goods were changed to charging goods and the indirect profit pattern was changed to direct profit pattern. Under this circumstance, if the HMT based on SSNIP was adopted, it was possible that commodities without substitutions were incorporated into the relevant market, causing the too-wide definition of the relevant market. Therefore, it was not fully appropriate to apply the HMT based on SSNIP in this case. Although it was difficult to fully adopt the HMT based on SSNIP in this case, the flexible form of this method may still be adopted, for example, the HMT based on SSNDQ. Since it was difficult to assess the quality decline and acquire the relevant data, the HMT based on SSNDQ may be adopted to conduct the qualitative analysis other than the quantitative analysis. | | 其次，关于“假定垄断者测试”方法可否适用于免费商品领域问题。法院生效裁判认为：第一，作为界定相关市场的一种分析思路，假定垄断者测试（HMT）具有普遍的适用性。实践中，假定垄断者测试的分析方法有多种，既可以通过数量不大但有意义且并非短暂的价格上涨（SSNIP）的方法进行，又可以通过数量不大但有意义且并非短暂的质量下降（SSNDQ）的方法进行。同时，作为一种分析思路或者思考方法，假定垄断者测试在实际运用时既可以通过定性分析的方法进行，又可以在条件允许的情况下通过定量分析的方法进行。第二，在实践中，选择何种方法进行假定垄断者测试取决于案件所涉市场竞争领域以及可获得的相关数据的具体情况。如果特定市场领域的商品同质化特征比较明显，价格竞争是较为重要的竞争形式，则采用数量不大但有意义且并非短暂的价格上涨（SSNIP）的方法较为可行。但是如果在产品差异化非常明显且质量、服务、创新、消费者体验等非价格竞争成为重要竞争形式的领域，采用数量不大但有意义且并非短暂的价格上涨（SSNIP）的方法则存在较大困难。特别是，当特定领域商品的市场均衡价格为零时，运用SSNIP方法尤为困难。在运用SSNIP方法时，通常需要确定适当的基准价格，进行5%-10%幅度的价格上涨，然后确定需求者的反应。在基准价格为零的情况下，如果进行5%-10%幅度的价格增长，增长后其价格仍为零；如果将价格从零提升到一个较小的正价格，则相当于价格增长幅度的无限增大，意味着商品特性或者经营模式发生较大变化，因而难以进行SSNIP测试。第三，关于假定垄断者测试在本案中的可适用性问题。互联网服务提供商在互联网领域的竞争中更加注重质量、服务、创新等方面的竞争而不是价格竞争。在免费的互联网基础即时通信服务已经长期存在并成为通行商业模式的情况下，用户具有极高的价格敏感度，改变免费策略转而收取哪怕是较小数额的费用都可能导致用户的大量流失。同时，将价格由免费转变为收费也意味着商品特性和经营模式的重大变化，即由免费商品转变为收费商品，由间接盈利模式转变为直接盈利模式。在这种情况下，如果采取基于相对价格上涨的假定垄断者测试，很可能将不具有替代关系的商品纳入相关市场中，导致相关市场界定过宽。因此，基于相对价格上涨的假定垄断者测试并不完全适宜在本案中适用。尽管基于相对价格上涨的假定垄断者测试难以在本案中完全适用，但仍可以采取该方法的变通形式，例如基于质量下降的假定垄断者测试。由于质量下降程度较难评估以及相关数据难以获得，因此可以采用质量下降的假定垄断者测试进行定性分析而不是定量分析。 |
| Third, with respect to whether the relevant market in this case should be determined as the Internet application platform, the appellant held that Internet application platform was irrelevant to the definition of the relevant market in this case; the appellee held that Internet competition was actually platform competition and the scope of the relevant market in this case was far beyond the market of instant messenger services. Based on the characteristics of platform competition in the Internet field, the effective judgment of the Supreme People's Court elaborated how to take characteristics and processing methods of platform competition into consideration and the Supreme People's Court held that: (1) Internet competition displayed characteristics of platform competition to some extent. When the alleged monopolistic conduct occurred, the platform competition characteristics of the Internet have been obvious. Internet operators entered the Internet field through specific points and played an intermediary role among various types of consumers with different needs for the purpose of creating value. (2) To judge whether the relevant commodity market in this case should be determined as Internet application platform, the key issue was whether the competition between network platforms for the purpose of competing for attention of users and advisers has completely spanned the boundary as determined by characteristics of products or services and imposed strong enough competition constraints on operators. The answer to this issue ultimately depended on empirical test. When there was no conclusive empirical data, attention should be paid to the following aspects at least: (a) Competition between Internet application platforms for users' attention and advisers should be based on the key core products or services they provided. (b) The key core products or services of Internet application platforms were greatly different in such aspects as attributes, characteristics, functions, and purposes. Although advisers may be only concerned about the prices and effects of advertisements other than differences between these products or services and may deem that different Internet application platforms were substitutes for each other, it was difficult for users of free services to deem that products or services with totally different functions and purposes provided by different platforms may effectively substitute each other. A user who attempted to search the biography of a historical figure usually used a search engine other than an instant messenger and the user almost did not think that a search engine and an instant messenger may substitute each other. (c) Differences in the characteristics, functions, and purposes of key core products or services of Internet application platforms determined possible differences between the major user groups and advertisers they competed for. Therefore, there were great differences in such aspects as the patterns for obtaining economic benefits, target user groups, and subsequent market products provided. (d) Attention should be paid to whether the appellee excluded or restricted competition in the field of Internet security software by using its dominant market power in the filed of instant messaging and extended its possible dominant market power in the field of instant messaging to the field of security software, and this competition process often occurred in the user side free of charge. Considering the aforesaid grounds, in the phase where the relevant market was defined, the characteristics of Internet platform competition were not the major consideration factors. (3) With respect to the manner for considering the characteristics of platform competition of Internet enterprises in this case, the definition of the relevant market aimed at specifying the competition restrictions operators faced, rationally determining the market positions of operators, and correctly judging the impacts of their behavior on market competition. Even though the characteristics of Internet platform competition were not taken into primary consideration in the phase of defining the relevant market, for the purpose of correctly determining the market position of operators, such characteristics may still be taken into due consideration when identifying the market position and market control of operators. Therefore, failure to take the characteristics of Internet platform competition into primary consideration in the phase of defining the relevant market did not mean neglect of such characteristics, but for the purpose of taking such characteristics into more appropriate consideration. | | 再次，关于本案相关市场是否应确定为互联网应用平台问题。上诉人认为，互联网应用平台与本案的相关市场界定无关；被上诉人则认为，互联网竞争实际上是平台的竞争，本案的相关市场范围远远超出了即时通信服务市场。法院生效裁判针对互联网领域平台竞争的特点，阐述了相关市场界定时应如何考虑平台竞争的特点及处理方式，认为：第一，互联网竞争一定程度地呈现出平台竞争的特征。被诉垄断行为发生时，互联网的平台竞争特征已经比较明显。互联网经营者通过特定的切入点进入互联网领域，在不同类型和需求的消费者之间发挥中介作用，以此创造价值。第二，判断本案相关商品市场是否应确定为互联网应用平台，其关键问题在于，网络平台之间为争夺用户注意力和广告主的相互竞争是否完全跨越了由产品或者服务特点所决定的界限，并给经营者施加了足够强大的竞争约束。这一问题的答案最终取决于实证检验。在缺乏确切的实证数据的情况下，至少注意如下方面：首先，互联网应用平台之间争夺用户注意力和广告主的竞争以其提供的关键核心产品或者服务为基础。其次，互联网应用平台的关键核心产品或者服务在属性、特征、功能、用途等方面上存在较大的不同。虽然广告主可能不关心这些产品或者服务的差异，只关心广告的价格和效果，因而可能将不同的互联网应用平台视为彼此可以替代，但是对于免费端的广大用户而言，其很难将不同平台提供的功能和用途完全不同的产品或者服务视为可以有效地相互替代。一个试图查找某个历史人物生平的用户通常会选择使用搜索引擎而不是即时通信，其几乎不会认为两者可以相互替代。再次，互联网应用平台关键核心产品或者服务的特性、功能、用途等差异决定了其所争夺的主要用户群体和广告主可能存在差异，因而在获取经济利益的模式、目标用户群、所提供的后续市场产品等方面存在较大区别。最后，本案中应该关注的是被上诉人是否利用了其在即时通信领域中可能的市场支配力量排除、限制互联网安全软件领域的竞争，将其在即时通信领域中可能存在的市场支配力量延伸到安全软件领域，这一竞争过程更多地发生在免费的用户端。鉴于上述理由，在本案相关市场界定阶段互联网平台竞争的特性不是主要考虑因素。第三，本案中对互联网企业平台竞争特征的考虑方式。相关市场界定的目的是为了明确经营者所面对的竞争约束，合理认定经营者的市场地位，并正确判断其行为对市场竞争的影响。即使不在相关市场界定阶段主要考虑互联网平台竞争的特性，但为了正确认定经营者的市场地位，仍然可以在识别经营者的市场地位和市场控制力时予以适当考虑。因此，对于本案，不在相关市场界定阶段主要考虑互联网平台竞争的特性并不意味着忽视这一特性，而是为了以更恰当的方式考虑这一特性。 |
| Finally, with respect to the issue requiring attention in the definition of the relevant regional market of instant messaging services, in the effective judgment, the Supreme People's Court held that: The definition of the relevant regional market should start with the target region of instant messaging service market in the mainland China and the relevant regional market in this case should be studied. Since instant messaging services based on Internet may reach and cover the whole world at low costs and was free from additional and noteworthy transport costs, price costs, or technical obstacles, when defining the relevant regional market, such factors as the actual regions where a majority of demanders select goods, the provisions of laws and regulations, the status quo of overseas competitors, and the timeliness of entry into the relevant regional market should be mainly taken into consideration. Since none of the aforesaid factors was decisive, a comprehensive assessment should be made according to such factors. (1) A majority of users within the territory of the mainland China select the instant messaging services provided by operators within the territory of the mainland China. The users within the territory of the mainland China are not highly concerned about international instant messaging products. (2) Specific requirements and conditions for operators of instant messaging services have been specified in the Internet-related administrative regulations and rules of China. In China, the instant messaging services and other value-added telecommunications services are subject to the system of administrative licensing. In general, a foreign operator cannot directly access the market within the territory of the mainland China and it should obtain the relevant administrative licensing by Sino-foreign joint venture. (3) With respect to the actual circumstances of overseas operators of instant messaging services, before the occurrence of the alleged monopolistic conduct , a majority of key international instant messaging operators, including MSN, Yahoo, Skype, and Google, have accessed the market of the mainland China by joint venture. Therefore, when the alleged monopolistic conduct occurred, there were few key international operators of instant messaging services that have not accessed the market of the mainland China. If the quality of instant messaging services within the territory of the mainland China was slightly declined, there were few overseas operators of instant messaging services for domestic users to select. (4) There were difficulties for overseas operators of instant messaging services to access the mainland of China within a short term (one year for instance) and expand to the scale of restricting domestic operators. An overseas operator of instant messaging services should first establish an enterprise by joint venture, satisfy a series of licensing requirements, and obtain the corresponding administrative licensing, which postponed the access of the overseas operator to some extent. In conclusion, the relevant regional market in this case should be the market of the mainland China. | | 最后，关于即时通信服务相关地域市场界定需要注意的问题。法院生效裁判认为：本案相关地域市场的界定，应从中国大陆地区的即时通信服务市场这一目标地域开始，对本案相关地域市场进行考察。因为基于互联网的即时通信服务可以低成本、低代价到达或者覆盖全球，并无额外的、值得关注的运输成本、价格成本或者技术障碍，所以在界定相关地域市场时，将主要考虑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其进入相关地域市场的及时性等因素。由于每一个因素均不是决定性的，因此需要根据上述因素进行综合评估。首先，中国大陆地区境内绝大多数用户均选择使用中国大陆地区范围内的经营者提供的即时通信服务。中国大陆地区境内用户对于国际即时通信产品并无较高的关注度。其次，我国有关互联网的行政法规规章等对经营即时通信服务规定了明确的要求和条件。我国对即时通信等增值电信业务实行行政许可制度，外国经营者通常不能直接进入我国大陆境内经营，需要以中外合资经营企业的方式进入并取得相应的行政许可。再次，位于境外的即时通信服务经营者的实际情况。在本案被诉垄断行为发生前，多数主要国际即时通信经营者例如MSN、雅虎、Skype、谷歌等均已经通过合资的方式进入中国大陆地区市场。因此，在被诉垄断行为发生时，尚未进入我国大陆境内的主要国际即时通信服务经营者已经很少。如果我国大陆境内的即时通信服务质量小幅下降，已没有多少境外即时通信服务经营者可供境内用户选择。最后，境外即时通信服务经营者在较短的时间内（例如一年）及时进入中国大陆地区并发展到足以制约境内经营者的规模存在较大困难。境外即时通信服务经营者首先需要通过合资方式建立企业、满足一系列许可条件并取得相应的行政许可，这在相当程度上延缓了境外经营者的进入时间。综上，本案相关地域市场应为中国大陆地区市场。 |
| In light of other evidence and actual circumstances of this case, the relevant market should be defined as the market of instant messaging services in the mainland China, including instant messaging services on both personal computers and mobile terminals; and including comprehensive instant messaging services and such non-comprehensive instant messaging services as words, audios, and videos. | | 综合本案其他证据和实际情况，本案相关市场应界定为中国大陆地区即时通信服务市场，既包括个人电脑端即时通信服务，又包括移动端即时通信服务；既包括综合性即时通信服务，又包括文字、音频以及视频等非综合性即时通信服务。 |
| 2. Whether the appellee had the dominant market position | | 二、被上诉人是否具有市场支配地位 |
| With respect to the position and roles of an operator's market shares in the relevant market in determining its market domination, the effective judgment of the Supreme People's Court held that: The position and roles of market shares in determining market domination must be identified in light of the specific case circumstances. In general, larger market shares and longer duration were more likely to indicate the existence of a dominant market position. In spite of this, market share was only a rough and possibly misleading indicator for judging the dominant market position. Under the circumstances where the market access was relatively easy, high market share was originated in higher market efficiency or provision of more superior products by operators, or products outside the market formed strong competition restrictions on operators, high market shares could not directly infer the existence of the dominant market position. In particular, competition in the Internet environment was highly dynamic and the boundary of the relevant market was far from clear by comparing to that in the traditional field. Under this circumstance, the indicative function of market share could not be over-estimated and more attention should be paid to such specific facts and evidence conducive to judging the dominant market position as market access, market behavior of operators, and impact on competition. | | 对于经营者在相关市场中的市场份额在认定其市场支配力方面的地位和作用，法院生效裁判认为：市场份额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。一般而言，市场份额越高，持续的时间越长，就越可能预示着市场支配地位的存在。尽管如此，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。在市场进入比较容易，或者高市场份额源于经营者更高的市场效率或者提供了更优异的产品，或者市场外产品对经营者形成较强的竞争约束等情况下，高的市场份额并不能直接推断出市场支配地位的存在。特别是，互联网环境下的竞争存在高度动态的特征，相关市场的边界远不如传统领域那样清晰，在此情况下，更不能高估市场份额的指示作用，而应更多地关注市场进入、经营者的市场行为、对竞争的影响等有助于判断市场支配地位的具体事实和证据。 |
| In light of the aforesaid thinking, the effective judgment examined and analyzed whether the appellee had the dominant market position from such aspects as the market share, competition in the relevant market, capability of the alleged operator of controlling the commodity price, quantity, or other trade terms, the financial capability and technical conditions of the operator, the dependence of other operators on the operators in transactions, and the difficulty of other operators in accessing the relevant market. Finally, the Supreme People's Court determined that the existing evidence was insufficient to uphold the conclusion that the appellee had the dominant market position. | | 结合上述思路，法院生效裁判从市场份额、相关市场的竞争状况、被诉经营者控制商品价格、数量或者其他交易条件的能力、该经营者的财力和技术条件、其他经营者对该经营者在交易上的依赖程度、其他经营者进入相关市场的难易程度等方面，对被上诉人是否具有市场支配地位进行考量和分析。最终认定本案现有证据并不足以支持被上诉人具有市场支配地位的结论。 |
| 3. Whether the act of the appellee constituted the abuse of dominant market position as prohibited by the Anti-Monopoly Law | | 三、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 |
| The effective judgment of the Supreme People's Court broke the conventional “three-step approach” for analyzing the abuse of dominant market position and adopted more flexible analytical steps and methods. The Supreme People's Court held that in general, if the alleged operator did not have the dominant market position, it was unnecessary to analyze whether it abused the dominant market position and it may be directly identified that the act of the operator did not constitute the abuse of dominant market position as prohibited by the Anti-Monopoly Law. Nevertheless, when the boundary of the relevant market was obscure and it was not very clear whether the alleged operator had the dominant market position, the effects of impacts of the alleged monopolistic conduct on competition may be further analyzed, so as to verify whether the conclusion on the dominant market position was correct. Besides, even though the alleged operator had the dominant market position, to check whether the operator abused the dominant market position, a comprehensive assessment of the negative effects and possible positive effects of the alleged monopolistic conduct on consumers and competition should be made, so as to verify the legality of the alleged monopolistic conduct. This case mainly involved the following two issues: | | 法院生效裁判打破了传统的分析滥用市场支配地位行为的“三步法”，采用了更为灵活的分析步骤和方法，认为：原则上，如果被诉经营者不具有市场支配地位，则无需对其是否滥用市场支配地位进行分析，可以直接认定其不构成反垄断法所禁止的滥用市场支配地位行为。不过，在相关市场边界较为模糊、被诉经营者是否具有市场支配地位不甚明确时，可以进一步分析被诉垄断行为对竞争的影响效果，以检验关于其是否具有市场支配地位的结论正确与否。此外，即使被诉经营者具有市场支配地位，判断其是否构成滥用市场支配地位，也需要综合评估该行为对消费者和竞争造成的消极效果和可能具有的积极效果，进而对该行为的合法性与否作出判断。本案主要涉及两个方面的问题： |
| First, whether the act of “product incompatibility” (alternatives for users) committed by the appellee constituted tied transaction as prohibited by the Anti-Monopoly Law, in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 of the Anti-Monopoly Law, where an operator with the dominant market position defined that the counterpart could only trade with it or the operator it designated without any justifiable reason, the definition constituted the abuse of dominant market position. The appellant alleged that the appellee forced users to terminate the use of the appellant's software and unload it without any justifiable reason, which constituted restriction of transaction by abuse of the dominant market position as prohibited by the Anti-Monopoly Law. To this issue, according to the effective judgment of the Supreme People's Court, although the “product incompatibility” committed by the appellee caused inconvenience to users, it did not bring about the effect of excluding or restricting competition. On the one hand, the act of “product incompatibility” committed by the appellee did not constitute the abuse of dominant market position as prohibited by the Anti-Monopoly Law; on the other hand, the conclusion that the appellee did not have the dominant market position was corroborated. | | 一是关于被上诉人实施的“产品不兼容”行为（用户二选一）是否构成反垄断法禁止的限制交易行为。根据反垄断法第十七条的规定，具有市场支配地位的经营者，没有正当理由，限定交易相对人只能与其进行交易或者只能与其指定的经营者进行交易的，构成滥用市场支配地位。上诉人主张，被上诉人没有正当理由，强制用户停止使用并卸载上诉人的软件，构成反垄断法所禁止的滥用市场支配地位限制交易行为。对此，法院生效裁判认为，虽然被上诉人实施的“产品不兼容”行为对用户造成了不便，但是并未导致排除或者限制竞争的明显效果。这一方面说明被上诉人实施的“产品不兼容”行为不构成反垄断法所禁止的滥用市场支配地位行为，也从另一方面佐证了被上诉人不具有市场支配地位的结论。 |
| Second, whether the act of the appellee constituted tie-in sale as prohibited by the Anti-Monopoly Law, in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 of the Anti-Monopoly Law, where an operator with the dominant market position engaged in tie-in sale of commodities without any justifiable reason or imposed other additional unreasonable trade terms in the transaction, it constituted the abuse of dominant market position. The appellant claimed that the appellee engaged in tie-in sale of QQ Software Manager and the instant messenger and installed QQ Doctor in the name of upgrading QQ Software Manager, which did not conform to the trade practices, consumptions customs, or commodity functions, restricted consumers' right of selection, and did not have any justifiable reason; and the judgment of first instance was erroneous in the allocation of burden of proof for the effects of excluding or restricting competition by the alleged tie-in sale. For this issue, the effective judgment of the Supreme People's Court held that the grounds of appeal of the appellant that the appellee committed the abuse of dominant market position were untenable. | | 二是被上诉人是否构成反垄断法所禁止的搭售行为。根据反垄断法第十七条的规定，具有市场支配地位的经营者，没有正当理由搭售商品，或者在交易时附加其他不合理的交易条件的，构成滥用市场支配地位。上诉人主张，被上诉人将QQ软件管家与即时通信软件捆绑搭售，并且以升级QQ软件管家的名义安装QQ医生，不符合交易惯例、消费习惯或者商品的功能，消费者选择权受到了限制，不具有正当理由；一审判决关于被诉搭售行为产生排除、限制竞争效果的举证责任分配错误。对此，法院生效裁判认为，上诉人关于被上诉人实施了滥用市场支配地位行为的上诉理由不能成立。 |
| (Judges of the effective judgment: Wang Chuang, Wang Yanfang, and Zhu Li) | | （生效裁判审判人员：王闯、王艳芳、朱理） |
| Guiding Case No. 79 | | 指导案例79号 |
| Wu Xiaoqin v. Shaanxi BC & TV Network (Group) Co., Ltd. (Case about dispute over bundled transaction) | | 吴小秦诉陕西广电网络传媒（集团）股份有限公司捆绑交易纠纷案 |
| (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: civil; bundled transaction; monopoly; dominant market position; tie-in sale | | 关键词 民事/捆绑交易/垄断/市场支配地位/搭售 |
| Key Points of Judgment | | 裁判要点 |
| 1. As the only operator engaging in the legal business operation of cable TV transmission business and an entity engaging in the centralized broadcast control of TV programs in a specific area, it has advantages in market access, market share, operating status, operation scale, and other elements. It may be recognized that the operator has a dominant market position. | | 1.作为特定区域内唯一合法经营有线电视传输业务的经营者及电视节目集中播控者，在市场准入、市场份额、经营地位、经营规模等各要素上均具有优势，可以认定该经营者占有市场支配地位。 |
| 2. By making advantage of its dominant market position, the operator bundles the basic maintenance fee for receiving digital TV programs with the fee for paid digital TV programs and charges a consumer the fees together, which has infringed upon the consumer's right of choice and is prejudicial to other service providers accessing the digital TV service market. Even though the operator falls under exceptions where it separately charges the two service items, it is insufficient to deny that its acts constitute tie-in sale as prohibited by the Anti-Monopoly Law. | | 2.经营者利用市场支配地位，将数字电视基本收视维护费和数字电视付费节目费捆绑在一起向消费者收取，侵害了消费者的消费选择权，不利于其他服务提供者进入数字电视服务市场。经营者即使存在两项服务分别收费的例外情形，也不足以否认其构成反垄断法所禁止的搭售。 |
| Legal Provisions | | 相关法条 |
| Item (5) of paragraph 1 of Article 17 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1款第5项 |
| Basic Facts | | 基本案情 |
| Plaintiff Wu Xiaoqin alleged that: On May 10, 2012, when he paid the basic maintenance fee for receiving digital TV programs at Shaanxi BC & TV Network (Group) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BC & TV Company”), he learned that this fee has been adjusted from CNY25 per month to CNY30 per month. Wu Xiaoqin paid CNY90 for three months, in which the basic maintenance fee for receiving digital TV programs amounted to CNY75 and the fee for paid digital TV programs amounted to CNY15. Afterwards, Wu Xiaoqin learned that digital programs were subject to the free choice and voluntary subscription of subscribers. Wu Xiaoqin held that: As a public enterprise, BC & TV Company had a dominant position in the digital TV market, and its charge of the fee for paid digital TV programs deprived him of the right of free choice and constituted tie-in sale. Therefore, he filed a lawsuit with the court and requested the court to confirm that defendant BC & TV Company's charge of the fee for paid digital TV programs of CNY15 on May 10, 2012 was invalid and defendant should refund him CNY15. | | 原告吴小秦诉称：2012年5月10日，其前往陕西广电网络传媒（集团）股份有限公司（以下简称广电公司）缴纳数字电视基本收视维护费得知，该项费用由每月25元调至30元，吴小秦遂缴纳了3个月费用90元，其中数字电视基本收视维护费75元、数字电视节目费15元。之后，吴小秦获悉数字电视节目应由用户自由选择，自愿订购。吴小秦认为，广电公司属于公用企业，在数字电视市场内具有支配地位，其收取数字电视节目费的行为剥夺了自己的自主选择权，构成搭售，故诉至法院，请求判令：确认被告2012年5月10日收取其数字电视节目费15元的行为无效，被告返还原告15元。 |
| BC & TV Company contended that: As the only entity engaging in the centralized broadcast control of TV programs within Shaanxi Province, it charged consumers who chose to receive programs beyond the basic ones, which complied with the provisions of the Anti-Monopoly Law; BC & TV Company had a dominant position in the cable TV market of Shaanxi Province and it encouraged subscribers to choose cable TV packages, but it did not abuse its dominant market position or force subscribers to buy service items beyond basic TV program services. The subscribers had the right of free choice; the recognition of monopolistic conduct was governed by administrative power other than judicial power. Plaintiff did not request the court to recognize invalidation of monopolistic conduct; although BC & TV Company launched a series of TV program packages for subscribers' individual choices, it has never committed any forcible tie-in sale, which guaranteed people's right to choose more TV programs. Therefore, BC & TV Company requested the court to dismiss the claims of plaintiff that BC & TV Company's increase of TV programs and charge of fees were invalid and BC & TV Company was willing to actively resolve claim (2) of Wu Xiaoqin. | | 广电公司辩称：广电公司作为陕西省内唯一电视节目集中播控者，向选择收看基本收视节目之外的消费者收取费用，符合反垄断法的规定；广电公司具备陕西省有线电视市场支配地位，鼓励用户选择有线电视套餐，但并未滥用市场支配地位，强行规定用户在基本收视业务之外必须消费的服务项目，用户有自主选择权；垄断行为的认定属于行政权力，而不是司法权力，原告没有请求认定垄断行为无效的权利；广电公司虽然推出了一系列满足用户进行个性化选择的电视套餐，但从没有进行强制搭售的行为，保证了绝大多数群众收看更多电视节目的选择权利；故请求驳回原告要求确认广电公司增加节目并收取费用无效的请求；愿意积极解决吴小秦的第二项诉讼请求。 |
| After a trial, the court found that: On May 10, 2012, when Wu Xiaoqin paid the basic maintenance fee for receiving digital TV programs at BC & TV Company, he learned that the minimum standard for the monthly basic maintenance fee for receiving digital TV programs has been increased from CNY25 to CNY30. Wu Xiaoqin paid the basic maintenance fee for receiving digital TV programs of CNY90 from May 10 to August 9, 2012. It was indicated in the specific charge invoice issued by BC & TV Company to Wu Xiaoqin that the basic maintenance fee for receiving digital TV programs amounted to CNY75 and the fee for paid digital TV programs amounted to CNY15. Afterwards, Wu Xiaoqin consulted with the customer service center of BC & TV Company (service telephone: 96766) and learned that various paid programs were increased in BC & TV Company's program upgrading and various packages were available. In particular, the basic maintenance fee in the minimum charge package was CNY360 per year and subscribers should pay fees for a minimum of three months each time. BC & TV Company was the only operator engaging in the lawful business operation of cable TV transmission business within Shaanxi Province and the only entity engaging in the centralized broadcast control of TV programs with the approval of the People's Government of Shaanxi Province. BC & TV Company admitted that it had a dominant position in the cable TV transmission business within Shaanxi Province. | | 法院经审理查明：2012年5月10日，吴小秦前往广电公司缴纳数字电视基本收视维护费时获悉，数字电视基本收视维护费每月最低标准由25元上调至30元。吴小秦缴纳了2012年5月10日至8月9日的数字电视基本收视维护费90元。广电公司向吴小秦出具的收费专用发票载明：数字电视基本收视维护费75元及数字电视节目费15元。之后，吴小秦通过广电公司客户服务中心（服务电话96766）咨询，广电公司节目升级增加了不同的收费节目，有不同的套餐，其中最低套餐基本收视费每年360元，用户每次最少应缴纳3个月费用。广电公司是经陕西省政府批准，陕西境内唯一合法经营有线电视传输业务的经营者和唯一电视节目集中播控者。广电公司承认其在有线电视传输业务中在陕西省占有支配地位。 |
| It was also found that: In accordance with the provisions of the Interim Measures for the Administration of Basic Maintenance Fees for Receiving Cable TV Programs as issued by the National Development and Reform Commission and the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television on December 2, 2004, the basic maintenance fee for receiving cable TV programs was subject to government pricing and the charge standards were formulated by the competent price department. In accordance with the provisions of the Several Opinions on Promoting the Integral Transition of Cable TV Digitalization by Pilot Entities (for Trial Implementation) issued by the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television on July 11, 2005, in the process of promoting the integral transition, all pilot entities should pay attention to popularizing paid channels and other new business for subscribers to freely choose and voluntarily subscribe. In accordance with the provisions of the Notice on the Standards for Basic Maintenance Fees for Receiving Digital TV Programs across the Province issued by the Price Bureau of Shaanxi Province on May 29, 2006, the standard for basic maintenance fee for receiving digital TV programs was one receiving terminal used by one resident subscriber for watching a TV set as the charge unit. The maintenance fee of each terminal of urban resident subscriber at or above the county level across the Province was CNY25 per month; and subscribers of cable digital TV programs may, according to their actual circumstances, voluntarily choose the payment of the basic maintenance fees for receiving TV programs monthly, quarterly, or annually. In accordance with the provisions of the Notice on Issues concerning Strengthening the Administration of Charging of Cable TV Programs as issued by the National Development and Reform Commission and the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television on August 25, 2009, the basic maintenance fees for receiving cable TV programs should be subject to government pricing; and the charging of cable TV value-added business services and paid digital TV programs should be voluntarily determined by the cable TV operating agency. | | 另查，2004年12月2日国家发展改革委、国家广电总局印发的《有线电视基本收视维护费管理暂行办法》规定：有线电视基本收视维护费实行政府定价，收费标准由价格主管部门制定。2005年7月11日国家广电总局关于印发《推进试点单位有线电视数字化整体转换的若干意见（试行）》的通知规定，各试点单位在推进整体转换过程中，要重视付费频道等新业务的推广，供用户自由选择，自愿订购。陕西省物价局于2006年5月29日出台的《关于全省数字电视基本收视维护费标准的通知》规定：数字电视基本收视维护费收费标准为：以居民用户收看一台电视机使用一个接收终端为计费单位。全省县城以上城市居民用户每主终端每月25元；有线数字电视用户可根据实际情况自愿选择按月、按季或按年度缴纳基本收视维护费。国家发展改革委、国家广电总局于2009年8月25日出台的《关于加强有线电视收费管理等有关问题的通知》指出：有线电视基本收视维护费实行政府定价；有线电视增值业务服务和数字电视付费节目收费，由有线电视运营机构自行确定。 |
| In the trial of second instance, BC & TV Company submitted the photocopies of four special charge invoices, proving that before and after May 10, the business hall of BC & TV Company once charged the monthly service fee of CNY25. Since the originals were unavailable, Wu Xiaoqin did not conduct the cross-examination. After the court session, BC & TV Company submitted the originals of three special charge invoices and both parties verified them and conducted the cross-examination. It was shown in the invoices that the annual payment was CNY300, namely, CNY25 per month. BC & TV Company submitted the originals of five invoices, including the originals of three invoices once submitted in the trial of first instance, and the trading place was Xianyang City. Such originals were used to prove that before and after May 10, BC & TV Company once provided paid services at the rate of CNY25 per month. | | 二审中，广电公司提供了四份收费专用发票复印件，证明在5月10日前后，广电公司的营业厅收取过25元的月服务费，因无原件，吴小秦不予质证。庭后广电公司提供了其中三张的原件，双方进行了核对与质证。该票据上均显示一年交费金额为300元，即每月25元。广电公司提供了五张票据的原件，包括一审提供过原件的三张，交易地点均为咸阳市。由此证明广电公司在5月10日前后，提供过每月25元的收费服务。 |
| In the retrial, BC & TV Company also submitted the screenshots of website fee charge packages in 2016, the Notice on Issuing the Measures for the Implementation of Public Business in 2016 (for Trial Implementation), and charge invoices of some subscribers in 2016. | | 再审中，广电公司提交了其2016年网站收费套餐截图、关于印发《2016年大众业务实施办法（试行）的通知》、2016年部分客户收费发票。 |
| Judgment | | 裁判结果 |
| On January 5, 2013, the Intermediate People's Court of Shaanxi Province rendered a civil judgment (No. 438 [2012], First, Civil Division IV, IPC, Xi'an) that: (1) BC & TV Company's charge of plaintiff Wu Xiaoqin CNY15 for digital TV fee should be confirmed invalid; and (2) BC & TV Company should, within ten days after the judgment came into force, refund Wu Xiaoqin CNY 15. BC & TV Company appealed. On September 12, 2013, the Higher People's Court of Shaanxi Province rendered a civil judgment (No. 38 [2013], Final, Civil Division III, HPC, Shaanxi) that: (1) the judgment of first instance should be set aside; and (2) the claims of Wu Xiaoqin should be dismissed. Wu Xiaoqin refused to accept the judgment of second instance and filed an application for retrial with the Supreme People's Court. On May 31, 2016, the Supreme People's Court rendered a civil judgment (No. 98 [2016], Civil Retrial, Supreme People's Court) that: (1) the civil judgment (No. 38 [2013], Final, Civil Division III, HPC, Shaanxi) as rendered by the Higher People's Court of Shaanxi Province should be set aside; and (2) the civil judgment (No. 438 [2012], First, Civil Division IV, IPC, Xi'an) as rendered by the Intermediate People's Court of Xi'an City, Shaanxi Province should be affirmed. | | 陕西省西安市中级人民法院于2013年1月5日作出（2012）西民四初字第438号民事判决：1.确认陕西广电网络传媒（集团）股份有限公司2012年5月10日收取原告吴小秦数字电视节目费15元的行为无效；2. 陕西广电网络传媒（集团）股份有限公司于本判决生效之日起十日内返还吴小秦15元。陕西广电网络传媒（集团）股份有限公司提起上诉，陕西省高级人民法院于2013年9月12日作出（2013）陕民三终字第38号民事判决：1.撤销一审判决；2.驳回吴小秦的诉讼请求。吴小秦不服二审判决，向最高人民法院提出再审申请。最高人民法院于2016年5月31日作出（2016）最高法民再98号民事判决：1.撤销陕西省高级人民法院（2013）陕民三终字第38号民事判决；2.维持陕西省西安市中级人民法院（2012）西民四初字第438号民事判决。 |
| Judgment's Reasoning | | 裁判理由 |
| In the effective judgment, the Supreme People's Court held that: The issues of this case were (1) whether the acts in dispute violated the provisions of item (5) of Article 17 of the Anti-Monopoly Law and (2) whether it was appropriate for the court of first instance to apply the Anti-Monopoly Law. | | 法院生效裁判认为：本案争议焦点包括，一是本案诉争行为是否违反了反垄断法第十七条第五项之规定，二是一审法院适用反垄断法是否适当。 |
| 1. Whether the acts in dispute violated the provisions of item (5) of Article 17 of the Anti-Monopoly Law | | 一、关于本案诉争行为是否违反了反垄断法第十七条第五项之规定 |
| In accordance with the provisions of item (5) of Article 17 of the Anti-Monopoly Law, a business operator with a dominant market position was prohibited from implementing tie-in sale or imposing other unreasonable trading conditions at the time of trading without any justifiable causes. In this case, in the defense of first instance, BC & TV Company explicitly recognized that it “was the only business operator that legally engaged in the cable TV transmission business within Shaanxi Province with the approval of the People's Government of Shaanxi Province. As the only entity engaging in the centralized broadcast control of TV programs within Shaanxi Province, BC & TV Company had a dominant position at the cable TV market of Shaanxi Province and it encouraged subscribers to choose more abundant cable TV program packages; however, it neither abused its dominant market position nor forced a subscriber to consume service items beyond the basic business.” In the trial of second instance, although BC & TV Company did not admit the aforesaid recognition, it failed to produce the corresponding evidence proving that it did not have a dominant market position. In the process of retrial examination, BC & TV Company raised no objection to the fact found by the courts of first instance and second instance that it had a dominant market position. Considering that BC & TV Company was the only legal operator engaging in cable TV transmission business and the entity engaging in the centralized broadcast control of TV programs within Shaanxi Province, on the basis of the found facts, the courts of first instance and second instance recognized that in the market of cable TV transmission business, BC & TV Company had advantages in market access, market share, operating status, scale of operation, and other elements and it had the dominant market position, and such determination was not inappropriate. | | 反垄断法第十七条第五项规定，禁止具有市场支配地位的经营者没有正当理由搭售商品或者在交易时附加其他不合理的交易条件。本案中，广电公司在一审答辩中明确认可其“是经陕西省政府批准，陕西境内唯一合法经营有线电视传输业务的经营者。作为陕西省内唯一电视节目集中播控者，广电公司具备陕西省有线电视市场支配地位，鼓励用户选择更丰富的有线电视套餐，但并未滥用市场支配地位，也未强行规定用户在基本收视业务之外必须消费的服务项目。”二审中，广电公司虽对此不予认可，但并未举出其不具有市场支配地位的相应证据。再审审查过程中，广电公司对一、二审法院认定其具有市场支配地位的事实并未提出异议。鉴于广电公司作为陕西境内唯一合法经营有线电视传输业务的经营者，陕西省内唯一电视节目集中播控者，一、二审法院在查明事实的基础上认定在有线电视传输市场中，广电公司在市场准入、市场份额、经营地位、经营规模等各要素上均具有优势，占有支配地位，并无不当。 |
| With respect to whether BC & TV Company's provision of services to Wu Xiaoqin constituted tie-in sale, Item (5) of Article 17 of the Anti-Monopoly Law provided that a business operator with a dominant market position was prohibited from engaging in tie-in sale without any justifiable causes. In this case, according to facts found by the original courts, when providing services, the personnel of BC & TV Company notified Wu Xiaoqin that from March 2012, the minimum monthly charge standard has been adjusted from CNY25 to CNY30; the fees should be paid for at least one quarter each time; and Wu Xiaoqin may separately pay the basic maintenance fee for receiving digital TV programs or the fee for paid digital TV programs. Afterwards, Wu Xiaoqin consulted with the customer service center of BC & TV Company (service telephone: 96766) and learned that various paid programs were increased in BC & TV Company's program upgrading and various packages were available. In particular, the basic fee for receiving TV programs in the minimum charge package was CNY360 per year (CNY30 per month) and subscribers should pay fees for a minimum of three months each time. According to the aforesaid facts and in light of the fact that among the charge items recorded on the special charge invoices issued by BC & TV Company to Wu Xiaoqin, the basic maintenance fee for receiving digital TV programs amounted to CNY75 and the fee for paid digital TV programs amounted to CNY15, it may be recognized that BC & TV Company actually bundled the basic digital TV programs with the paid digital TV programs and sold them to Wu Xiaoqin without notifying Wu Xiaoqin of whether he may independently choose service items of basic digital TV programs. In addition, the reply of the customer service center of BC & TV Company (service telephone: 96766) also corroborated that BC & TV Company collectively charged the basic maintenance fee for receiving digital TV programs and the fee for paid TV programs and provided the services. Although BC & TV Company submitted the relevant receipts for its separate charge of the basic maintenance fee for receiving digital TV programs from other subscribers in the trial of second instance, such evidence could only prove that when BC & TV Company collected such charge, there were exceptions of the package explained by the customer service center. In the retrial, BC & TV Company failed to make reasonable explanations on exceptions to the package explained by the customer service center; BC & TV Company's submission of receipts in which the relevant fees were separately charged occurred after this lawsuit was filed, which was insufficient to prove the circumstances of this lawsuit and should not be admitted. Therefore, exceptions to the package explained by the customer service center was insufficient to deny BC & TV Company's common practice of collectively charging the basic maintenance fee for receiving digital TV programs and the fee for paid digital TV programs. The court of second instance recognized that BC & TV Company not only provided portfolio services, but basic services. The judgment of second instance was insufficient in evidence and should be corrected. Therefore, the existing evidence could not prove that an ordinary consumer may only pay the basic maintenance fee for receiving digital TV programs or the fee for paid digital TV programs. In other words, an ordinary consumer's right of choice failed to be proved. Under the circumstance of failing to prove whether an ordinary consumer had the right of choice, the court of second instance directly held that this case was about infringement upon a consumer's right to know without notifying the consumer of the right of choice and based thereon, recognized that BC & TV Company's sale did not constitute tie-in sale without any justifiable causes as provided in the Anti-Monopoly Law. The judgment of second instance lacked sufficient factual and legal basis and should be corrected. | | 关于广电公司在向吴小秦提供服务时是否构成搭售的问题。反垄断法第十七条第五项规定禁止具有市场支配地位的经营者没有正当理由搭售商品。本案中，根据原审法院查明的事实，广电公司在提供服务时其工作人员告知吴小秦每月最低收费标准已从2012年3月起由25元上调为30元，每次最少缴纳一个季度，并未告知吴小秦可以单独缴纳数字电视基本收视维护费或者数字电视付费节目费。吴小秦通过广电公司客户服务中心（服务电话号码96766）咨询获悉，广电公司节目升级，增加了不同的收费节目，有不同的套餐，其中最低套餐基本收视费为每年360元，每月30元，用户每次最少应缴纳3个月费用。根据前述事实并结合广电公司给吴小秦开具的收费专用发票记载的收费项目--数字电视基本收视维护费75元及数字电视节目费15元的事实，可以认定广电公司实际上是将数字电视基本收视节目和数字电视付费节目捆绑在一起向吴小秦销售，并没有告知吴小秦是否可以单独选购数字电视基本收视服务的服务项目。此外，从广电公司客户服务中心（服务电话号码96766）的答复中亦可佐证广电公司在提供此服务时，是将数字电视基本收视维护费和数字电视付费节目费一起收取并提供。虽然广电公司在二审中提交了其向其他用户单独收取数字电视基本收视维护费的相关票据，但该证据仅能证明广电公司在收取该费用时存在客户服务中心说明的套餐之外的例外情形。再审中，广电公司并未对客户服务中心说明的套餐之外的例外情形作出合理解释，其提交的单独收取相关费用的票据亦发生在本案诉讼之后，不足以证明诉讼时的情形，对此不予采信。因此，存在客户服务中心说明的套餐之外的例外情形并不足以否认广电公司将数字电视基本收视维护费和数字电视付费节目费一起收取的普遍做法。二审法院认定广电公司不仅提供了组合服务，也提供了基本服务，证据不足，应予纠正。因此，现有证据不能证明普通消费者可以仅缴纳电视基本收视维护费或者数字电视付费节目费，即不能证明消费者选择权的存在。二审法院在不能证明是否有选择权的情况下直接认为本案属于未告知消费者有选择权而涉及侵犯消费者知情权的问题，进而在此基础上，认定为广电公司的销售行为未构成反垄断法所规制的没有正当理由的搭售，事实和法律依据不足，应予纠正。 |
| In accordance with the facts found by the Supreme People's Court, the basic maintenance fee for receiving digital TV programs and fee for paid digital TV programs were two separate services. In the trials of first instance and second instance and the trial of the Supreme People's Court, BC & TV Company failed to prove that the provision of both services conformed to the trading practices of digital TV services; at present, there was no evidence proving that the separate charges of the basic maintenance fee for receiving digital TV program and the fee for paid digital TV programs would impair the performance and use values of these two services; and BC & TV Company did not state any justifiable causes for the aforesaid acts. Under these circumstances, by making advantage of its dominant market position, BC & TV Company collectively charged the basic maintenance fee for receiving digital TV programs and the fee for paid digital TV programs, which objectively affected consumers' choice of the relevant paid digital TV programs provided by other service providers, was prejudicial to other service providers for their access to the TV service market, and had adverse impact on market competition. Therefore, it was not inappropriate for the court of first instance to recognize that defendant's acts violated the provisions of item (5) of Article 17 of the Anti-Monopoly Law. Some grounds of Wu Xiaoqin's application for retrial were tenable and should be upheld. | | 根据本院查明的事实，数字电视基本收视维护费和数字电视付费节目费属于两项单独的服务。在原审诉讼及本院诉讼中，广电公司未证明将两项服务一起提供符合提供数字电视服务的交易习惯；同时，如将数字电视基本收视维护费和数字电视付费节目费分别收取，现亦无证据证明会损害该两种服务的性能和使用价值；广电公司更未对前述行为说明其正当理由，在此情形下，广电公司利用其市场支配地位，将数字电视基本收视维护费和数字电视付费节目费一起收取，客观上影响消费者选择其他服务提供者提供相关数字付费节目，同时也不利于其他服务提供者进入电视服务市场，对市场竞争具有不利的效果。因此一审法院认定其违反了反垄断法第十七条第五项之规定，并无不当。吴小秦部分再审申请理由成立，予以支持。 |
| 2. Whether the application of the Anti-Monopoly Law by the court of first instance was appropriate | | 二、关于一审法院适用反垄断法是否适当 |
| During the proceedings of this case, in the defense, BC & TV Company contended that the occurrence of this case was in essence a dispute over whether the right Wu Xiaoqin should enjoy in accordance with the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests was infringed, which was irrelevant to monopolistic conduct. BC & TV Company claimed that the court of first instance should not determine its dominant market position and invalidation of its charging act in accordance with the Anti-Monopoly Law and the relevant provisions. In accordance with the provisions of Articles 226 and 228 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, “a people's court shall, in accordance with the claims and answers of the parties as well as the circumstances on evidence exchange, conclude the issues and solicit opinions on such concluded issues from the parties. The court session shall center on such issues as the facts in dispute of the parties, evidence, and application of law.” According to the found facts, in the statement of claims, Wu Xiaoqin claimed that: “The digital TV program fee charged by defendant was actually additional service provided to plaintiff beyond the scope of the aforesaid services, for which plaintiff should have the right to voluntarily choose. Defendant was a public enterprise or other legal operator with exclusive control that had a dominant position in the digital TV market. The aforesaid acts of defendant violated item (5) of paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Anti-Monopoly Law that ‘business operators with a dominant market position are prohibited from implementing tie-in sale or abusing the dominant market position by imposing other unreasonable trading conditions at the time of trading without any justifiable causes,' and impaired the lawful rights and interests of plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit in accordance with the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Dispute Cases Arising from Monopolistic Conduct and requested the people's court to confirm that defendant's bundled transaction was invalid according to the law and order that defendant should refund plaintiff CNY15.” In the statement of claims, Wu Xiaoqin did not claim that his consumer rights and interests were impaired. Therefore, it was not inappropriate for the court of first instance to try Wu Xiaoqin's claims by applying the Anti-Monopoly Law. | | 本案诉讼中，广电公司在答辩中认为本案的发生实质上是一个有关吴小秦基于消费者权益保护法所应当享受的权利是否被侵犯的纠纷，而与垄断行为无关，认为一审法院不应当依照反垄断法及相关规定，认为其处于市场支配地位，从而确认其收费行为无效。根据《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的解释》第二百二十六条及第二百二十八条的规定，人民法院应当根据当事人的诉讼请求、答辩意见以及证据交换的情况，归纳争议焦点，并就归纳的争议焦点征求当事人的意见。在法庭审理时，应当围绕当事人争议的事实、证据和法律适用等焦点问题进行。根据查明的事实，吴小秦在其诉状中明确主张“被告收取原告数字电视节目费，实际上是为原告在提供上述服务范围外增加提供服务内容，对此原告应当具有自主选择权。被告属于公用企业或者其他依法具有独占地位的经营者，在数字电视市场内具有支配地位。被告的上述行为违反了反垄断法第十七条第一款第五项关于‘禁止具有市场支配地位的经营者从事没有正当理由搭售商品，或者在交易时附加其他不合理的交易条件的滥用市场支配地位行为'，侵害了原告的合法权益。原告依照《最高人民法院关于审理因垄断行为引发的民事纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的规定》，提起民事诉讼，请求人民法院依法确认被告的捆绑交易行为无效，判令其返还原告15元。”在该诉状中，吴小秦并未主张其消费者权益受到损害，因此一审法院根据吴小秦的诉讼请求适用反垄断法进行审理，并无不当。 |
| In conclusion, BC & TV Company had the dominant market position in the cable TV transmission service market within Shaanxi Province and it bundled the basic maintenance fee for receiving digital TV programs with the paid digital TV programs and sold them to Wu Xiaoqin, which violated the provisions of item (5) of paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Anti-Monopoly Law. The claim for retrial raised by Wu Xiaoqin that BC & TV Company's charge of CNY15 for digital TV programs was invalid and CNY15 should be refunded was tenable. The judgment of first instance was clear in fact-fining and correct in application of law and it should be affirmed. In the judgment of second instance, the basis for fact-finding was insufficient and the application of law was erroneous. Therefore, it should be corrected. | | 综上，广电公司在陕西省境内有线电视传输服务市场上具有市场支配地位，其将数字电视基本收视服务和数字电视付费节目服务捆绑在一起向吴小秦销售，违反了反垄断法第十七条第一款第五项之规定。吴小秦关于确认广电公司收取其数字电视节目费15元的行为无效和请求判令返还15元的再审请求成立。一审判决认定事实清楚，适用法律正确，应予维持，二审判决认定事实依据不足，适用法律有误，应予纠正。 |
| (Judges of the effective judgment: Wang Yanfang, Qian Xiaohong, and Du Weike) | | （生效裁判审判人员：王艳芳、钱小红、杜微科） |
| Guiding Case No. 80 | | 指导案例80号 |
| Hong Fuyuan and Deng Chunxiang v. Guizhou Wufufang Food Co., Ltd. and Guizhou Jincai Natural Culture Research & Development Co., Ltd. (Case about dispute over copyright) | | 洪福远、邓春香诉贵州五福坊食品有限公司、贵州今彩民族文化研发有限公司著作权侵权纠纷案 |
| (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: civil; infringement upon copyright; derivative work of traditional folk literary arts | | 关键词 民事/著作权侵权/民间文学艺术衍生作品 |
| Key Points of Judgment | | 裁判要点 |
| Where part of a derivative folk literary and artistic work with originality is independently expressed by its creator and it conforms to the characteristics of a work protected by the Copyright Law, it shall be determined that the creator enjoys copyright of such part with originality. | | 民间文学艺术衍生作品的表达系独立完成且有创作性的部分，符合著作权法保护的作品特征的，应当认定作者对其独创性部分享有著作权。 |
| Legal Provisions | | 相关法条 |
| Article 3 of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China | | 《中华人民共和国著作权法》第3条 |
| Article 2 of the Regulation on the Implementation of the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China | | 《中华人民共和国著作权法实施条例》第2条 |
| Basic Facts | | 基本案情 |
| Plaintiffs Hong Fuyuan and Deng Chunxiang alleged that: The work created by Hong Fuyuan, Harmonious CoexistenceXII, was published in the book, Fuyuan's Batik Arts published by Guizhou People's Publishing House in August 2009. Hong Fuyuan once transferred the right to use the work involved (excluding the right to use on batik) to Deng Chunxiang, who was responsible for maintaining the copyright-related property right. Without the permission of plaintiffs, for the purpose of sales promotion, defendant Guizhou Wufufang Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Wufufang Company”) used a selective part of the aforesaid painting of Hong Fuyuan on commodities it sold. Plaintiffs held that defendant infringed upon the right of signature of Hong Fuyuan and the copyright-related property right of Deng Chunxiang and requested the court to order that: defendant should pay Deng Chunxiang CNY200,000 as compensation for Deng Chunxiang's economic loss caused by its infringement upon her copyright-related property right; defendant should cease the use of the pattern involved and destroy packaging boxes and product brochures involved; and defendant should publish a formal apology for its infringement upon Hong Fuyuan's copyright-related personal right. | | 原告洪福远、邓春香诉称：原告洪福远创作完成的《和谐共生十二》作品，发表在2009年8月贵州人民出版社出版的《福远蜡染艺术》一书中。洪福远曾将该涉案作品的使用权（蜡染上使用除外）转让给原告邓春香，由邓春香维护著作财产权。被告贵州五福坊食品有限公司（以下简称五福坊公司）以促销为目的，擅自在其销售的商品上裁切性地使用了洪福远的上述画作。原告认为被告侵犯了洪福远的署名权和邓春香的著作财产权，请求法院判令：被告就侵犯著作财产权赔偿邓春香经济损失20万元；被告停止使用涉案图案，销毁涉案包装盒及产品册页；被告就侵犯洪福远著作人身权刊登声明赔礼道歉。 |
| Defendant Wufufang Company contended that: First, both the work whose copyright was owned by plaintiffs in the action they filed and some patterns on the exterior packages of products designed by Guizhou Jincai National Cultural Research & Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Jincai Company”) for Wufufang Company used the traditional batik patterns of Gejia People in Huangping County, Guizhou Province and its use of product exterior packages designed by Jincai Company did not constitute an infringement. Second, the exterior packages of products produced and sold by Wufufang Company were designed by the third party Jincai Company upon authorization of Wufufang Company and Wufufang Company has performed the reasonable duty of care in the use of the exterior packages of such products. Third, the work involved was placed in the right lower corner of the product packages and the area of the work involved accounted for about 1/20 of the total area of the package, which had little effect of promoting the product sales, and the amount of compensation of CNY200,000 claimed by plaintiffs was excessively high. Therefore, the claims of plaintiffs lacked factual and legal basis and Wufufang Company requested the court to dismiss the claims of plaintiffs. | | 被告五福坊公司辩称：第一、原告起诉其拥有著作权的作品与贵州今彩民族文化研发有限公司（以下简称今彩公司）为五福坊公司设计的产品外包装上的部分图案，均借鉴了贵州黄平革家传统蜡染图案，被告使用今彩公司设计的产品外包装不构成侵权；第二、五福坊公司的产品外包装是委托本案第三人今彩公司设计的，五福坊公司在使用产品外包装时已尽到合理注意义务；第三、本案所涉作品在产品包装中位于右下角，整个作品面积只占产品外包装面积的二十分之一左右，对于产品销售的促进作用影响较小，原告起诉的赔偿数额20万元显然过高。原告的诉请没有事实和法律依据，故请求驳回原告的诉讼请求。 |
| The third party Jincai Company stated that: It engaged in advertisement design and planning for Wufufang Company. In December 2006, it completed the sketching of “Best Wishes for Four Seasons” and in October 2011, a part of the pattern was intercepted to be used on gifts developed by Wufufang Company for the tourism market. The bird pattern, Ru-Yi pattern, and copper drum pattern in the design were all originated in the “primary form” of the batik of Gejia People in Huangping County, Guizhou Province, and the design of bird pattern in the work of Hong Fuyuan was also originated in the traditional batik of Guizhou Province. The work of Hong Fuyuan was not original and there was no factual basis for infringement in this case. Therefore, the claims of plaintiffs should not be upheld. | | 第三人今彩公司述称：其为五福坊公司进行广告设计、策划，2006年12月创作完成“四季如意”的手绘原稿，直到2011年10月五福坊公司开发针对旅游市场的礼品，才重新截取该图案的一部分使用，图中的鸟纹、如意纹、铜鼓纹均源于贵州黄平革家蜡染的“原形”，原告作品中的鸟纹图案也源于贵州传统蜡染，原告方主张的作品不具有独创性，本案不存在侵权的事实基础，故原告的诉请不应支持。 |
| Upon trial, the court found that: Plaintiff Hong Fuyuan has been engaged in the artistic design and creation of batik for many years and was awarded such honorary titles as “China's Top Ten Folk Artists” and “Advanced Individual of Intangible Cultural Heritage Protection” by the Ministry of Culture. The work, Harmonious Coexistence XII, he created in August 2009 was published in the book Hong Fuyuan's Batik Arts published by Guizhou People's Publishing House. This work used characteristics of natural patterns and geometrical patterns of the traditional batik arts as the reference and indigo as the main color, and described a harmonious picture where flowers and birds coexisted. However, the outlines of birds were supplemented in this work. The lines of the birds' eyes and mouths were enriched, which made the patterns of birds more vivid. The original creation of Hong Fuyuan was integrated into the necks and feathers of birds, which made the patterns of birds livelier. The conception of Hong Fuyuan was also integrated into the copper drum patterns in the middle, which were different from patterns in traditional batik arts. On August 1, 2010, Hong Fuyuan concluded a Contract on the Transfer of Right to Use the Work with plaintiff Deng Chunxiang. It was stipulated in the Contract that Hong Fuyuan transferred the right to use the work involved (excluding the use on batik) to Deng Chunxiang and Deng Chunxiang was responsible for maintaining the property right of the work involved within the scope of rights transferred. | | 法院经审理查明：原告洪福远从事蜡染艺术设计创作多年，先后被文化部授予“中国十大民间艺术家”“非物质文化遗产保护工作先进个人”等荣誉称号。2009年8月其创作完成的《和谐共生十二》作品发表在贵州人民出版社出版的《福远蜡染艺术》一书中，该作品借鉴了传统蜡染艺术的自然纹样和几何纹样的特征，色彩以靛蓝为主，描绘了一幅花、鸟共生的和谐图景。但该作品对鸟的外形进行了补充，对鸟的眼睛、嘴巴丰富了线条，使得鸟图形更加传神，对鸟的脖子、羽毛融入了作者个人的独创，使得鸟图形更为生动，对中间的铜鼓纹花也融合了作者自己的构思而有别于传统的蜡染艺术图案。2010年8月1日，原告洪福远与原告邓春香签订《作品使用权转让合同》，合同约定洪福远将涉案作品的使用权（蜡染上使用除外）转让给邓春香，由邓春香维护受让权利范围内的著作财产权。 |
| Defendant Wufufang Company authorized the third party Jincai Company to provide planning and design services for the brand market image of products, including the product packaging and packaged design, product brochures, and design of marketing materials. According to the design services provided by Jincai Company, Wufufang Company used the pattern of flowers and birds in batik and the frame of Ru-Yi pattern on the left upper corner and right lower corner of the exterior packages of Guizhou Peppery Chicken, Guizhou Milet Dreg, and Guizhou Dried Pork. Hong Fuyuan held that: The use of the work Harmonious Coexistence XII he created by Wufufang Company infringed upon his right of signature, which split the connection between the creator and the work, and infringed upon the property right of the work enjoyed by Deng Chunxiang. It was found upon comparison that the design of flowers and birds in batik used on the exterior packages and product brochures of the aforesaid three products sold by Wufufang Company were consistent with the work Harmonious Coexistence XII created by Hong Fuyuan in aspects of the pattern structure of birds and flowers as well as the choice and arrangement of lines, and they were different only in the bottom color of the pattern and the color of lines. | | 被告五福坊公司委托第三人今彩公司进行产品的品牌市场形象策划设计服务，包括进行产品包装及配套设计、产品手册以及促销宣传品的设计等。根据第三人今彩公司的设计服务，五福坊公司在其生产销售的产品贵州辣子鸡、贵州小米渣、贵州猪肉干的外包装礼盒的左上角、右下角使用了蜡染花鸟图案和如意图案边框。洪福远认为五福坊公司使用了其创作的《和谐共生十二》作品，一方面侵犯了洪福远的署名权，割裂了作者与作品的联系，另一方面侵犯了邓春香的著作财产权。经比对查明，五福坊公司生产销售的上述三种产品外包装礼盒和产品手册上使用的蜡染花鸟图案与洪福远创作的《和谐共生十二》作品，在鸟与花图形的结构造型、线条的取舍与排列上一致，只是图案的底色和线条的颜色存在差别。 |
| Judgment | | 裁判结果 |
| On September 18, 2015, the Intermediate People's Court of Guiyang City, Guizhou Province rendered a civil judgment (No. 17 [2015], First, Civil Division, IPC, Guiyang) that: (1) defendant Wufufang Company should, within ten days after the judgment came into force, pay plaintiff Deng Chunxiang CNY 100,000 as compensation for her economic loss; (2) after the judgment came into force, defendant Wufufang Company should immediately cease the use of the work Harmonious Coexistence XII involved; (3) defendant Wufufang Company should, within five days after the judgment came into force, destroy the packages and product brochures of the products involved, including Guizhou Peppery Chicken, Guizhou Milet Dreg, and Guizhou Dried Pork; and (4) other claims of plaintiffs Hong Fuyuan and Deng Chunxiang should be dismissed . After the judgment of first instance was pronounced, neither party appealed and the judgment has come into force. | | 贵州省贵阳市中级人民法院于2015年9月18日作出（2015）筑知民初字第17号民事判决：一、被告贵州五福坊食品有限公司于本判决生效之日起10日赔偿原告邓春香经济损失10万元；二、被告贵州五福坊食品有限公司在本判决生效后，立即停止使用涉案《和谐共生十二》作品；三、被告贵州五福坊食品有限公司于本判决生效之日起5日内销毁涉案产品贵州辣子鸡、贵州小米渣、贵州猪肉干的包装盒及产品宣传册页；四、驳回原告洪福远和邓春香的其余诉讼请求。一审宣判后，各方当事人均未上诉，判决已发生法律效力。 |
| Judgment's Reasoning | | 裁判理由 |
| In the effective judgment, the court held that: The issues of this case were (1) whether the work Harmonious Coexistence XII involved was protected by the Copyright Law; (2) whether the package patterns of the products involved infringed upon plaintiffs' copyright; (3) how to determine the responsible parties in this case; (4) how to determine the manners of infringement liability in this case; and (5) how to determine the amount of compensation in this case. | | 法院生效裁判认为：本案的争议焦点一是本案所涉《和谐共生十二》作品是否受著作权法保护；二是案涉产品的包装图案是否侵犯原告的著作权；三是如何确定本案的责任主体；四是本案的侵权责任方式如何判定；五是本案的赔偿数额如何确定。 |
| With respect to the first issue, in the work involved of plaintiff Hong Fuyuan, Harmonious Coexistence XII, the tails of two birds were coincided and they were connected by using copper drum patterns in the middle to show the beauty of symmetry, which were exactly the theme features of natural patterns and geometrical patterns of the traditional batik arts. According to existing evidence in this case, it may be determined that the work involved obviously used the forms of expression of the traditional batik arts and the creation inspiration of Hong Fuyuan directly came from the pattern of Boishan of Gejia People in Huangping County. However, the outlines of birds were supplemented in the work involved. The lines of birds' eyes and mouths were enriched and the original creation of the creator was integrated into the necks and feature of birds, which made the patterns of birds more vivid. The conception of the creator was also integrated into the copper drum patterns in the middle, which were different from patterns in traditional batik arts. In accordance with the provisions of Article 2 of the Regulation on the Implementation of the Copyright Law that the term “works” as mentioned in the Copyright Law meant intellectual creations with originality in the literary, artistic, or scientific domain, insofar as they could be reproduced in a tangible form, the work involved, Harmonious Coexistence XII, created by plaintiff Hong Fuyuan was a derivative work of a traditional batik artistic work, and it was the inheritance and innovation of the traditional batik artistic work and conformed to features of works protected by the Copyright Law. Therefore, Hong Fuyuan's work within the scope of originality should be protected by the Copyright Law. | | 关于第一个争议焦点，本案所涉原告洪福远的《和谐共生十二》画作中两只鸟尾部重合，中间采用铜鼓纹花连接而展示对称的美感，而这些正是传统蜡染艺术的自然纹样和几何纹样的主题特征，根据本案现有证据，可以认定涉案作品显然借鉴了传统蜡染艺术的表达方式，创作灵感直接来源于黄平革家蜡染背扇图案。但涉案作品对鸟的外形进行了补充，对鸟的眼睛、嘴巴丰富了线条，对鸟的脖子、羽毛融入了作者个人的独创，使得鸟图形更为传神生动，对中间的铜鼓纹花也融合了作者的构思而有别于传统的蜡染艺术图案。根据著作权法实施条例第二条“著作权法所称作品，是指文学、艺术和科学领域内具有独创性并能以某种有形形式复制的智力成果”的规定，本案所涉原告洪福远创作的《和谐共生十二》画作属于传统蜡染艺术作品的衍生作品，是对传统蜡染艺术作品的传承与创新，符合著作权法保护的作品特征，在洪福远具有独创性的范围内受著作权法的保护。 |
| With respect to the second issue, in accordance with the provisions of item (9) of Article 4 of the Regulation on the Implementation of the Copyright Law that “works of fine arts” meant two- or three-dimensional works of the plastic arts created in lines, colors, or other media which impart aesthetic effect, such as paintings, works of calligraphy, and sculptures, a painting work was a two-dimensional work of the plastic arts created in lines, colors, and other media which impart aesthetic effect. It was found upon comparison in the court trial that the pattern of flowers and birds used in the exterior packages and product brochures of the products involved including Guizhou Peppery Chicken were consistent with the structures, models, choice of lines, and arrangements of patterns of birds and flowers in the painting involved, Harmonious Coexistence XII, and they were different only in the bottom colors of the patterns and colors of lines. As far as the effect of comparison was concerned, the bottom colors of the patterns and the colors of lines have became a shielding means for infringement and they were not intellectual creations with originality. The third party Jincai Company claimed that the work it designed and used in the exterior packages and product brochures of Wufufang Company was created in 2006, but it submitted no evidence to testify its claim. However, the work involved of Hong Fuyuan was published in the book, Hong Fuyuan's Batik Arts, and it was directly indicated in the book that the work was created in 2003. Therefore, it may be determined that the work involved of Hong Fuyuan was created and published before the work of Jincai Company. Before Wufufang Company produced and sold the products involved, Hong Fuyuan published the work involved, Harmonious Coexistence XII, and Wufufang Company had a chance to have contact with plaintiff's work. Therefore, it may be determined that Jincai Company had an intention to plagiarize the work involved of Hong Fuyuan and Wufufang Company partially used the work of plaintiff in the exterior packages and product brochures of products involved produced and sold by Wufufang Company, which infringed upon plaintiff's right to copy the painting artistic work involved. | | 关于第二个争议焦点，根据著作权法实施条例第四条第九项“美术作品，是指绘画、书法、雕塑等以线条、色彩或者其他方式构成的有审美意义的平面或者立体的造型艺术作品”的规定，绘画作品主要是以线条、色彩等方式构成的有审美意义的平面造型艺术作品。经过庭审比对，本案所涉产品贵州辣子鸡等包装礼盒和产品手册中使用的花鸟图案与涉案《和谐共生十二》画作，在鸟与花图形的结构造型、线条的取舍与排列上一致，只是图案的底色和线条的颜色存在差别，就比对的效果来看图案的底色和线条的颜色差别已然成为侵权的掩饰手段而已，并非独创性的智力劳动；第三人今彩公司主张其设计、使用在五福坊公司产品包装礼盒和产品手册中的作品创作于2006年，但其没有提交任何证据可以佐证，而洪福远的涉案作品于2009年发表在《福远蜡染艺术》一书中，且书中画作直接注明了作品创作日期为2003年，由此可以认定洪福远的涉案作品创作并发表在先。在五福坊公司生产、销售涉案产品之前，洪福远即发表了涉案《和谐共生十二》作品，五福坊公司有机会接触到原告的作品。据此，可以认定第三人今彩公司有抄袭洪福远涉案作品的故意，五福坊公司在生产、销售涉案产品包装礼盒和产品手册中部分使用原告的作品，侵犯了原告对涉案绘画美术作品的复制权。 |
| With respect to the third issue, in the process of pretrial preparations, the court made an explanation to Hong Fuyuan on whether he added Jincai Company as another defendant participating in the litigation and whether he altered his claims. Hong Fuyuan expressed in writing that he did not agree with addition of Jincai Company as another defendant and he held that there was another legal relation between Wufufang Company and Jincai Company and joint trial with this case was inappropriate. In fact, Wufufang Company and Jincai Company concluded a contract. As stipulated in the contract, the exterior packages, advertisement documents, and publicity materials of all products produced by Wufufang Company were designed by Jincai Company; if there was any infringement of the design submitted by Jincai Company, Jincai Company would assume all consequences caused thereby. However, as the party entrusting the product packaging, Wufufang Company did not produce any evidence to prove that it has performed the reasonable duty of care and it was the final user and actual beneficiary of the infringing work. In accordance with the provisions of item (1) of paragraph 2 of Article 48 of the Copyright Law that “Whoever commits any of the following acts of infringement shall bear the civil liability for such remedies as ceasing the infringement, eliminating the effects of the act, making a formal apology, and paying compensation for damages, depending on the circumstances…. (1) Without the permission from the copyright owner, reproducing, distributing, performing, projecting, broadcasting, compiling, disseminating to the public through information network his or her works, except where otherwise provided in this Law” and Article 19 and paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases regarding Civil Disputes over Copyright (hereinafter referred to as the “Interpretation on Cases regarding Civil Disputes over Copyright”), Wufufang Company should assume the civil liability for infringement in this case. There was another legal relation between Wufufang Company and the third party Jincai Company, which was not within the trial scope of this case, and the parties may make separate claims. | | 关于第三个争议焦点，庭前准备过程中，经法院向洪福远释明是否追加今彩公司为被告参加诉讼，是否需要变更诉讼请求，原告以书面形式表示不同意追加今彩公司为被告，并认为五福坊公司与今彩公司属于另一法律关系，不宜与本案合并审理。事实上，五福坊公司与今彩公司签订了合同书，合同约定被告生产的所有产品的外包装、广告文案、宣传品等皆由今彩公司设计，合同也约定如今彩公司提交的设计内容有侵权行为，造成的后果由今彩公司全部承担。但五福坊公司作为产品包装的委托方，并未举证证明其已尽到了合理的注意义务，且也是侵权作品的最终使用者和实际受益者，根据著作权法第四十八条第二款第一项“有下列侵权行为的，应当根据情况，承担停止侵害、消除影响、赔礼道歉、赔偿损失等民事责任……（一）未经著作权人许可，复制、发行、表演、放映、广播、汇编、通过信息网络向公众传播其作品的，本法另有规定的除外”、《最高人民法院关于审理著作权民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释》（以下简称《著作权纠纷案件解释》）第十九条、第二十条第二款的规定，五福坊公司依法应承担本案侵权的民事责任。五福坊公司与第三人今彩公司之间属另一法律关系，不属于本案的审理范围，当事人可另行主张解决。 |
With respect to the fourth issue, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 47 and 48 of the Copyright Law, whoever infringed upon copyright or right related to copyright should bear the civil liabilities for such remedies as ceasing the infringement, eliminating the effects of the act, making a formal apology, and paying compensation for damages. In this case, first, infringement upon some personal right and property right related to copyright of plaintiffs objectively gave rise to the corresponding economic loss. The first claim of plaintiffs for compensation for loss should be correspondingly upheld according to the law. Second, no matter whether the infringer had any fault, to prevent further loss, the infringer should be ordered to immediately cease the act of infringing upon any other person's copyright, so as to protect the lawful rights and interests of the obligee, which was also the purpose of law enforcement. The second claim of plaintiffs for ceasing the use of the pattern involved and destroying the packaging boxes and product brochures should be upheld according to the law. Third, in fact, Wufufang Company had no subjective intention and had no major fault. It failed to perform the reasonable duty of examination and should bear the liability for infringement based on the legal provisions and Hong Fuyuan did not produce evidence to prove harm to his reputation caused by Wufufang Company's infringing act. Therefore, the claim of Hong Fuyuan that Wufufang Company should publish a formal apology on the comprehensive layout of the Guizhou City News should not be upheld.
．．．．．． | | 关于第四个争议焦点，根据著作权法第四十七条、第四十八条规定，侵犯著作权或与著作权有关的权利的，应当根据案件的实际情况，承担停止侵害、消除影响、赔礼道歉、赔偿损失等民事责任。本案中，第一、原告方的部分著作人身权和财产权受到侵害，客观上产生相应的经济损失，对于原告方的第一项赔偿损失的请求，依法应当获得相应的支持；第二、无论侵权人有无过错，为防止损失的扩大，责令侵权人立即停止正在实施的侵犯他人著作权的行为，以保护权利人的合法权益，也是法律实施的目的，对于原告方第二项要求被告停止使用涉案图案，销毁涉案包装盒及产品册页的诉请，依法应予支持；第三、五福坊公司事实上并无主观故意，也没有重大过失，只是没有尽到合理的审查义务而基于法律的规定承担侵权责任，洪福远也未举证证明被告侵权行为造成其声誉的损害，故对于洪福远要求五福坊公司在《贵州都市报》综合版面刊登声明赔礼道歉的第三项诉请，不予支持。
．．．．．． |
|
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 【￥5000.00】 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
|
| | | | | | | | |
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content
found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright
owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.
Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations
of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language
versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly
or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.
We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve
the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
|
|
|
|
|
|