>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Beijing Baidu Netcom Science and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Tsingtao Osun Network Technique Co., Ltd., Qingdao Branch of China United Network Communications Group Co., Ltd., Shandong Branch of China United Network Communications Group Co., Ltd. and Qingdao Pengfei International Air Travel Service Co., Ltd.
北京百度网讯科技有限公司诉青岛奥商网络技术有限公司、中国联合网络通信有限公司青岛市分公司、中国联合网络通信有限公司山东省分公司、青岛鹏飞国际航空旅游服务有限公司不正当竞争纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: IPR
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 03-20-2010
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance
  • Source: SPC Gazette,Issue 8,2010

Beijing Baidu Netcom Science and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Tsingtao Osun Network Technique Co., Ltd., Qingdao Branch of China United Network Communications Group Co., Ltd., Shandong Branch of China United Network Communications Group Co., Ltd. and Qingdao Pengfei International Air Travel Service Co., Ltd.

 

北京百度网讯科技有限公司诉青岛奥商网络技术有限公司、中国联合网络通信有限公司青岛市分公司、中国联合网络通信有限公司山东省分公司、青岛鹏飞国际航空旅游服务有限公司不正当竞争纠纷案

(A case about disputes over unfair competition) [裁判摘要]

 一、确定市场主体之间竞争关系的存在,不以二者属同一行业或服务类别为限,如果二者在市场竞争中存在一定联系或者一方的行为不正当地妨碍了另一方的正当经营活动并损害其合法权益,则应肯定二者之间存在竞争关系。提供互联网接入服务与提供搜索服务,两者属于不同的网络服务,但是网络接入服务提供者利用其提供互联网接入服务的条件,单独或者与其他网络服务提供者共同对服务对象的搜索请求进行了人为干预,在搜索结果出现之前强行弹出其投放的与搜索的关键词及内容有紧密关系的广告页面,该干预行为系利用搜索服务提供者的服务行为为自己牟利,易使网络用户误认为该强制弹出的广告页面为搜索服务提供者发布,并影响了搜索服务提供者的服务质量,损害了其合法权益,违反了诚信原则和公认的商业道德,根据反不正当竞争法二条的原则性规定,应当认定其构成不正当竞争。

 二、在确定网络侵权案件的侵权主体时,查明网络技术事实是进行法律判断的前提。在此过程中,应特别注意充分发挥网络技术专家证人的作用和合理运用证明责任规则来确定侵权主体。

 
BASIC FACTS 原告:北京百度网讯科技有限公司。

Plaintiff: Beijing Baidu Netcom Science and Technology Co., Ltd., domiciled at: West Road of North Fourth Ring, Haidian District, Beijing.

 法定代表人:梁志祥,该公司总经理。
Legal Representative: Liang Zhixiang, general manager. 被告:青岛奥商网络技术有限公司。
Defendant: Tsingtao Osun Network Technique Co., Ltd., domiciled at: Ningxia Road, Shinan District, Qingdao City, Shandong Province. 法定代表人:关武,该公司经理。
Legal Representative: Guan Wu, manager. 被告:中国联合网络通信有限公司青岛市分公司。
Defendant: Qingdao Branch of China United Network Communications Group Co., Ltd., domiciled at: Yan'an Third Road, Shinan District, Qingdao City, Shandong Province. 代表人:刘德海,该公司总经理。
Representative: Liu Dehai, general manager. 被告:中国联合网络通信有限公司山东省分公司。
Defendant: Shandong Branch of China United Network Communications Group Co., Ltd., domiciled at: Jingsan Road, Jinan City, Shandong Province. 代表人:霍海峰,该公司总经理。
Representative: Huo Haifeng, general manager. 第三人:青岛鹏飞国际航空旅游服务有限公司。
Third Party: Qingdao Pengfei International Air Travel Service Co., Ltd., domiciled at: Ningxia Road, Shinan District, Qingdao City, Shandong Province. 法定代表人:李宗室,该公司总经理。
Legal representative: Li Zongshi, general manager. 
PROCEDURAL POSTURE 原告北京百度网讯科技有限公司(以下简称百度公司)与被告青岛奥商网络技术有限公司(以下简称奥商网络公司)、中国联合网络通信有限公司青岛市分公司(以下简称联通青岛公司)、中国联合网络通信有限公司山东省分公司(以下简称联通山东公司)、第三人青岛鹏飞国际航空旅游服务有限公司(以下简称鹏飞航空公司)因发生不正当竞争纠纷,向青岛市中级人民法院提起诉讼。
For disputes over unfair competition with the defendants, Tsingtao Osun Network Technique Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Osun Network”), Qingdao Branch of China United Network Communications Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Unicom Qingdao Branch”) and Shandong Branch of China United Network Communications Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Unicom Shandong Branch”), and the third party, Qingdao Pengfei International Air Travel Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Pengfei Company”), the plaintiff, Beijing Baidu Netcom Science and Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Baidu Company”), filed a lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City. 原告百度公司诉称:原告是国内技术领先的中文搜索引擎制造商,原告拥有的www.baidu.com网站是全球最大的中文搜索引擎网站,每天有超过上亿的网民访问百度网站和查询信息。原告经过调查了解到,被告奥商网络公司、联通青岛公司、联通山东公司在青岛地区利用网通的互联网接入网络服务,在原告的搜索结果页面强行增加广告进行推广宣传,使原告不能正常向互联网用户提供服务,导致了大量的网民误以为三被告实施的广告是原告故意设置的,极大的破坏了原告的商业运作模式,伤害了原告搜索服务的美誉度和企业的商誉,造成了网民和流量的大量流失。同时,该行为严重削弱了原告作为搜索引擎营销服务商的竞争力,大量带走原告的现有和潜在客户,已经给原告造成了大量的客户流失,直接损害了原告的经济效益,三被告的行为违背了诚实信用和公平交易的市场行为准则,已构成严重的不正当竞争行为。为此,请求法院判令:1.奥商网络公司、联通青岛公司的行为构成了对原告的不正当竞争行为,并停止该不正当竞争行为;联通山东公司在其应负的法律责任范围内,承担连带责任;2.三被告在人民日报、法制日报、半岛都市报、青岛晚报上刊登声明以消除影响;3.三被告共同赔偿原告经济损失人民币480万元;4.三被告承担原告因本案而发生的律师费、公证费、差旅费等合理支出10万元。
The plaintiff, Baidu Company, alleged that: It was a top-tier Chinese search engine developer in China. Its website, www.baidu.com, was the world's largest Chinese search engine site, which handled visits and queries from more than 10 million netizens every day. After investigation, the plaintiff learned that by using the Internet access service provided by China Netcom in Qingdao area, the defendants, Osun Network, Unicom Qingdao Branch and Unicom Shandong Branch, forcibly implanted advertisements in the search result pages of Baidu Company for promotional purposes, which hampered the plaintiff's normal service for Internet users and made a large number of netizens mistakenly believe that the advertisements of the three defendants were deliberately placed on the pages by the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff's business operating model was seriously compromised, and the reputation of its search service and its goodwill were damaged, leading to a huge loss of users and flow. Meanwhile, such acts of the defendants greatly undermined the competitiveness of the plaintiff as a search engine marketing service provider, and drove away a large number of the plaintiff's existing and potential customers, which had caused substantial customer attrition to the plaintiff and direct damage to its economic benefits. The acts of the three defendants had violated the code of market conduct about good faith and fair trade, and constituted seriously unfair competition. The plaintiff requested the court to hold that: (1) the acts of Osun Network and Unicom Qingdao had constituted unfair competition and they should desist from such unfair competition; Unicom Shandong Branch should be jointly and severally liable within the extent of its due legal liabilities; (2) the three defendants should publish a clarifying statement in People's Daily, Legal Daily, Peninsula Metropolitan News and Qingdao Evening newspapers to eliminate adverse effects; (3) the three defendants should jointly compensate the plaintiff for its economic loss of 4.8 million yuan; and (4) the three defendants shall compensate the plaintiff for its reasonable expenses related to this case including lawyer's fees, notarization fees and travel expenses in the amount of 100,000 yuan. 被告奥商网络公司辩称:奥商网络公司不存在不正当竞争行为,即使存在这种行为也不应该赔礼道歉,即使赔礼道歉也不能在法制日报上赔礼道歉,原告百度公司不能提出有力证据证明应赔偿人民币 480万元。
The defendant, Osun Network, argued that: It did not carry out any unfair competition. Even if it had done so, it would be improper to require it to make an apology. Even if it must make an apology, it would be improper to publish an apology in Legal Daily newspaper. The plaintiff, Baidu Company, was unable to adduce hard evidence on the alleged compensation of 4.8 million yuan. 被告联通青岛公司辩称:原告百度公司的指控是建立在臆测和无根据的推定的基础上的,其所提交的证据不能必然的确定的唯一的展示被告实施了以及如何实施了其所指控的相关行为。原告没有提交相关新的证据来证明其因被告被指控行为遭受的实际损失。请求驳回原告提出的全部诉讼请求。
Unicom Qingdao Branch argued that: The plaintiff based its allegations on speculation and unfounded presumptions, and the evidence submitted by it could not lead to an inevitable, definite and sole conclusion that the defendants had committed the alleged act, nor could it show how the alleged act was committed. The plaintiff failed to provide new evidence on its actual losses incurred due to the alleged act of the defendants. This defendant requested the court to reject all of the plaintiff's claims. 被告联通山东公司辩称:原告百度公司没有提供任何有效证据证明联通山东公司实施了对方所指控的不正当竞争或侵权行为,原告关于被告联通青岛公司、联通山东公司之间法律关系的陈述与事实不符,也没有法律依据。
Unicom Shandong Branch argued that: The plaintiff did not provide any valid evidence that Unicom Shandong Branch had committed the alleged act of unfair competition or any tort. The plaintiff's statement about the legal relationship between Unicom Qingdao Branch and Unicom Shandong Branch lacked both factual and legal basis. 第三人鹏飞航空公司辩称:本案与第三人无关,原告百度公司恶意诉讼给第三人造成的商誉损失和律师费等经济损失,第三人保留诉讼的权利。
The third party, Pengfei Company, argued that: This case was irrelevant to it. For the goodwill and economic losses including lawyer's fees incurred by the third person due to the plaintiff's malicious litigation, the third person reserved the right to sue against the plaintiff. 青岛市中级人民法院一审查明:
Upon trial at first instance, the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City found that: 原告百度公司成立于2001年6月5日,其经营范围为互联网信息服务业务,经北京市通信管理局核准经营网址为www.baidu.com的百度网站,该网站主要向网络用户提供互联网信息搜索服务,现为国内知名的搜索引擎网站。
The plaintiff, Baidu Company, was founded on June 5, 2001. Its business scope was Internet information services. The website, www.baidu.com, approved by the Beijing Communications Administration, was its business website, mainly providing Internet information search services for network users. It had become a well-known search engine site in China. 被告奥商网络公司成立于2003年9月22日,其经营范围包括网络工程建设、网络技术应用服务、计算机软件设计开发等。其网站为www.og.com.cn,该公司在上述网站“企业概况”中称该公司拥有四个网站:中国奥商网(www.og.com.cn),讴歌网络营销伴侣(www.og.net.cn),青岛电话实名网(www.0532114.org),半岛人才网(www.job17.com)。该公司在该网站中介绍其“网络直通车”业务时称:无需安装任何插件,广告网页强制出现。其介绍“搜索通”产品表现形式时以图文方式列举了下列步骤:第一步,在搜索引擎对话框中输入关键词;第二步,优先出现网络直通车广告位(5秒钟展现);第三步,同时点击上面广告位直接进入宣传网站新窗口;第四步,5秒后原窗口自动展示第一步请求的搜索结果。该网站还以其他形式介绍了上述服务。
The defendant, Osun Network, was formed on September 22, 2003, and its business scope included network engineering construction, network technology and application services, computer software design and development, etc. Its website was www.og.com.cn. As stated under “Company Overview” on this website, Osun Network owned four websites: Osun Network China (www.og.com.cn), Ouge Internet Marketing Partner (www.og.net.cn), Qingdao Real Name Telephony (www.0532114.org) and Peninsula Talent (www.job17.com). Also on this website, the introduction to Osun Network's “Network Through Train” business read: “No additional plug-ins required. Advertising pages will pop up forcibly.” In describing the features of its product “Speed Search”, the following steps were illustrated: “First, you enter a key word in the dialog box of the search engine; second, the advertising spots of Network Through Train appeared preemptively (for 5 seconds); third, click the above advertising spots to directly enter the promotional website in a new window; and fourth, after 5 seconds, the search results automatically display in the original window as requested in step 1.” This service was also introduced in other forms on this website. 被告联通青岛公司系原中国网通公司青岛分公司与原中国联通公司青岛分公司合并、于2008年10月24日被核准成立。联通青岛公司的经营范围包括因特网接入服务和信息服务等业务,青岛信息港网站 (域名为qd.sd.cn)为联通青岛公司所有。“电话实名”系联通青岛公司与被告奥商公司共同合作的一项语音搜索业务,网址为 www.0532114.org的“114电话实名语音搜索”网站表明该网站版权所有人为联通青岛公司,独家注册中心为奥商网络公司。
The defendant, Unicom Qingdao Branch, was founded upon approval on October 24, 2008 as the result of a merger of the former China Netcom Qingdao Branch and the former China Unicom Qingdao Branch. The business scope of Unicom Qingdao Branch included Internet access services and information services. Qingdao Info Hub (domain name: qd.sd.cn) was owned by Unicom Qingdao Branch. Real Name Telephony was a voice search service jointly provided by Unicom Qingdao Branch and Osun Network. On the 114 Real Name Telephony Voice Search website, www.0532114.org, it was clearly stated that Unicom Qingdao Branch was the copyright owner of this website and Osun Network was the sole registration center. 被告联通山东公司亦系有关公司合并而成立,核准成立日期为2009年3月11日,其经营范围亦包括因特网接入服务和信息服务业务。联通山东公司网站(www.sdcnc.cn)显示,被告联通青岛公司是其下属分公司。
The defendant, Unicom Shandong Branch, was formed upon approval on March 11, 2009 as a result of a merger of related companies. Its business scope also included Internet access services and information services. As shown on the website of Unicom Shandong Branch (www.sdcnc.cn), Unicom Qingdao Branch was one of its branch companies. 第三人鹏飞航空公司成立于2002年 6月14日,其经营范围包括航空机票销售代理等。
The third party, Pengfei Company, was founded on June 14, 2002. Its business scope included air ticket agents, etc. 2009年4月14日,山东省青岛市市中公证处出具编号为(2009)青市中证民字第002187号的公证书,对原告百度公司委托代理人利用该处计算机进行登录百度搜索等网站操作过程予以公证,该公证书记载的主要内容如下:
On April 14, 2009, the Notary Office of Shizhong District, Qingdao City, Shandong Province issued a Notarization Certificate (No. 002187 [2009], Civil) to notarize that an agent of the plaintiff, Baidu Company, had performed a series of operations such as logging onto Baidu Company's website and searching there via a computer at the Notary Office. The main contents of the Notarization Certificate were as follows: 
1. After the agent logged on to www.ip138.com, the website showed that the IP address of the visiting computer was 221.3.38.111. About the geographical location of this IP address, the website showed: Primary Data: Netcom, Qingdao City, Shandong Province; Reference Data (1): Netcom, Qingdao City, Shandong Province; Reference Data (2): Netcom ADSL, Qingdao City, Shandong Province. 1.登录www.ip138.com,该网站显示联网计算机的IP地址为221.3.38.111,对该地址查询其地理位置时显示:本站主数据:山东省青岛市网通;参考数据一:山东省青岛市网通;参考数据二:山东省青岛市网通 ADSL。
2. The agent logged on to Baidu Company's website (www.baidu.com), and searched for a free network protocol testing tool, wire-shark. According to a link provided by this website, the operator logged on to another website called “Software Sea Park” (www.softsea.net), downloaded a program file titled “wireshark-win32-1.1.2.exe,” and installed it on the computer. 2.登录百度网站(www.baidu.com),搜索免费的网络协议检测程序软件wire-shark,根据百度网站提供的链接,登录名为“海上软件园”(网址为www.softsea.net)的网站,下载了名称为“wireshark-win32-1.1.2.exe”的程序并在计算机上进行安装。
3. The agent logged on to Baidu Company's website (www.baidu.com), entered “Pengfei Airline” in the dialog box on this website, and clicked “Baidu it.” A page displaying “Call 114 and grab your discount airline tickets now” popped up, and was then redirected to the search result page on “Pengfei Airline.” 3.登录百度网站(www.baidu.com),在该网站显示对话框中输入“鹏飞航空”,点击“百度一下”,弹出一显示有“打折机票抢先拿就打114”的页面,随后该页面转至相应的“鹏飞航空”搜索结果页面。
4. The agent logged on to Baidu Company's website (www.baidu.com), typed “airline ticketing” into the dialog box on this website, and ran “wireshark-win32-1.1.2.exe” to generate a log file in background. 4.登录百度网站(www.baidu.com),在该网站显示对话框中输入“航空票务”,操作“wireshark-win32-1.1.2.exe”程序生成后台记录文件。
5. The agent logged on to Baidu Company's website (www.baidu.com), entered “Pengfei Airline” in the dialog box on this website, and clicked “Baidu it.” A page displaying “Call 114 and grab your discount airline tickets now” popped up. The agent immediately clicked the spot showing the above advertisement on this page, and a new page was opened with the URL being http://air.qd.sd.cn. Then, the agent ran “wireshark-win32-1.1.2.exe” to generate a log file in background. 5.登录百度网站(www.baidu.com),在该网站显示对话框中输入“鹏飞航空”,点击“百度一下”,弹出一显示有“打折机票抢,先拿就打114”的页面,迅速点击该页面中显示有“打折机票抢先拿就打114”的页面,打开了一显示地址为http://air.qd.sd.cn的页面,操作“wireshark-win32-1.1.2.exe”程序生成后台记录文件。
On the same day, the Notary Office of Shizhong District, Qingdao City, Shandong Province issued a Notarization Certificate (No. 002188 [2009], Civil) to notarize that the agent of Baidu Company had performed a series of operations such as logging on to Baidu Company's website and searching there via a computer at the Notary Office. The main contents of this Notarization Certificate were as follows: 同日,山东省青岛市市中公证处出具编号为(2009)青市中证民字第002188号的公证书,对原告百度公司委托代理人利用该处计算机进行登录百度搜索等网站操作过程予以公证,该公证书记载的主要内容为:
The agent logged on to Baidu Company's website (www.baidu.com), typed “Qingdao Talent Network” into the dialog box on this website, and clicked “Baidu it.” A page displaying “Find a good job on Peninsula Talent at www.job17.com” popped up. The agent immediately clicked the words “Enter Now” on this advertising page, and a new page was displayed with the URL being http://www.job17.com/. 登录百度网站(www.baidu.com),在该网站显示对话框中输入“青岛人才网”,点击“百度一下”,弹出一显示有“找好工作到半岛人才网www.job17.com”的页面,迅速点击该页面中显示之“马上点击”,打开了一显示地址为http://www.job17.com/的页面。
...... 登录百度网站(www.baidu.com),在该网站显示对话框中输入“电话实名”,点击“百度一下”,弹出一显示有“查信息打 114,语音搜索更好用”的页面,随后该页面转至相应的“电话实名”搜索结果页面。
 对于在被告联通青岛公司网络信号内,登陆百度网站输入相应关键词会弹出有关广告页面,原告百度公司以专家的名义对(2009)青市中证民字第002187号的公证书记载的页面访问记录及相应后台文件进行了如下分析:1.使用的主要工具为数据包分析工具(wireshark-setup-0.99.6a.exe)、windows自带的ping命令、www.ip138.com提供的IP地址信息查询服务、whois.webmasterhome.cn提供的whois域名信息查询服务;2.结论是:(1)编号为56的数据包可疑,该数据包所传输的HTML代码会造成如下结果:在用户的浏览器中显示广告(http://61.156.12.58/webts/cnc/114dingpiao1/index.html),并在八秒钟后,再向百度发出用户此前已发出的搜索请求;(2)从公开的查询信息来看,frame的源链接指向的URL地址(http://61.156.12.58/webts/cnc/114dingpiao1/index.html)所链接的网站(http://air.qd.sd.cn/)与被告联通山东公司的下属网站-青岛信息港(www.qd.sd.cn)具有相同域(qd.sd.cn);(3)依据同域原则,网站http://air.qd.sd.cn是联通山东公司下属网站-青岛站点所属。
 ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
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;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  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.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese