>>>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
 
Shandong Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation, Shandong Sanfod Group Co., Ltd. and Shandong Sanfod Nissui Co. Ltd. v. Ma Daqing and Qingdao SKD Credit Trading Co., Ltd. (case of unfair competition)
山东省食品进出口公司、山东山孚集团有限公司、山东山孚日水有限公司诉马达庆、青岛圣克达诚贸易有限公司不正当竞争纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: IPR-->Others
  • Legal document: Judgment
  • Judgment date: 03-18-2009
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance
  • Source: SPC Gazette,Issue 9,2009

Shandong Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation, Shandong Sanfod Group Co., Ltd. and Shandong Sanfod Nissui Co. Ltd. v. Ma Daqing and Qingdao SKD Credit Trading Co., Ltd. (case of unfair competition)
(case of unfair competition)
山东省食品进出口公司、山东山孚集团有限公司、山东山孚日水有限公司诉马达庆、青岛圣克达诚贸易有限公司不正当竞争纠纷案

Shandong Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation, Shandong Sanfod Group Co., Ltd. and Shandong Sanfod Nissui Co. Ltd. v. Ma Daqing and Qingdao SKD Credit Trading Co., Ltd.
(unfair competition dispute)

 

山东省食品进出口公司、山东山孚集团有限公司、山东山孚日水有限公司诉马达庆、青岛圣克达诚贸易有限公司不正当竞争纠纷案

 [裁判摘要]
 在既没有违反竞业禁止义务,又没有侵犯商业秘密的情况下,行为人运用自己在原用人单位学习的知识、技能为其他与原单位存在竞争关系的单位服务的,不属于《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》直接规定的不正当竞争行为。原用人单位依照《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第二条的规定,主张行为人的行为属于不正当竞争的,人民法院不予支持。
BASIC FACTS 
Plaintiff: Shandong Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation, at: Sanfod Building, 96 Xianggangzhong Road, Qingdao City.
Legal representative: Teng Haibo, chairman of the board of directors of this company.
Plaintiff: Shandong Sanfod Group Co., Ltd., at: Sanfod Building, 96 Xianggangzhong Road, Qingdao City.
Legal representative: Teng Haibo, chairman of the board of directors of this company.
Plaintiff: Shandong Sanfod Nissui Co. Ltd., at: North Kunlunshan Road, Qingdao Economic and Technological Development Zone.
Legal representative: Teng Haibo, chairman of the board of directors of this company.
 

原告:山东省食品进出口公司。

法定代表人:滕海波,该公司董事长。

原告:山东山孚集团有限公司。

法定代表人:滕海波,该公司董事长。

原告:山东山孚日水有限公司。

法定代表人:滕海波,该公司董事长。

Defendant: Ma Daqing, male, Han ethnicity, born on April 8, 1963, at: Jiangxi Road, Shinan District, Qingdao City. 被告:马达庆。
Defendant: Qingdao SKD Credit Trading Co., Ltd., at: World Trade Center, 6 Xianggangzhong Road, Shinan District, Qingdao City. 被告:青岛圣克达诚贸易有限公司。
Legal representative: Chen Qingrong, general manager of this company. 法定代表人:陈庆荣,该公司总经理。
Shandong Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Shandong Foodstuffs”), Shandong Sanfod Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Sanfod Group”) and Shandong Sanfod Nissui Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Sanfod Nissui”) instituted an action in the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City, Shandong Province for disputes over unfair competition against Ma Daqing and Qingdao SKD Credit Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “SKD Company”). 原告山东省食品进出口公司(以下简称山东食品)、山东山孚集团有限公司(以下简称山孚集团)、山东山孚日水有限公司 (以下简称山孚日水)因与被告马达庆、青岛圣克达诚贸易有限公司(以下简称圣克达诚公司)发生不正当竞争纠纷,向山东省青岛市中级人民法院提起诉讼。
The plaintiffs, Shandong Foodstuffs, Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui, claimed that: Shandong Foodstuffs had been exporting kelp to the members of the Hokkaido Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Association (hereinafter referred to as “Hokkaido Gyoren”) since the 1970s. Shandong Foodstuffs had achieved annual growth in its kelp export to Japanese companies after 1973 and had maintained its annual export volume at over 600 tons by the end of the 20th century. Upon the establishment of Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui, Shandong Foodstuffs began to assign its kelp business to these two companies. Over three decades, Shandong Foodstuffs, Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui had invested substantial manpower, materials, money and time in the development of this business. As a result, they gradually expanded and consolidated the supply chain and export channels of kelp and maintained a sound and stable business relationship with both kelp farmers and Japanese importers. They also applied for a patent for their invention titled “net-dried kelp.” Shandong Foodstuffs, Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui enjoyed a good business reputation and an unparalleled competitive edge among kelp exporters in the Japanese market, and this business brought an annual profit of about 6 to 8 million yuan to Shandong Foodstuffs. 原告山东食品、山孚集团、山孚日水诉称:自20世纪70年代开始,山东食品即向日本北海道渔业协同组合联合会(以下简称北海道渔联)的会下企业出口海带。自 1973年之后,山东食品的对日海带出口数量逐年上升,至上世纪末,年出口数量稳定在600吨以上。山孚集团、山孚日水成立后,山东食品的海带业务开始委托山孚集团、山孚日水进行。在三十多年的海带业务发展过程中,山东食品、山孚集团及山孚日水通过几代职工的集体努力,投入大量的人力、物力、财力和精力,逐步拓展、巩固了海带业务的供应、出口渠道,研发、申请了“网晒海带”发明专利,与产区养殖户和日本进口商之间保持了良好稳定的业务合作关系。在对日海带出口企业中,山东食品、山孚集团及山孚日水始终具有良好的企业商誉和无可比拟的竞争优势,每年的对日海带出口业务可以为山东食品带来大约 600万元到800万元人民币的利润。
Defendant Ma Daqing became an employee of Shandong Foodstuffs in 1986, was transferred to Sanfod Group (then known as Shandong Sanfod Trade Co., Ltd.) on August 1, 2000, and was later transferred to Sanfod Nissui on January 4, 2005. During his employment, Ma Daqing participated in and later was charged with the export of kelp to Japan. As a result, he accessed and understood the entire process, techniques and customer information (farmers and Japanese importers) regarding this business. In December 2006, Ma Daqing left the company without undergoing the formal exit procedures. After his exit, Shandong Foodstuffs and Sanfod Nissui discovered upon investigation that: (1) On September 5, 2006, Ma Daqing suggested in writing that “it is no longer necessary for Shandong Foodstuffs to renew the kelp patent,” which was intended to facilitate his own use of the “net-dried kelp” patent without constituting infringement. (2) On September 22, 2006, under Ma Daqing's arrangement, Qingdao University student Chen Qingrong (Ma Daqing's nephew) registered a one-man limited liability company, SKD Company, by contributing 500,000 yuan to it. (3) In December 2006, Ma Daqing left the company along with documentation and materials related to the kelp business. (4) From late 2006 to early 2007, Ma Daqing and SKD Company claimed in the major kelp-producing areas that SKD Company had acquired the right to export kelp to Japan in place of Shandong Foodstuffs. (5) On April 3, 2007, in a written statement, Hokkaido Gyoren would allow SKD Company to take over the kelp business from Shandong Foodstuffs. (6) Since May 2007, Ma Daqing and SKD Company had purchased large quantities of “net-dried kelp” from kelp farmers using the purchase channels of the plaintiffs. (7) So far, Ma Daqing and SKD Company had purchased about 120 tons of kelp for export to Japan soon. 被告马达庆于1986年进入原告山东食品工作,2000年8月1日调入原告山孚集团(当时名称为山东山孚得贸易有限公司)工作,2005年1月4日调入原告山孚日水工作。工作期间,马达庆参与并在后期负责对日海带出口业务,得以接触、掌握了海带业务的全部流程、技术和客户(海带养殖户和日本进口商)信息。2006年12月,马达庆未办理正式离职手续即擅自离职。马达庆离职后,原告山东食品、山孚日水经调查发现:1.2006年9月5日,马达庆书面形式建议山东食品“海带专利没必要花钱再续”,其目的是为了方便马达庆自己自由使用“网晒海带”专利而不构成侵权;2. 2006年9月22日,在马达庆的控制下,青岛大学在校学生陈庆荣(系马达庆的外甥)出资50万元,注册成立一人有限责任公司被告圣克达诚公司;3.2006年12月,马达庆离职时,将公司有关海带业务的材料一并带走;4.2006年底至2007年初,马达庆及圣克达诚公司在主要海带产区进行宣传,声称圣克达诚公司已经代替山东食品获得了对日出口海带业务的经营权;5. 2007年4月3日,日本北海道渔联书面表示将原山东食品的海带业务转由圣克达诚公司经营;6.自2007年5月起,马达庆及圣克达诚公司利用原告的收购渠道,大量向海带养殖户收购“网晒海带”;7.目前,马达庆及圣克达诚公司已收购了约120吨海带,准备于近期向日本出口。
Exporting kelp to Japan was a business opportunity resulting from more than 30 years of efforts of Shandong Foodstuffs, Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui and should be protected by law. To seek improper benefits, Ma Daqing used all the process, technique and customer information regarding this business known during his employment with the plaintiffs and stole the plaintiffs' business opportunity through a series of acts before and after his resignation. His acts violated the good-faith principle in market competition. The entire business of SKD Company under the control of Ma Daqing was derived from and identical with the kelp business that had always been operated by the three plaintiffs. SKD Company was formed solely to snatch the business opportunity from the plaintiffs, in violation of Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Anti-Unfair Competition Law”), and had caused enormous economic losses to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs requested the court to: (1) confirm that the acts of Ma Daqing and SKD Company constituted unfair competition; (2) order that Ma Daqing should return all documentation and materials regarding the kelp business to the three plaintiffs; (3) order that the two defendants should stop operating their kelp business by using the purchase and export channels of Shandong Foodstuffs and Sanfod Group; (4) order that the two defendants should jointly and severally compensate the three plaintiffs for their operating loss of 6 million yuan; (5) order that the two defendants should jointly and severally compensate the three plaintiffs for their travel expenses, lawyer's fees and other actual expenses of 100,000 yuan for this case; and (6) order that the two defendants should assume all the court costs of this case. 原告山东食品、山孚集团、山孚日水的对日海带出口业务是经过三十多年的努力经营积累的商业机会,应当受到法律保护。被告马达庆利用其任职期间所掌握的海带业务的全部流程、技术和客户信息,通过其在离职前后实施的一系列行为窃取属于原告的商业机会而为自己谋取不正当利益,该行为违背了诚实信用的市场竞争规则,是明显的不劳而获行为。马达庆所控制的被告圣克达诚公司所进行的全部业务,都源自三原告一直在经营的海带业务,并与原告的海带业务范围完全一致,圣克达诚公司设立的目的在于攫取原告的商业机会,且已经给原告造成了巨大的经济损失,违反了《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》 (以下简称反不正当竞争法)第二条的规定,请求判令:1.确认马达庆、圣克达诚公司的行为构成不正当竞争;2.马达庆向三原告返还与海带业务相关的所有文件、资料;3.两被告停止利用山东食品、山孚集团的收购、出口渠道经营海带业务;4.两被告连带赔偿三原告的经营利润损失计人民币 600万元;5.两被告连带赔偿三原告为处理本案所花费的交通费、律师费和其他实际支出人民币10万元;6.由两被告承担本案诉讼费用。
The plaintiffs, Shandong Foodstuffs, Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui, submitted the following evidence: 原告山东食品、山孚集团、山孚日水提交下列证据:
1. The Business Licenses (Enterprise Legal Person) of Shandong Foodstuffs, Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui; the Certificate of Approval of a Foreign-funded Enterprise of Sanfod Nissui; and the Business License (Enterprise Legal Person), Bylaws and Application for Modification Registration of Shandong Sanfod Trade Co., Ltd., to prove the eligibility as plaintiffs, modifications and investment relations of the three plaintiffs. 1.原告山东食品、山孚集团、山孚日水《企业法人营业执照》、山孚日水《外商投资企业批准证书》、山东山孚得贸易有限公司《企业法人营业执照》、《公司章程》、《变更登记事项申请》,用以证明三原告的主体资格、变更情况及投资关系。
2. Company Chronicles; the Notice on Issuing the Allocation Plan in 1980 and other documents issued by the Shandong Food Branch of China National Cereals Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation; China-Japan Trade Contracts from 2000 to 2006 and the notices on issuing kelp export quotas in the corresponding years issued by China National Cereals and Oils Foodstuffs Import & Export (Group) Co., Ltd. (This company first used the name of China National Cereals Oils & Foodstuffs Import and Export (Group) Co., Ltd. and was renamed China National Cereals and Oils Foodstuffs (Group) Co., Ltd. and later COFCO Ltd., hereinafter referred to as “COFCO”); and the Agreement on Commissioned Purchase and Export of Kelp, to prove the history of Shandong Foodstuffs and its continued export of kelp to Japan since 1972 with a steady amount of over 600 tons and the stable business relationships established and maintained with COFCO and Japanese importers, among other facts involved. 2.《公司史志》、中国粮油食品进出口公司山东食品分公司《关于下达1980年调拨计划的通知》等文件,2000年至2006年度《中日贸易合同》及中国粮油食品进出口 (集团)有限公司(该公司最早使用名称为中国粮油食品进出口(集团)有限公司,后变更为中国粮油食品(集团)有限公司、后变更为中粮集团有限公司,以下均简称为中粮集团)关于下达相应年度海带出口数量配额的通知、《海带委托收购、出口协议书》,用以证明原告山东食品的历史沿革,及其自1972年开始持续承担对日海带的出口业务,数量持续稳定在600吨以上,与中粮集团、日本进口商建立并维持稳定的业务合作关系等涉案事实。
3. Contracts for the Supply of Agricultural and Sideline Products from 2000 to 2005, to prove that Shandong Foodstuffs, Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui had maintained a steady business relationship with kelp suppliers over years. 3.2000年至2005年《农副产品购销合同》,用以证明原告山东食品、山孚集团、山孚日水多年来与海带供应商保持着稳定的业务合作关系。
4. The Invention Patent Certificate for a Kelp Processing Method and Equipment as well as the patent specifications and a copy of the patent register, to prove that Shandong Foodstuffs owned the above patent, which guaranteed the quality of kelp and the development of its kelp business. 4.“海带加工方法及设备”发明专利证书及说明书、专利登记簿副本,用以证明原告山东食品拥有上述专利的专利权,该专利保证了海带的质量和海带业务的发展。
5. The Officer Resume records, Labor Contracts based on the All-Personnel Labor Contract System and other evidence on Ma Daqing's work experience, to prove that during his employment with Shandong Foodstuffs, Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui, Ma Daqing participated in and later was charged with the export of kelp to Japan and thus accessed and understood the entire process, techniques and customer information regarding this business. 5.《干部履历表》、《全员劳动合同制职工劳动合同》等有关被告马达庆工作经历的证据,用以证明因工作需要,马达庆相继在原告山东食品、山孚集团、山孚日水工作,参与并在后期负责对日海带出口业务,得以接触、掌握了海带业务的全部流程、技术和客户信息。
6. Query Results for the Private Company Registration Information of SKD Company, to prove the industrial and commercial registration of this company. 6.被告圣克达诚公司《私营企业登记信息查询结果》,用以证明该公司的工商登记情况。
7. The Officer Resume and Employee Resume records, the Information from the Permanent Resident Database of Qingdao Population Query System, the Proof issued by Qingdao University, and the Certificate of Cash Payment issued by the Agricultural Bank of China, to prove the identity relationship between Ma Daqing and the only investor in SKD Company as well as Ma Daqing's capacity as its actual owner and investor. 7.《干部履历表》、《职工履历表》、《青岛市人口查询系统常口现实库信息资料》、青岛大学《证明》、中国农业银行出具的《现金缴款单》,用以证明被告马达庆与被告圣克达诚公司出资人之间的身份关系以及马达庆为该公司的实际控制人和出资人。
8. The Request for Stopping Payment of Annual Patent Fees drafted by Ma Daqing, the Notice dated May 19, 2007 and the Second Letter of Urging the Completion of Handover Procedures at the Company dated May 30 from Sanfod Nissui, the Minutes of a Meeting between Shandong Food Import and Export Co., Ltd. Chairman Teng Haibo and Hokkaido Gyoren President Miyamura et al., the Notice on Reporting Kelp Business Plans issued by COFCO International (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “COFCO Beijing”), the faxes between Shandong Foodstuffs and COFCO Beijing, the Letter on Requesting Coordination regarding Issues in Kelp Export to Japan from the Shandong International Economic and Trade Federation, and the reply of Hokkaido Gyoren and its Chinese translation, to prove that Ma Daqing used all the process, technique and customer information on this business known in his employment with the three plaintiffs and stole the plaintiffs' business opportunity through a series of acts before and after his resignation to seek improper benefits, which had caused losses to the three plaintiffs. 8.被告马达庆起草的《关于终止缴纳专利年费的请示》,原告山孚日水2007年 5月19日《通知》、5月30日《关于再次督促前往公司办理业务交接手续的函》,《山东省食品进出口公司董事长滕海波拜访北海道渔联宫村会长等的会议纪要》,中粮国际(北京)有限公司(以下简称中粮公司)《关于报送海带经营计划的通知》,原告山东食品向中粮公司发出的传真及中粮公司的回函,山东省国际经济贸易联合会《关于商请协调对日出口淡干海带问题的函》,北海道渔联复函及中文译件,用以证明马达庆利用其任职期间所掌握的海带业务的全部流程、技术和客户信息,通过其在离职前后实施的一系列行为窃取属于原告的商业机会而为自己谋取不正当利益,已经给三原告造成了损失。
9. Official letters issued by the relevant government departments and requests submitted to the relevant government departments by the employee representatives of Shandong Foodstuffs, to prove the strong social repercussions of the infringement committed by Ma Daqing and SKD Company. 9.有关政府部门出具的公函及标明由原告山东食品职工代表向有关政府部门出具的申请,用以证明被告马达庆、圣克达诚公司的侵权行为引起强烈社会反响。
10. Invoices for lawyer's fees, translation fees and notarization fees, to prove the expenses of the plaintiffs in this case. 10.律师费、翻译费及公证费发票,用以证明原告方为本案支付的费用。
SKD Company argued that: (1) Shandong Foodstuffs, Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui were three independent legal entities with different rights and obligations. In particular, regarding issues directly related with their claims, such as “which company operates the kelp business and controls the business channels” and “which company entered into what kind of labor contract with Ma Daqing and enjoyed what rights,” the three plaintiffs must be treated separately. However, in the claims, the three plaintiffs were commingled. Because of the confusion on litigation parties and unspecific claims, the court should order the plaintiffs to clarify the parties and specific matters in the claims of the plaintiffs. Otherwise, the corresponding claims should not be heard. (2) SKD Company obtained the quota of kelp export to Japan through normal channels, under open procedures and in fair competition and purchased and exported kelp in normal ways, without committing any unfair competition. The kelp exported to Japan required a quota released by Japan. As China's only authorized outlet for kelp export business to Japan, COFCO Beijing distributed the kelp export quotas among Chinese exporters. On January 10, 2007, after receipt of SKD Company's application, COFCO Beijing required the company to submit a written work plan on its kelp export in 2007. On January 25, 2007, COFCO Beijing sent written notices to SKD Company and Shandong Foodstuffs regarding inquiries and investigation about their respective kelp business plans in 2007. After inspection, on February 14, 2007, in a letter to SKD Company, COFCO Beijing decided that this SKD Company would execute the export of Weihai kelp to Japan in 2007. On April 6, 2007, COFCO Beijing issued a public notice on the kelp quotas of all exporters in 2007. As specified therein, SKD Company had a quota of 310 tons for kelp produced in Weihai area. SKD Company then legally obtained the kelp export quota to Japan in 2007, and such a business opportunity was achieved through normal channels, under open procedures and in fair competition, as a result of the comprehensive assessment by COFCO Beijing. SKD Company neither provided any false information to obtain the quota nor denigrated its competitors by any means. It committed no unfair competition. (3) SKD Company purchased and exported kelp openly without infringing upon the rights of Shandong Foodstuffs and without committing any unfair competition. The kelp quota in 2007 obtained by SKD Company was limited to kelp purchase in Weihai area. Another purchaser in this region was COFCO Industrial Food Import and Export Co., Ltd. It was an open business to purchase kelp from farmers in Weihai area, and a number of purchasers usually operated in the region in previous years. Kelp farmers would choose the purchasers based on their offers, services and other factors. Information on kelp cultivation and farmers was not any trade secret, and purchasing kelp in this region was by no means monopolized by Shandong Foodstuffs. Therefore, SKD Company's purchasing kelp in Weihai area did not per se constitute any unfair competition. 被告圣克达诚公司答辩称:1.原告山东食品、山孚集团、山孚日水在法律上都具备独立法人资格,其权利义务也各不相同,尤其是涉及到“哪个公司经营海带业务、享有海带业务渠道”、“哪个公司与被告马达庆签订了何种劳动合同、享有何种权利”等与原告方诉讼请求有直接关系的问题,三个原告之间必然是有区别的,在诉讼请求中将三原告混同,诉讼主体混淆,请求事项不具体,属于请求事项不明,法院应当责令原告方将诉讼请求中各原告的主体和具体事项予以明确,否则相应诉讼请求应不予审理。2.圣克达诚公司通过正常渠道、公开程序、公平竞争的方式取得对日本海带出口配额,按照正常的方式收购和出口海带,并没有构成不正当竞争。中国出口到日本的海带,需要根据日本发放的配额出口。中粮公司是日本授权的在华海带贸易的唯一窗口,中国对日出口海带配额将统一由中粮公司分配。2007年1月10日,根据圣克达诚公司的申请,中粮公司要求圣克达诚公司书面报送2007年度海带出口工作计划。2007年1月25日,中粮公司书面通知圣克达诚公司和山东食品将对两公司就 2007年度海带经营计划的相关内容进行询问和调查。2007年2月14日,经过考察,中粮公司致函给圣克达诚公司,决定将 2007年威海海带出口日本业务交由圣克达诚公司执行。2007年4月6日,中粮公司下发文件将2007年度各公司海带配额数量予以公示,其中圣克达诚公司在威海地区海带配额数量为310吨。至此,圣克达诚公司通过正常合法途径取得了2007年度出口日本海带配额,该商业机会是通过正常渠道、公开程序、公平竞争的方式取得,是中粮公司综合评定的结果,圣克达诚公司没有提供任何虚假信息骗取配额,没有采取任何手段诋毁竞争对手,没有任何不正当竞争行为,所以不构成不正当竞争。 3.圣克达诚公司通过公开的方式收购和出口海带,并没有侵犯山东食品的权益,不构成不正当竞争。圣克达诚公司取得的2007年度海带配额仅限于在威海地区收购,在威海地区收购海带的还有中粮工业食品进出口有限公司,从威海地区的海带养殖户处收购海带本身是公开的业务,在往年也会有多家公司同时在威海地区收购,海带养殖户会根据收购方的价格、服务等各种因素选择出售给哪家单位,海带养殖户养殖海带的信息并不是什么商业秘密,更不是山东食品独家垄断的业务。所以,圣克达诚公司在威海地区收购海带的行为本身并没有构成不正当竞争。
Defendant SKD Company obtained the 2007 kelp quota for the purpose of exporting kelp to Japan. Since Hokkaido Gyoren was the sole liaison for this business in Japan, Chinese exporters with quotas would export their products each year through this single channel to Japan without exception. This channel was a necessary channel determined when COFCO Beijing distributed the export quotas and was an open channel in the business of kelp export to Japan. There was no trade secret involved, and this business was not monopolized by Shandong Foodstuffs. Therefore, SKD Company's exporting kelp to Japan did not per se constitute any unfair competition. In summary, SKD Company committed no unfair competition, and the claims of Shandong Foodstuffs were unfounded. 被告圣克达诚公司取得的2007年度海带配额目的就是出口到日本,在日本方面,是由日本北海道渔联统一联系业务,中国国内每年取得配额的公司均是通过统一渠道出口到日本,该出口渠道是在取得中粮公司的配额时就已决定的必然的出口渠道,该出口渠道是海带出口到日本这一行业中公开的渠道,没有任何秘密可言,也不是原告山东食品独家垄断的业务,所以圣克达诚公司将收购的海带出口到日本的行为本身并没有构成不正当竞争。综上,圣克达诚公司没有任何不正当竞争行为,山东食品的诉讼请求不成立。
Defendant SKD Company submitted the following evidence: 被告圣克达诚公司提交下列证据:
1. The Notice on Reporting Kelp Business Plans, Notice on Investigation of Kelp Business Plans, Notice on Adjustment of Kelp Export Rights in 2007 and Notice on Distributing Kelp Export Quotas in 2007, to prove that COFCO Beijing was recognized by Japan as China's only outlet for kelp export and, after inspection of SKD Company and Shandong Foodstuffs at the request of SKD Company, COFCO Beijing decided that SKD Company would execute the export of Weihai kelp to Japan and disclosed the export quota. 1.《关于报送海带经营计划的通知》、《关于调查海带经营计划的通知》、《关于调整2007年海带出口经营权的通知》、《关于下达2007年海带出口数量配额的通知》,用以证明中粮公司是日本认可的在华海带贸易的唯一窗口,根据被告圣克达诚公司的申请,中粮公司通过对被告和原告山东食品的考察,决定将2007年威海海带出口日本业务交由被告执行并将配额数量予以公示。
2. A Notice on Distributing Kelp Export Quotas in 2005 and a Notice on Distributing Kelp Export Quotas in 2006, to prove that Shandong Foodstuffs also obtained kelp export quotas each year from COFCO and COFCO adjusted the quotas of different exporters according to their actual conditions each year. 2.《关于下达2005年海带出口数量配额的通知》、《关于下达2006年海带出口数量配额的通知》各一份,用以证明原告山东食品每年也是通过中粮集团有限公司取得海带出口配额,中粮集团也是每年根据实际情况调整各公司海带出口配额。
Defendant Ma Daqing argued that: (1) In their claims, Shandong Foodstuffs, Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui required him to return all documentation and materials regarding the kelp business. However, they failed to specify to which plaintiffs the same should be returned or what specific information should be returned. His employment with Sanfod Nissui terminated upon expiration of his labor contract, without any legal relationship with the other two plaintiffs. He was not obliged to return any documentation or material to them. (2) The disputes over his labor contract with Sanfod Nissui were pending trial by the People's Court of Shinan District, Qingdao City. Since he had terminated the employment under the labor contract without any non-competition agreement with Sanfod Nissui, his job after leaving the company was not improper. Therefore, he requested the court to dismiss the claims of the three plaintiffs. 被告马达庆答辩称:1.原告山东食品、山孚集团、山孚日水在诉讼请求中要求本人返还海带的文件和资料,但没有明确向哪一个原告返还,同时也没有明确返还资料的具体内容。本人是在劳动合同期满之后与山孚日水正常终止合同的,与另外两原告之间没有法律上的关系,不存在返还文件及资料的事宜;2.本人与山孚日水之间关于劳动合同存在争议,该劳动争议案件正在青岛市市南区人民法院进行审理,本人是依据劳动合同终止劳动关系的,并且与山孚日水之间没有签订过限制就业的相关协议,因此本人离职后的工作不属于不当行为,请求驳回三原告对本人的诉讼请求。
Defendant Ma Daqing submitted the following evidence: 被告马达庆提交下列证据:
1. A Notice on Renewal of Labor Contract, to prove that the last term of employment between Ma Daqing and Sanfod Nissui was from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 and the company notified him to negotiate renewal of the contract or the contract would terminate automatically upon expiry. 1.《续签劳动合同通知书》一份,用以证明被告马达庆与原告山孚日水之间的最后一个劳动合同期限为2006年1月1日至2006年12月31日,山孚日水告知马达庆协商续签合同,如不再续签就视为自行中止合同。
2. The Application for Labor Arbitration, the Arbitration Counterclaim filed by Sanfod Nissui, the Notice of Arbitration Hearing issued by the Labor Dispute Arbitration Commission of Qingdao, the Arbitration Award and a recording of phone conversation between Ma Daqing and an employee of Sanfod Nissui, to prove the handling and initial handling results on the labor disputes between him and the company: Ma Daqing did not leave the company in breach of the labor contract and the Labor Dispute Arbitration Commission dismissed Sanfod Nissui's claim for damages. 2.劳动仲裁申诉书、原告山孚日水仲裁反请求申请书、青岛市劳动争议仲裁委员会开庭通知、裁决书以及被告马达庆与山孚日水员工的电话录音,用以证明山孚日水与马达庆之间劳动争议的处理及初步结果,马达庆不是擅自离职,劳动仲裁委员会驳回了山孚日水要求承担损失的请求。
...... 根据被告圣克达诚公司、马达庆的申请,青岛市中级人民法院依法调取了中粮集团《关于下达2007年海带出口数量配额的通知》,主要内容是:原告山东食品也获得了相应的2007年度海带出口配额。
 青岛市中级人民法院依法组织了质证。被告圣克达诚公司、马达庆对原告山东食品、山孚集团、山孚日水提交的证据1、 2、3、5、7,证据8中除《山东省食品进出口公司董事长滕海波拜访北海道渔联宫村会长等的会议纪要》外的其他证据,证据9中除山东食品职工代表向有关政府部门出具的申请外的其他证据,证据12中除山东食品、山孚集团2006年12月1日董事会《会议记录》外的其他证据的真实性无异议,但认为不能证明原告方的主张;对证据4、6、 10没有异议。三原告对圣克达诚公司提交的证据1、2的真实性无异议,但不认可其证明目的。三原告对马达庆提交的证据1、 2的真实性没有异议,但不认可其证明目的。圣克达诚公司对马达庆提供证据1、2无异议。青岛市中级人民法院认为,三原告提交的证据8中《山东省食品进出口公司董事长滕海波拜访北海道渔联宫村会长等的会议纪要》的内容虽然已经证人刘兵出庭作证,但是刘兵与三原告有法律上的利害关系,在参加会谈的日本一方相关人员未予确认的情况下,不能单独作为认定事实的依据;证据9中山东食品职工代表向有关政府部门出具的申请一项,由于材料上的签字人员并未出庭作证,难以确认其真实性,对该项证据不予采信;对原、被告提交的其他证据的真实性予以确认。
 ......

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
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【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