>>>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
 
Case of Unfair Competition Dispute -- Hangzhou Wahaha Group Company v. Zhuhai Giant Hi-Tech Group Company (Case of Unfair Competition Dispute)
杭州娃哈哈集团公司诉珠海巨人高科技集团公司不正当竞争纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Case of Unfair Competition Dispute -- Hangzhou Wahaha Group Company v. Zhuhai Giant Hi-Tech Group Company (Case of Unfair Competition Dispute)
(Case of Unfair Competition Dispute)
杭州娃哈哈集团公司诉珠海巨人高科技集团公司不正当竞争纠纷案

CASE OF UNFAIR COMPETITION DISPUTE -- HANGZHOU WAHAHA GROUP COMPANY V. ZHUHAI GIANT HI-TECH GROUP COMPANY@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Hangzhou Wahaha Group Company.@#
Legal Representative: Zong Qinghou, Chairman of Board of Directors and General Manager.@#
Agent p.p.: Hu Jiansen and Li Yongming, lawyers with Huaxia Law Office, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province.@#
Defendant: Zhuhai Giant Hi-Tech Group Company.@#
Legal Representative: Shi Yuzhu, Chairman of Board of Directors and General Manager.@#
Agent p.p.: Wang Jian, CEO of the Company.@#
Plaintiff Hangzhou Wahaha Group Company (short as Wahaha Company)  brought suit in Zhejiang Province Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court  against defendant Zhuhai Giant Hi-Tech Group Company (short as Giant Group ) on the ground that it had acts of unfair competition.@#
......

 

杭州娃哈哈集团公司诉珠海巨人高科技集团公司不正当竞争纠纷案@#
@#
原告:杭州娃哈哈集团公司。@#
法定代表人:宗庆后,董事长兼总经理。@#
委托代理人:胡建淼、李永明,浙江省杭州市华夏律师事务所律师。@#
被告:珠海巨人高科技集团公司。@#
法定代表人:史玉柱,董事长兼总经理。@#
委托代理人:王建,该公司行政总裁。@#
原告杭州娃哈哈集团公司(以下简称娃哈哈集团)以被告珠海巨人高科技集团公司(以下简称巨人集团)有不正当竞争行为为由,向浙江省杭州市中级人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告诉称:“娃哈哈儿童营养液”是本公司研制生产的产品,其广告词“喝了娃哈哈,吃饭就是香”已经家喻户晓。该产品先后获全国最受欢迎的保健产品、国家星火二等奖、中国优质保健品金奖等二十余项大奖,销售额近年来一直保持在全国同类产品的领先地位。原告也由于此产品在海内外享有较高的商业信誉和商品声誉。1995年初,被告巨人集团生产了一种与“娃哈哈儿童营养液”类似的产品“巨人吃饭香”投放全国市场,并专门印制了一种《巨人集团健康产品销售书、巨人大行动》的宣传册子,在全国各地的食品、医药等销售单位、消费者中广为散发。该宣传册子中称“据说娃哈哈有激素,造成小孩早熟,产生许多现代儿童病”。为此,全国各地娃哈哈产品的销售商和消费者纷纷要求原告对此作出解释。被告的这一行为,致使娃哈哈儿童营养液在全国各地的销售量下跌,出现了1987年投产以来的第一次负增长,就连原告“大本营”杭州市的销售量也难逃厄运。截止到1995年12月31日,原告由此减少销售收入4492.92万元,直接经济损失达673.938万元。更为严重的是,原告良好的商业信誉、商品声誉和企业形象亦因此而受到了极大损害。被告的行为已构成不正当竞争,侵害了原告的合法权益。故请求法院判令被告立即停止损害原告商业信誉和商品声誉的不正当竞争行为;要求被告赔偿直接经济损失673.938万元和名誉损失费320万元;并要求被告公开赔礼道歉、恢复影响及承担本案诉讼费用等。@#
......


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 【¥200.00】 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
【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