Recently, the Palace Museum discovered that a Sichuan liquor company and a Beijing trading company used the words "Supervised by the Palace Museum" in the process of promoting and selling alcohol products. The Palace Museum filed a lawsuit against them alleging unfair competition.
The first instance court found that the actions of the Sichuan liquor company and the Beijing trading company constituted unfair competition, and ordered them to compensate the Palace Museum for its economic losses and reasonable expenses. The defendants appealed to the Beijing IP Court. The Beijing IP Court affirmed the lower court's finding that the defendants' action constituted unfair competition but adjusted the compensation amount based on new evidence.
Regarding the issue of whether the use of the words "Supervised by the Palace Museum" on the alleged goods and the related publicity in the online store constituted unfair competition, the Beijing IP Court found that:
Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law stipulates that operators shall not use without authorization the names of other enterprises, social organizations, or persons that have certain influence to cause people to mistakenly believe that the goods are from others or that they have a specific connection with others. Regarding the use of the words "Supervised by the Palace Museum" on the alleged infringing products, the evidence can prove that the production dates marked in the online store were after the expiration of the supervision agreement involved. After the expiration, the Sichuan liquor company continued to label its liquor products with the words "Supervised by Palace Museum," which includes the full name of the Palace Museum, without the authorization or permission. Even though the Sichuan liquor company continued using the packaging design and product promotion style which were authorized during the supervision agreement period, but the words "Supervised by the Palace Museum" will not only make consumers believe that the Palace Museum supervises the packaging design and product promotion of the alleged infringing goods, it will inevitably make the public mistakenly believes that this product is closely related to the Palace Museum, or that the Sichuan liquor company still has a cooperative relationship with the Palace Museum on alcohol products, etc. This is obviously a case of obtaining unfair competitive advantages and commercial interests by taking advantage of the popularity of the Palace Museum. At the same time, it also caused damage to the reputation and business interests of the Palace Museum, constituting unfair competition as stipulated in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. In addition, the Sichuan liquor company claimed that the words "Supervised by the Palace Museum" are not in a prominent position, however, combined with the relevant publicity of the allegedly infringing products, consumers will inevitably pay attention to the relationship between the allegedly infringing products and the Palace Museum. The allegedly products and its packaging will objectively cause confusion and misunderstanding. Whether they are in a prominent position does not affect the determination of unfair competition.
Article 8 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law stipulates that operators shall not make false or misleading commercial publicity about the performance, functions, quality, sales status, user reviews, honors, etc. of their products to deceive or mislead consumers. The first instance court found that the online store involved in the case repeatedly mentioned the Palace Museum in the "Historical Events" in the product details, showed the authorization letter issued by the Palace Museum in January 2007, and highlighted the "designated liquor of the Palace Museum in the past five hundred years" along with other content, which constitutes false propaganda as stipulated in Article 8 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. Regarding such promotions, the mention of the history of the Palace Museum in the "Historical Events" and the content of the authorization letter issued by the Palace Museum to the Sichuan liquor company were facts. However, on this basis, when promoting the products involved, the Sichuan liquor company failed to disclose to consumers the fact that the authorization letter issued by the Palace Museum has expired, and its claim that the products sold in the online store were "the designated liquor of the Palace Museum." Such publicity will cause confusion among consumers. Consumers are likely to misunderstand and falsely believe that the allegedly infringing goods still have valid authorization from the Palace Museum, which constitutes false or misleading commercial propaganda as stipulated in Article 8 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. At the same time, since the above-mentioned behavior has been determined as false propaganda, the use of the full name of the Palace Museum will no longer be separately determined as an act of unfair competition that uses a company name without authorization.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
