涉“吉尼斯纪录”被无效不正当竞争纠纷案
Case Analysis
Guangzhou Daming United Rubber Products Co., Ltd. v. Guinness World Records Limited
涉“吉尼斯纪录”被无效不正当竞争纠纷案
Docket No.: 3434, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2019) Beijing Intellectual Property Court (京73)
Lower Court Docket No.: 12921, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2017) Beijing Dongcheng District People's Court (京0101)
一审案号：（2017）京0101民初12921号
二审案号：（2019）京73民终3434号
Prefatory Syllabus
裁判要旨
The unfair competition acts regulated by the principle provisions of Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law shall, first of all, not among the unfair competition acts or infringement acts of typical intellectual property rights explicitly enumerated in the law; second, they should be competitive acts leading to harm to the competitive interests of other operators; and finally, the acts shall be in violation of the principle of honesty and creditability and publicly accepted business ethics, and the damages they cause to others shall be unfair.
适用《反不正当竞争法》第二条原则性条款进行规制的不正当竞争行为，首先，应不属于法律明确列举的不正当竞争行为或侵害典型知识产权的侵权行为；其次，应当是导致其他经营者的竞争利益损害的竞争行为；最终，该行为应违背了诚实信用原则和公认的商业道德，其对他人造成的损害应具有不正当性。
Basic Facts
案情介绍
Plaintiff-Appellant: Guangzhou Daming United Rubber Products Co., Ltd. ("Guangzhou Daming")
Defendant-Appellee: Guinness World Records Limited ("Guinness") and Guinness World Records Consulting (Beijing) Limited ("Guinness Beijing")
上诉人（原审原告）：广州大明联合橡胶制品有限公司（简称广州大明公司）
被上诉人（原审被告）：吉尼斯世界纪录有限公司（简称吉尼斯公司）、吉尼斯世界纪录咨询（北京）有限公司（简称吉尼斯北京公司）
After Guangzhou Daming made an application and signed a Certification Agreement with Guinness Beijing, Guinness certified and issued a Guinness World Records certificate to the Plaintiff on December 2, 2013 that confirmed that the "Aoni ultra-thin 001 natural rubber latex condom" manufactured by Guangzhou Daming was the " the thinnest latex condom". Guangzhou Daming paid RMB 4,495.91 as application fee to Guinness for the certification. After obtaining the above world record, Guangzhou Daming paid the trademark licensing fee to Guinness Beijing, and marked the condom products it produced and sold with words like "thinness record holder" and Guinness's trademark. In 2015, Guinness introduced new rules for its certification, stipulating that the world records for the product category would be valid for one year, and declared the above world record of Guangzhou Daming expired. Guangzhou Daming argued that Guinness and Guinness Beijing, with the new rules they had introduced internally, had retroactively declared invalid the Guinness World Record Guangzhou Daming had obtained in 2013, which had violated Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and the principle of honesty and credibility and publicly accepted business ethics, brought direct harm to its legitimate rights and interests, and constituted an act of unfair competition. Guangzhou Daming thus took Guinness and Guinness Beijing to court, requesting that the two Defendants be ordered to stop their unfair competition act as accused in this case and to compensate for the application fees Guangzhou Daming had paid and its economic loss due to reduced sales.
经广州大明公司申请并与吉尼斯北京公司签订《认证协议》，吉尼斯公司于2013年12月2日认证并向原告颁发了吉尼斯世界纪录认证书，确认广州大明公司制造的“奥妮超薄001天然橡胶乳胶避孕套”为“最薄的乳胶安全套”。广州大明公司为申请认证，向吉尼斯公司支付了4495.91元申请费。获得上述世界纪录后，广州大明公司通过向吉尼斯北京公司支付商标许可费用，在其生产、销售的奥妮避孕套产品上标注了“薄度纪录保持者”字样及吉尼斯公司的商标。2015年，吉尼斯公司出台了认证新规则，规定产品类世界纪录有效期为一年，并宣布广州大明公司的上述世界纪录过期失效。广州大明公司认为，吉尼斯公司、吉尼斯北京公司以内部出台的新规则，倒退追溯宣告其在2013年取得的吉尼斯世界纪录无效，违反了《反不正当竞争法》第二条，有违诚实信用原则和公认的商业道德，直接损害了其合法权益，构成不正当竞争行为。据此，广州大明公司将吉尼斯公司、吉尼斯北京公司诉至法院，要求判令二被告停止涉案不正当竞争行为，并赔偿其支付的申请费及销售额减少的经济损失。
The Beijing Dongcheng District People's Court held in the first instance that Guinness had invalidated the Guinness record of the Plaintiff in question, making it no longer possible for the Plaintiff to use the Guinness brand for publicity or promotion, which did have resulted in a real impairment to the relevant competitive interests of the Plaintiff. However, as to whether it had constituted unfair competition, it was still necessary to examine whether the act was contrary to the principle of honesty and credibility and publicly accepted business ethics, and whether it was unfair. In this case, Guinness had only provided certification services, and the world record itself was not based on consideration purchases but on the relevant facts and evidence. The Plaintiff did not enjoy absolute rights of ownership and other rights provided by law for the world record in question; Guinness shortened the validity of the world records for products to one year and would update the test results annually, which would be closer to the truth and more in the public's interest; The change to Guinness' certification rules was targeting all applicants and would not directly lead to differences in the competitive advantages among different applicants in the market, nor was it intended to capture the competitive interests of the Plaintiff as a specific applicant. Therefore, the act of Guinness involved in this case was not unfair and had not constituted an act of unfair competition. In summary of the above, the Court ruled that the claims of the Plaintiff were rejected.
北京市东城区人民法院一审认为，吉尼斯公司宣告原告的涉案吉尼斯纪录无效，使得原告无法使用吉尼斯品牌进行宣传推广，导致原告的相关竞争利益确实出现了减损。但对于是否构成不正当竞争，仍要考察该行为是否有违诚实信用原则和公认的商业道德、是否具有不正当性。本案中，吉尼斯公司只是提供认证服务，世界纪录本身并非基于对价购买而来，而是根据相关事实和证据认定的，原告对于涉案世界纪录并不享有法律所规定的所有权等绝对权利；吉尼斯公司将产品世界纪录有效期缩短为一年，每年更新检测结果，更接近事实，也更符合公共利益；吉尼斯公司认证规则的此次修改面向全部申请者，不会直接导致不同申请者之间市场竞争优势的差异，亦非为了攫取作为特定申请人的原告之竞争利益。故吉尼斯公司涉案行为不具有不正当性，不构成不正当竞争行为。综上，法院判决驳回原告诉讼请求。
Guangzhou Daming refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and thus appealed to Beijing Intellectual Property Court. In the second instance, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that the Certification Agreement signed by and between Guangzhou Daming and Guinness Beijing stated clearly that Guinness had the right to amend the certification rules at any time, and that changes to the certification rules would inevitably have an impact on the validity of the world records; also, Guangzhou Damien did not have the absolute right as provided by law to the world record in question, and Guinness's amendment of the certification rules was in the public interest, not to harm the competitive interests of Guangzhou Daming. Therefore, the accused act of Guinness had not constituted unfair competition, and the court would not support Guangzhou Daming's reasons for the appeal, which had lacked basis.
广州大明公司不服一审判决，向北京知识产权法院提起上诉。北京知识产权法院二审认为，广州大明公司与吉尼斯北京公司签订的《认证协议》载明吉尼斯公司有权随时修改认证规则，认证规则的变更必然会对世界纪录的效力产生影响；同时，大明公司对其获得的涉案世界纪录并不享有法律规定的绝对权利，吉尼斯公司修改认证规则亦符合公共利益、并非为了损害大明公司的竞争利益。因此，吉尼斯公司被诉行为不构成不正当竞争，大明公司上诉理由缺乏依据，法院不予支持。
Typical Significance
典型意义
This is a typical case where the parties have asserted the application of the principle provisions under Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The court has clarified the three elements of the application of the principle provisions, taken into account the specific circumstances of the case, and made a useful exploration of the criteria and methods for the identification of relevant elements. It has also further deepened the criterion of "causing damages to the interests of other operators and consumers", pointing out that an unfair competition act should first be a competitive act, so that the so-called harmed interests mainly mean competitive interests. As for the prerequisites of violation of the principle of honesty and credibility and publicly accepted business ethics, the court has examined and discussed the judgment criterion of unfairness from the perspectives of legal provisions, the contractual agreement between the parties, and public interests. This case has provided a useful reference for the determination of the breach of the principle of honesty and credibility and publicly accepted business ethics, as well as the trial of similar cases.
本案为当事人主张适用《反不正当竞争法》第二条原则性条款的典型案件。法院明确了适用原则性条款的三个要件，并结合具体案情，对于相关要件的认定标准和方法进行了有益探索，对“致使其他经营者及消费者利益受到损害”这一标准作了进一步深化，指出不正当竞争行为首先应当是一种竞争行为，故此处所称损害的利益主要指竞争利益。对于违背诚实信用原则和公认商业道德的要件，法院则从法律规定、双方合同约定及公共利益等角度入手，围绕不正当性这一判断标准进行了考察和论述。本案对于违背诚实信用原则和公认商业道德的认定，以及同类案件的审理提供了有益的借鉴和参考。
英文投稿及市场合作：
jane.jiang@chinaipmagazine.com
18911449529（微信同号）
往期推荐