“怪兽”诉“来电”共享充电宝不正当竞争纠纷案
Case Analysis
Shenzhen Laidian Technology Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Zhixiang Technology Co., Ltd.
“怪兽”诉“来电”共享充电宝不正当竞争纠纷案
Lower Court Docket No.: 92656, first instance (初), civil case (民), (2018) Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court (沪0115)
Docket No.: 22, second instance (终), civil case (民), (2020) Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (沪73)
一审案号：（2018）沪0115民初92656号
二审案号：（2020）沪73民终22号
Prefatory Syllabus
裁判要旨
When an employee of a company releases information that infringes on the rights and interests of a competitor of the company through WeChat Moments, the information so released cannot be considered as having only personal socializing properties just because it is released in WeChat Moments. Instead, the audience of the employee's social media account, the specific content and beneficiary of the information, and whether it is related to the will of the company should be taken into integrated consideration to decide whether it has constituted an in-job conduct.
公司员工通过微信朋友圈发布侵害公司竞争对手权益的信息时，不能仅因该信息的发布场所为微信朋友圈而认为其仅具有个人社交属性，应综合该员工社交账号的受众、信息的具体内容、受益人、是否与单位意志相关等因素认定是否构成职务行为。
Basic Facts
案情介绍
Defendant-Appellant: Shenzhen Laidian Technology Co., Ltd. ("Laidian") and Wang Weiwei
Plaintiff-Appellee: Shanghai Zhixiang Technology Co. Ltd. ("Zhixiang") and Zhixiang Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. ("Zhixiang Technology")
Defendant: Fujian Yalalat Internet Technology Service Co., Ltd. ("Yalalat")
上诉人（原审被告）：深圳来电科技有限公司（简称来电公司）、王唯唯
被上诉人(原审原告)：上海挚想科技有限公司（简称挚想公司）、挚享科技（上海）有限公司（简称挚享科技公司）
原审被告：福建亚拉拉特网络科技服务股份有限公司（简称亚拉拉特公司）
Zhixiang and Zhixiang Technology were the operators of “Energy Monster” shared power banks; Laidian was the operator of "Laidian" shared power banks; and Wang Weiwei was a salesperson of Laidian. In addition to posting information about her personal life, Wang Weiwei also posted a lot of promotional content related to Laidian in her WeChat Moments, of which, Wang Weiwei posted on July 21, 2018 information that said, "Noah's Ark Bar Group carried out testing of major power bank brands on the market, and Laidian is confident enough to face all kinds of safety testing ... Monster power bank does not work ... It is the proudest thing for us in Laidian", with related pictures, showing that the test result of a certain institution on "Monster" power banks had shown "quality problem", and a certain company group had therefore prohibited to work with "Monster" power banks. The Plaintiff believed that the above-mentioned content had constituted commercial defamation and false publicity, while Wang Weiwei's behavior was an in-job conduct, so Laidian and Wang Weiwei should share joint responsibilities.
挚想公司、挚享科技公司系“怪兽”共享充电宝的经营者，来电公司系“来电”共享充电宝的经营者，王唯唯系来电公司的销售人员。王唯唯的微信朋友圈中除发布其个人生活信息外，还发布了大量与来电公司相关的宣传内容。其中，王唯唯于2018年7月21日发布“诺亚方舟酒吧集团对市场上各大充电宝品牌的检测，来电有足够自信面对各种安全检测……怪兽充电宝不灵啊……是我们来电人最自豪的事情”的信息，并配有相关图片，显示某机构对“怪兽”充电宝的检测结果为“存在质量问题”，某集团因此禁止与“怪兽”充电宝合作。原告认为，上述内容构成商业诋毁和虚假宣传，王唯唯的行为系职务行为，应由来电公司和王唯唯共同承担责任。
The Pudong Court held that WeChat Moments was not purely a private socializing networking place, but also had other various functions such as marketing and information dissemination. Whether the act of Wang Weiwei releasing the accused information on her WeChat Moments was an in-job conduct or not was dependent on whether she had released such content for the implementation of work tasks, and it could be comprehensively determined by taking into combined consideration the nature of Wang Weiwei's WeChat Moments, and the specific accused content of the post, etc.
浦东法院经审理认为，微信朋友圈并非纯粹的私人社交场所，已具备市场推广、信息传播等功能。王唯唯发布被诉朋友圈信息的行为是否职务行为，取决于其是否为执行工作任务而发布该内容，可结合王唯唯微信朋友圈的性质、被诉朋友圈的具体内容等综合认定。
First, judging from Wang Weiwei's entire WeChat Moments, she had released a lot of marketing content about Laidian and its shared power banks, in addition to content related to her personal life. It could be seen that the relevant audience of her WeChat Moments included the customers or potential customers of Laidian. As a salesperson of Laidian, Wang Weiwei had published the above content in order to fulfill his duties as a salesperson and for the benefit of Laidian. Therefore, Wang Weiwei's WeChat Moments was not only a space for sharing personal life but also a place for marketing for Laidian.
首先，从王唯唯的整个微信朋友圈看，除了发布与个人生活相关的内容外，还有大量关于来电公司及其共享充电宝的营销内容。可见，其朋友圈的相关受众包括来电公司的客户或潜在客户。王唯唯作为来电公司的销售人员，其发布上述内容，系为了履行作为销售人员的职责及来电公司的利益。因此，王唯唯的微信朋友圈并不是纯粹的个人生活分享空间，其同时也是为来电公司进行市场营销的场所。
Second, judging from the source of the accused content, the Defendant Wang Weiwei claimed to have obtained it from a WeChat group of shared power bank practitioners. As a salesperson, Wang Weiwei had joined a WeChat group of practitioners of the industry the company was in, and edited the industry-related information obtained from the group and released it to her WeChat Moment, which was unlikely to be for personal life purposes.
其次，从被诉内容的来源来看，被告王唯唯称是从一个共享充电宝从业者的微信群中获取。王唯唯作为销售人员，加入公司所在行业的从业者微信群，并将从该群内获取的业内信息加以编辑后布到微信朋友圈，一般不大可能出于个人生活目的。
Also, from the specific expression of the accused content, it had directly involved the comparison and analysis of the products of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, indicating to the audience that the products of the Plaintiff had quality problems while those of the Defendant were of excellent quality. The content was not related to Wang Weiwei's personal affairs, in which Wang Weiwei did not have a direct personal interest, but would bring certain competitive benefits to Laidian.
再次，从被诉内容的具体表达来看，直接涉及到原、被告产品的对比分析，向受众表示原告产品存在质量问题而被告产品品质优良。该内容与王唯唯的私人事务无涉，王唯唯在其中并不享有直接的个人利益，但会给来电公司带来一定的竞争利益。
Therefore, it can be concluded that Wang Weiwei's posting of the accused content was an in-job conduct on behalf of Laidian, who should bear the corresponding responsibilities. As a salesperson of a competitor in the same industry, Wang Weiwei had published content which negatively evaluated the quality of the Plaintiff's products and indicated that the Defendant's products were superior to other competitors, without evidence or basis, and without any investigation or verification, which had constituted business disparagement and false publicity. The Defendant, Laidian, was thus ordered to pay the Plaintiff a compensation of RMB 120,000 and eliminate the adverse impact.
因此，可以认定王唯唯发布被诉内容系代表来电公司的职务行为，应由来电公司承担相应的责任。王唯唯作为同业竞争者的销售人员，在缺乏证据和依据，也未作任何调查核实的情况下，发布对原告产品质量进行负面评价且被告产品质量优于其他竞争者的内容，构成商业诋毁和虚假宣传。遂判决被告来电公司赔偿原告12万元并消除影响。
After the first instance judgment, the Defendants, Laidian and Wang Weiwei, appealed to Shanghai Intellectual Property Court. In the second instance, Shanghai Intellectual Property Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
一审判决后，被告来电公司、王唯唯向上海知识产权法院提起上诉。上海知识产权法院二审判决：驳回上诉，维持原判。
Typical Significance
典型意义
This case involves the determination of commercial disparagement committed by employees of a company through their personal social media accounts. WeChat Moments has now become an important channel for information dissemination, and a considerable number of operators have used WeChat Moments as a marketing place to release promotional content. From the perspective of content, WeChat Moments is not limited to the social sharing of personal life among specific subjects, but has already had the dual properties of personal socialization and market operation. When an employee of a company releases information that infringes on the rights and interests of a competitor of the company through WeChat Moments, the audience of the employee's social media account, the specific content and beneficiary of the information, and whether it is related to the will of the company should be taken into integrated consideration to decide whether it has constituted an in-job conduct.
本案涉及公司员工通过其个人社交账号实施商业诋毁行为的认定。微信朋友圈现已成为信息传播的重要渠道，相当多的经营者将微信朋友圈作为发布宣传推广内容的营销场所。从内容来看，微信朋友圈并非仅限于特定主体间个人生活的社交分享，已经具备具备个人社交和市场经营的双重属性。当公司员工通过微信朋友圈发布侵害公司竞争对手权益的信息时，要综合该员工社交账号的受众、信息的具体内容、受益人、是否与单位意志相关等因素认定是否构成职务行为。
In this case, the WeChat Moments of the Defendant, as an employee of Laidian, was not only a space for sharing personal life but also a place for marketing for the company. The accused content the employee has released was also not related to her personal affairs, nor has she enjoyed direct personal benefits from it. Therefore, it can be concluded that her posting of the accused content was an in-job conduct on behalf of the company, who should bear the corresponding responsibilities. Market operators should be impersonal, neutral and cautious when making critical comments about their competitors, and their freedom of speech should be more restricted than that of ordinary consumers and the news media.
本案中，被告某公司员工的微信朋友圈并不是纯粹的个人生活分享空间，其同时也是为来电公司进行市场营销的场所；该员工发布被诉侵权内容也与其私人事务无关，更不享有直接的个人利益，因此可以认定其发布被诉内容系代表公司的职务行为，应由公司承担相应的责任。市场经营者对竞争对手发表批评性言论时应客观、中立、审慎，其言论自由应受到相比普通消费者和新闻媒体而言更多的限制。
This case has been selected as a "Typical Case of Shanghai Pudong Court for the Judicial Protection of Foreign-Related Intellectual Property Rights".
本案入选“上海浦东法院涉外知识产权司法保护典型案件”。
英文投稿及市场合作：
jane.jiang@chinaipmagazine.com
18911449529（微信同号）
往期推荐