最高人民法院在2026年中国公平竞争政策宣传周期间发布了9件反不正当竞争典型案例1。本次发布围绕仿冒混淆、侵害技术秘密、商业诋毁、虚假宣传等重点法律问题，涉及传统消费、人工智能、新能源、平台经济等多个领域1。
在商标权和企业标识保护方面，一起案例明确将与他人注册商标相近似的商业标识作为企业名称中的字号登记使用构成不正当竞争1。另一起案例认定知名影视剧《狂飙》剧名构成"有一定影响的商业标识"，被告因不正当使用该标识被判赔500万元1。
技术秘密保护获得高额赔偿支持。一起案件判定被告利用他人技术秘密承揽工程项目获取的报酬可视为侵权获利，最终赔偿额达4458.49万元1。
网络竞争和平台治理方面，多起案例明确了新型不正当竞争行为的法律界限。恶意"转码重构"破坏他人网络产品正常运行被认定侵权，赔偿110万元1；提供抢单"物理外挂"破坏平台竞争秩序被判赔300万元1。
虚假宣传和商业诋毁的规制也获得关注。利用AI虚构他人产品测评文章搭车引流、篡改同行直播带货视频误导公众均构成不正当竞争1。恶意剪辑他人产品测评视频贬损竞争对手被判赔10万余元1，不实比较广告歪曲真实情况构成商业诋毁被判赔30万元1。这些案例旨在引导企业诚信经营、规范市场竞争秩序、保护科技创新1。
The Supreme People's Court has released nine landmark cases addressing unfair competition practices, unveiled during China's 2026 Fair Competition Policy Publicity Week held under the theme "United Market, Fair Competition Future."1 These cases target key legal issues including trademark counterfeiting, trade secret infringement, commercial disparagement, and false advertising across sectors such as traditional consumer goods, artificial intelligence, new energy, and platform economy.1
The cases illustrate a range of enforcement priorities. One ruling determined that registering a business identifier as a company name when it closely resembles another party's registered trademark constitutes unfair competition.1 Another case involved using another's trade secrets to secure engineering contracts; the court treated the resulting compensation as illegal gains and awarded damages of 44.5849 million yuan.1 A third case found that malicious "transcoding reconstruction" that disrupts a competitor's online product functionality resulted in 1.1 million yuan in damages.1 The name of the well-known television series "Hurrah" was recognized as a "business identifier with certain influence," leading to 5 million yuan in compensation.1
Additional rulings addressed emerging competitive harms. A defendant providing illegal "physical cheats" for order-grabbing on e-commerce platforms caused 3 million yuan in damages for disrupting platform competition.1 Another case involved fabricating product review articles using artificial intelligence to drive traffic, constituting unfair competition.1 Manipulating a competitor's live-streaming commerce video to mislead consumers was found to constitute false advertising.1 Maliciously editing a competitor's product review video to disparage competitors resulted in over 100,000 yuan in damages.1 Finally, misleading comparative advertising that distorted factual circumstances was deemed commercial disparagement, with 300,000 yuan awarded in compensation.1
评论
还没有评论，欢迎留下第一条。