Judgment Attached | Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court Releases Typical Cases of Intellectual Property Judicial Protection and Service Guarantee for the Development of New Quality Productive Forces in 2024

Case 1: Trade Secret Infringement Involving "Business Advisor" Data Product

The Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province, after trial, held that the data product "Business Advisor" involved in the case met the requirements of being unknown to the public, having commercial value, and adopting corresponding confidentiality measures, thus constituting a trade secret and should be protected as such. The "non-public knowledge" aspect, meaning "unknown to the public," is the most crucial element. The determination of "unknown to the public" includes three key aspects: "relevant personnel in the field," "generally known," and "easily accessible."

1. **Relevant Personnel in the Field**: The data that the right holder seeks to protect is commercial information within the "Business Advisor" product. "Business Advisor" is an e-commerce data product developed and operated by a certain Taobao company. "Relevant personnel in the field" should be defined as operators and related personnel in the e-commerce field, not the general public. As long as relevant personnel with competitive relationships cannot obtain the information, it should be considered non-public information.

2. **Generally Known**: "Generally known" means that the information has in fact been widely understood or mastered by most relevant personnel in the field, or is in a state accessible to an unspecified public in the field. This not only requires that the information constituting a trade secret objectively be in a non-public state, but also needs to be defined from the scope and degree of disclosure. In this case, the "Business Advisor" data commercial information is derivative data independently processed and analyzed by a certain Taobao company from scratch, and has never been disclosed in any way. Relevant personnel cannot obtain the relevant information through public channels. The "Business Advisor" data commercial information is only disclosed to specific and limited platform merchants, and is limited to their respective business fields. Other relevant personnel in the field do not have public channels to obtain this data information, and the scope of knowledge is only a part of the relevant personnel, not yet reaching a general level.

3. **Easily Accessible**: "Easily accessible" means that the data information constituting a trade secret cannot be easily obtained by relevant personnel in the field. The "Business Advisor" data service has specific targets, only merchants on Taobao and Tmall platforms. Other e-commerce platforms and other platform merchants cannot directly obtain it through public channels. Even Taobao and Tmall merchants still need to meet certain subscription conditions and pay a certain price to obtain the data. Since the "Business Advisor" data commercial information has derivative data attributes and its content changes in real time, a certain Taobao company has never disclosed its algorithm model. When the non-public nature of the original data and the non-public nature of the algorithm are simultaneously met, the "Business Advisor" data commercial information is naturally in a non-public state, and third parties cannot accurately estimate the real-time change trend and complete content of the "Business Advisor" data commercial information through direct or reverse engineering methods.

Miao XX violated confidentiality obligations by disclosing or assisting others in obtaining "Business Advisor" data, and his actions should be deemed to constitute an infringement of a certain Taobao company's trade secrets. The administrative penalty decision made by the Yuhang District Market Supervision Administration of Hangzhou City against Miao XX had legal enforcement procedures, clear facts, sufficient evidence, correct application of law, and no impropriety in the penalty result. The administrative reconsideration procedure of the Yuhang District People's Government of Hangzhou City was legal, and the reconsideration decision to uphold it was correct in law and appropriate in handling. The Hangzhou Intermediate People's Court of Zhejiang Province accordingly ruled to reject Miao XX's litigation request.

Case 2: Unfair Competition Involving "Photo-Sharing for Free Orders" Activity

The Yuhang District People's Court of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, organized a hearing in accordance with the law. After review, it held that the two applicants' application for pre-litigation behavioral preservation had factual and legal basis. Regarding the respondent's "photo-sharing for free orders" behavior, from the perspective of the behavior, Shanghai XX Information Company is not a buyer or seller in Taobao or Tmall platform transactions, and according to its special reminder in the identification report, "identification of objects is affected by image factors or may differ from physical identification, and the conclusion is subject to the physical object," it can be seen that it cannot guarantee the authenticity and objectivity of the identification conclusions made within the APP, nor can it objectively guarantee that the evaluated goods or services are actually related to the transaction order for which the identification report was uploaded. In this situation, Shanghai XX Information Company still launched the "photo-sharing for free orders" activity within its APP, which is subjectively difficult to be considered in good faith, and the manner of behavior is also unreasonable.

From the consequences of Shanghai XX Information Company's "photo-sharing for free orders" behavior, the appearance of such identification report screenshots in the comment sections of Taobao and Tmall platforms will cause consumers to be confused about the quality and grade of the goods or services under the evaluated transaction, infringing on consumers' right to know. According to the evidence in the case, the accused APP issued identification reports with different numbers based on some identical images, and these identification reports were uploaded by the same user under different merchant product links, with the largest number reaching 17. These identification reports, which were derived from identical images but had different numbers and all concluded as "identification passed," are objectively questionable and their relevance is doubtful. Moreover, when these reports are used in the comment sections of different merchants and different products, the objectivity of the comment content and its relevance to the commented transaction order are both questionable. If these potentially irrelevant and subjective comments fill the comment sections, it will inevitably harm the legitimate rights and interests of other normal and honest merchants, and will also increase the management costs for e-commerce platforms to identify, prevent, and intercept suspicious or even false data.

Furthermore, if these evaluation data are mixed into the evaluation system, it will lead to distortion of user evaluation data, ultimately polluting the evaluation data system, and thus interfering with the decision-making of merchants and e-commerce platform operators and harming their competitive advantages. The "photo-sharing for free orders" behavior can also enhance the exposure of Shanghai XX Information Company's APP on other e-commerce platforms, and there is a possibility of improperly seizing transaction opportunities from other normally operating platforms, thereby harming the normal market competition order among e-commerce platforms.

In summary, Shanghai XX Information Company's actions involved in the case are suspected of constituting unfair competition. Taobao Company and Tmall Company's requests in the case have factual and legal basis and a possibility of winning. According to the evidence in the case, after receiving the applicant's notice letter and the hearing copy of this case, although the "photo-sharing for free orders" rules no longer contain Taobao and Tmall logo guidance, and there are no Taobao and Tmall icons on the "photo-sharing for free orders" page, the respondent still approves the evaluation screenshots uploaded on Taobao and Tmall platforms, and users can still obtain free identification coupons. Objectively, Shanghai XX Information Company still allows the "photo-sharing for free orders" activity to continue on Taobao and Tmall platforms.

If the aforementioned behavior continues, it will inevitably lead to a continuous expansion of the scope of damage suffered by the applicants. This situation will increase Taobao Company and Tmall Company's investment in maintaining their evaluation system governance, and also aggravate the degree of damage to Taobao Company and Tmall Company's platform evaluation system. Therefore, the respondent's alleged infringing behavior has a significant possibility of increasing the damage to Taobao Company and Tmall Company, and this damage is irreversible. There is a necessity for behavioral preservation in this case.

The behavioral preservation measures taken in this case do not affect the normal operation of Shanghai XX Information Company's platform business, nor do they affect its normal provision of identification services, so the damage to Shanghai XX Information Company's rights and interests is limited. There is also no situation in this case that harms public interests, and the two applicants have provided corresponding guarantees. In summary, the Yuhang District People's Court of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, ruled that Shanghai XX Information Company immediately cease the "photo-sharing for free orders" activity implemented on its platform targeting Taobao and Tmall platforms. The validity of this ruling shall be maintained until the judgment in this case becomes effective.

本文由AI辅助翻译

This article was translated with AI assistance.