北京高院发布《涉及网络知识产权案件审理指南》附全文(中英文对照)

 中青在线北京4月13日电(中国青年报·中青在线记者王亦君 实习生吴洋)  今后，网络平台服务商在提供网络服务时，教唆或者帮助网络卖家实施侵害商标权行为的，应与网络卖家承担连带责任。北京市高级人民法院发布《涉及网络知识产权案件审理指南》，对涉及网络知识产权案件的审理进行规范。

    北京高院民三庭庭长助理潘伟介绍，2015年，北京市法院新收一审知识产权民事案件同比增长了24.1%，其中涉及网络的知识产权案件占到了较大比例，公众对涉及网络的知识产权司法保护提出了新的需求，因此，北京市高院推出《涉及网络知识产权案件审理指南》(以下简称指南)。

    指南有三个部分，涉及网络著作权、商标权、不正当竞争纠纷中的热点、难点法律问题。

    潘伟表示，利用网络进行商品营销已经成为广泛使用的市场经营模式，但是其中有关平台服务商的行为属性与责任的判断一直是司法实践的难点问题。

    她提出，在涉及网络商标权部分，指南确定了平台服务商对网络卖家的具体信息负有举证证明的责任。如果平台服务商故意以言语、推介技术支持、奖励积分、提供优惠服务等方式诱导、鼓励网络卖家实施侵害商标权行为的，可以认定其构成教唆网络卖家实施侵权行为；平台服务商知道网络卖家利用网络服务侵害他人商标权，未采取删除、屏蔽、断开链接等必要措施，或者仍提供技术、服务支持等帮助行为的，可以认定其构成帮助网络卖家实施侵权行为。实施这两种行为的平台服务商应当与网络卖家承担连带责任。

    指南规定，在判断平台服务商是否“知道”网络卖家利用其网络服务实施侵害商标权行为标准时，这种“知道”包括“明知”和“应知”，如被控侵权交易信息位于网站首页、栏目首页或者其他明显可见位置；平台服务商主动对被控侵权交易信息进行了编辑、选择、整理、排名、推荐或者修改等；权利人的通知足以使平台服务商知道被控侵权交易信息或者交易行为通过其网络服务进行传播或者实施；以明显不合理的价格出售或者提供知名商品或者服务等，法院在认定是否侵权时，会予以综合考虑。

    除商标权外，指南还规定了涉及网络著作权、不正当竞争纠纷的有关问题。关于网络著作权部分，主要规定了著作权人和网络服务提供者举证证明责任的分配、网络服务提供者行为性质的认定、“分工合作”的判定方式、侵权要件与免责要件的适用关系、网页“快照”的合理使用、网络实时转播行为的法律适用等六大类问题。

    关于网络不正当竞争部分，主要对该类纠纷的基本判定规则、“公认的商业道德”的认定、有关反不正当竞争法第二条、虚假宣传行为和商业诋毁行为的具体认定情形、“竞价排名”行为的法律规制、赔偿额计算等五大类问题进行了规定。

北京市高级人民法院关于涉及网络知识产权案件的审理指南

一、涉及网络著作权部分

1、原告主张被告单独或者与他人共同实施了提供涉案作品、表演、录音录像制品行为的，应承担举证证明责任。

原告举证证明通过被告网站能够播放、下载或者以其他方式获得涉案作品、表演、录音录像制品，被告仍主张其未实施提供行为的，由被告承担相应的举证证明责任。

2、原告可以采取公证等方式举证证明被告网站内容，但应保证其取证步骤及相关网页的完整性。

3、对网络服务提供者实施具体行为性质的认定，可以通过现场勘验的方式，并结合原告、被告双方的证据，依照法律规定，运用逻辑推理和经验法则，综合进行判断。

4、原告在起诉时未明确主张被告行为是构成信息网络传播行为，还是构成为他人的信息网络传播行为提供教唆、帮助，且在法庭辩论终结前仍未明确的，应结合原告、被告双方诉辩意见、在案证据等，对被告实施的行为性质进行全面审查。

5、被告主张其仅提供信息存储空间、搜索、链接等网络技术服务的，应承担举证证明责任。

被告应当就涉案作品、表演、录音录像制品的提供主体或者其与提供主体之间的关系提供相应证据，否则可以认定其并非仅提供网络技术服务。

被告未提供证据或者提供的证据不足以证明其系仅提供信息存储空间、搜索、链接等网络技术服务的，可以认定被告实施了提供作品、表演、录音录像制品的行为。

6、被告主张提供信息存储空间服务的，可以综合下列因素予以认定：

（1）被告提供的证据可以证明其网站具备为服务对象提供信息存储空间服务的功能；

（2）被告网站中的相关内容明确标示了为服务对象提供信息存储空间服务；

（3）被告能够提供上传者的用户名、注册IP地址、注册时间、上传IP地址、联系方式以及上传时间、上传信息等证据；

（4）其他能够证明被告提供信息存储空间服务的因素。

7、被告能够举证证明存在以下情形之一的，可以认定其提供的是链接服务：

（1）涉案作品、表演、录音录像制品的播放是自被告网站跳转至第三方网站进行的；

（2）涉案作品、表演、录音录像制品的播放虽在被告网站进行，但其提供的证据足以证明涉案作品、表演、录音录像制品置于第三方网站的；

（3）可以认定被告提供的是链接服务的其他情形。

8、未经许可以分工合作方式共同提供作品、表演、录音录像制品的行为，属于直接侵害信息网络传播权的行为。

各被告之间或者被告与他人之间具有共同提供涉案作品、表演、录音录像制品的主观意思联络，且为实现前述主观意思联络客观上实施了相应行为的，可以认定构成前款所规定情形。

9、各被告之间或者被告与他人之间存在体现合作意愿的协议等证据，或者基于在案证据能够证明各方在内容合作、利益分享等方面紧密相联的，可以认定各方具有共同提供涉案作品、表演、录音录像制品的主观意思联络，但被告能够证明其根据技术或者商业模式的客观需求，仅系提供技术服务的除外。

10、单独或者以分工合作等方式共同提供作品、表演、录音录像制品的行为，不适用有关网络服务提供者的免责条款。

11、侵权责任法第三十六条属于侵权责任构成要件条款。

信息网络传播权保护条例第二十条、第二十一条、第二十二条、第二十三条属于网络服务提供者侵权损害赔偿责任免责条款。

不符合前述免责条件的,应根据侵权责任法第三十六条判断网络服务提供者是否应当承担损害赔偿责任。

12、网页“快照”服务提供者以搜索、链接或者系统缓存为由提出不侵权抗辩的，不予支持。

13、网页“快照”服务提供行为侵权的认定，与“快照”来源网页内容是否侵权无关。

14、判断网页“快照”提供行为是否属于不影响相关作品的正常使用，且未不合理损害权利人对该作品合法权益情形的，可以综合考虑以下因素：

（1）提供网页“快照”的主要用途；

（2）原告是否能够通过通知删除等方法，最大限度地缩小损害范围；

（3）原告是否已明确通知被告删除网页“快照”；

（4）被告是否在知道涉嫌侵权的情况下，仍未及时采取任何措施；

（5）被告是否从网页“快照”提供行为中直接获取利益；

（6）其他相关因素。

15、被告未经许可实施网络实时转播行为，原告依据著作权法第十条第一款第（十七）项主张追究被告侵权责任的，应予支持。

16、利用手机、平板电脑等移动终端，通过信息网络侵害他人著作权的行为，适用本部分的规定。

二、涉及网络商标权部分

17、平台服务商是指为交易信息和交易行为提供网络平台服务的主体。

18、在认定平台服务商是否应承担侵害商标权的法律责任时，要兼顾权利人、平台服务商、网络卖家、社会公众的利益。

19、平台服务商通常情况下不具有事先审查网络交易信息或者交易行为合法性的义务，但应根据其所属行业提供服务的性质、方式、内容以及通常应具备的信息管理能力和经营能力等，采取必要的、合理的、适当的措施防止侵害商标权行为的发生。

20、原告有初步证据证明平台服务商提供被控侵权交易信息或者实施交易行为侵害其商标权，但平台服务商能够证明该交易信息或者交易行为系由网络卖家提供或者实施，平台服务商无过错的，不应认定平台服务商承担侵权责任。

平台服务商提供能够确定网络卖家的主体身份、联系方式、网络地址等证据的，可以初步认定被控侵权交易信息或者交易行为系由网络卖家提供或者实施。

平台服务商不提供证据或者无法举证证明，被控侵权交易信息或者交易行为系由网络卖家提供或者实施的，可以认定其直接提供了被控侵权交易信息或者实施了交易行为。

21、平台服务商在提供网络服务时，教唆或者帮助网络卖家实施侵害商标权行为的，应当与网络卖家承担连带责任。

平台服务商故意以言语、推介技术支持、奖励积分、提供优惠服务等方式诱导、鼓励网络卖家实施侵害商标权行为的，可以认定其构成教唆网络卖家实施侵权行为。

平台服务商知道网络卖家利用网络服务侵害他人商标权，未采取删除、屏蔽、断开链接等必要措施，或者仍提供技术、服务支持等帮助行为的，可以认定其构成帮助网络卖家实施侵权行为。

22、权利人通知平台服务商采取删除、屏蔽、断开链接等必要措施阻止网络卖家侵害其商标权的，应以书面形式或者平台服务商公示的方式向平台服务商发出通知。

前款通知的内容应当能够使平台服务商确定被控侵权的具体情况且有理由相信存在侵害商标权的可能性较大。通知应包含以下内容：

（1）权利人的姓名、有效联系方式等具体情况；

（2）能够准确定位被控侵权内容的相关信息；

（3）商标权权属证明及所主张的侵权事实；

（4）权利人对通知内容真实性负责的声明。

23、平台服务商根据权利人发送的通知，知道网络卖家利用其网络服务实施侵害商标权行为的，应当及时采取删除、屏蔽、断开链接等必要措施。

必要措施是否及时、合理、适当，应当根据网络服务的性质、通知的形式和内容、侵害商标权的情节、技术条件等因素综合判断。

24、平台服务商在采取必要措施后，应当在合理期限内将采取措施的情况明确告知网络卖家。超过合理期限，且平台服务商存在过错，导致网络卖家产生损失的，应当承担赔偿责任。

25、因权利人错误通知导致平台服务商采取删除、屏蔽、断开链接等必要措施，致使网络卖家发生损失的，网络卖家有权要求权利人承担赔偿责任。

26、平台服务商“知道”网络卖家利用其网络服务实施侵害商标权行为，包括“明知”和“应知”。

认定平台服务商知道网络卖家利用网络服务侵害他人商标权，可以综合考虑以下因素：

（1）被控侵权交易信息位于网站首页、栏目首页或者其他明显可见位置；

（2）平台服务商主动对被控侵权交易信息进行了编辑、选择、整理、排名、推荐或者修改等；

（3）权利人的通知足以使平台服务商知道被控侵权交易信息或者交易行为通过其网络服务进行传播或者实施；

（4）平台服务商针对相同网络卖家就同一权利的重复侵权行为未采取相应的合理措施；

（5）被控侵权交易信息中存在网络卖家的侵权自认；

（6）以明显不合理的价格出售或者提供知名商品或者服务；

（7）平台服务商从被控侵权交易信息的网络传播或者被控侵权交易行为中直接获得经济利益；

（8）平台服务商知道被控侵权交易信息或者交易行为侵害他人商标权的其他因素。

27、平台服务商从被控侵权交易信息的网络传播或者被控侵权交易行为中直接获得经济利益，是指平台服务商针对该特定交易信息或者交易行为投放广告，提取相应比例收入，或者获取与该特定交易信息或者交易行为存在其他直接联系的经济利益。

平台服务商因提供网络服务而收取一般性广告费、行业内通常标准的技术服务费、行业内惯有商业模式的服务费、管理费等，不属于前款规定的情形。

28、认定利用信息网络通过应用软件提供的商品或者服务，与他人注册商标核定使用的商品或者服务是否构成相同或者类似，应结合应用软件具体提供服务的目的、内容、方式、对象等方面综合进行确定，不应当然认定其与计算机软件商品或者互联网服务构成类似商品或者服务。

三、涉及网络不正当竞争部分

29、涉及网络不正当竞争纠纷，是指经营者直接或者间接通过信息网络实施不正当竞争行为而引起的纠纷。

30、审理涉及网络不正当竞争纠纷，应依法行使裁量权，兼顾经营者、消费者、社会公众的利益，鼓励商业模式创新，确保市场公平和自由竞争。

经营者的被控行为系仅属于侵害他人著作权、商标权、专利权等法律明文规定的权利情形的，不应再适用反不正当竞争法进行调整。

31、经营者之间具有下列关系之一，可能损害原告合法权益，造成交易机会和竞争优势变化的，可以认定具有竞争关系：

（1）经营的商品或者服务具有直接或者间接的替代关系；

（2）经营活动存在相互交叉、依存或者其他关联的关系。

32、被告通过信息网络实施的被控不正当竞争行为，属于反不正当竞争法第二章所规定的具体情形的，则不应再适用该法第二条的规定进行调整。

33、在涉及网络不正当竞争纠纷中，公认的商业道德是指特定行业的经营者普遍认同的、符合消费者利益和社会公共利益的经营规范和道德准则。

在对公认的商业道德进行认定时，应当以特定行业普遍认同和接受的经济人伦理标准为尺度，且应当符合反不正当竞争法第一条所规定的立法目的。

34、对公认的商业道德进行认定时，可以综合参考下列内容：

（1）信息网络行业的特定行业惯例；

（2）行业协会或者自律组织根据行业特点、竞争需求所制定的从业规范或者自律公约；

（3）信息网络行业的技术规范；

（4）对公认的商业道德进行认定时可以参考的其他内容。

35、被告通过信息网络实施下列行为之一，足以损害原告合法权益、扰乱正常的市场经营秩序、违背公平竞争原则、且违反诚实信用原则和公认的商业道德的，可以认定为反不正当竞争法第二条规定的不正当竞争行为：

（1）未经许可且无正当理由，使用能够为原告增加交易机会和竞争优势的网站内容，并足以替代消费者访问内容来源网站的；

（2）未经许可且无正当理由，使用反不正当竞争法第五条所规定之外的原告商业标识，导致消费者误认的；

（3）未经许可且无正当理由，修改原告搜索栏中的下拉提示词，直接影响原告交易机会的；

（4）未经许可且无正当理由，利用原告网站的访问量，在其界面插入广告的；

（5）无正当理由，中断、阻止或者以其他方式破坏原告经营活动的；

（6）其他构成反不正当竞争法第二条规定的情形。

36、被告通过信息网络实施下列行为之一，足以造成相关公众误解的，可以认定为反不正当竞争法第九条第一款规定的引人误解的虚假宣传行为：

（1）在宣传自身及其相关产品或者服务时，明显违背客观事实的；

（2）在宣传自身及其相关产品或者服务时，使用“国家级”、“最高级”、“最佳”等用语的；

（3）将自身及其产品或者服务与原告及其相关产品或者服务进行对比介绍，使用片面、虚假描述的；

（4）在宣传、介绍自身及其产品或者服务时，所引述的相关内容系由他人提供，但该内容明显缺乏依据的；

（5）其他构成虚假宣传的情形。

37、被告通过信息网络实施下列行为之一，足以损害原告商业信誉、商品声誉的，可以认定为反不正当竞争法第十四条规定的商业诋毁行为：

（1）披露原告负面信息时，存在虚构、歪曲、夸大等情形，误导相关公众对原告作出负面评价的；

（2）披露原告负面信息时，虽能举证证明该信息属客观、真实，但披露方式显属不当，且足以误导相关公众从而产生错误评价的；

（3）以言语、奖励积分、提供奖品或者优惠服务等方式，鼓励、诱导网络用户对原告作出负面评价的；

（4）其他构成商业诋毁的情形。

38、认定被告购买、使用竞价排名服务的行为是否构成不正当竞争行为时，可以综合考虑以下因素：

（1）是否未经许可使用了原告或者其利害关系人的能够标示商品或者服务品质、来源的商业标识，作为竞价排名关键词；

（2）使用他人商业标识作为竞价排名关键词是否具有正当理由；

（3）在搜索结果列表中所显示的标题、网页内容介绍中是否包含该关键词；

（4）通过搜索结果进入的被告网页是否包含该关键词；

（5）是否足以导致归属于原告的交易机会或者竞争优势变化，致使原告合法权益受到损害。

39、搜索引擎服务提供者提供的竞价排名服务，属信息检索服务。

40、在提供竞价排名服务的过程中，搜索引擎服务提供者未实施选择、整理、推荐、编辑关键词等行为的，其对竞价排名服务中所使用的关键词等不负有全面、主动审查的义务，但明显违背法律、法规规定的除外。

对于利用竞价排名服务实施的不正当竞争行为，原告有权通知搜索引擎服务提供者采取删除、屏蔽、断开链接等必要措施。搜索引擎服务提供者接到通知后未及时采取必要措施的，对损害的扩大部分与实施不正当竞争行为的经营者承担连带责任。

搜索引擎服务提供者知道他人利用竞价排名服务实施不正当竞争行为，未采取必要措施的，应当与其承担连带责任。

41、根据反不正当竞争法第二条确定被告承担损害赔偿责任的，应按照原告的实际损失确定赔偿数额；实际损失难以确定的，可以按照被告所获得的利润确定。

依据前款规定，原告因不正当竞争行为所受到的实际损失难以确定的，应当要求其对被告所获得的利润进行举证；在原告已经提供被告所获得利润的初步证据，而与不正当竞争行为相关的账簿、资料、后台数据主要由被告掌握的情况下，可以责令被告提供与不正当竞争行为相关的账簿、资料、后台数据；被告无正当理由拒不提供或者提供虚假的账簿、资料、后台数据的，可以根据原告的主张和提供的证据认定被告所获得的利润。

被告所获得的利润可以依据不正当竞争行为持续时间、范围、用户访问量、相关广告或者其他形式的收益等综合予以确定。

42、被告通过信息网络实施的不正当竞争行为给原告商业信誉、商品声誉造成负面影响的，可以责令被告消除影响。

消除影响的责任承担方式，应当与不正当竞争行为的情节和方式、持续时间、危害后果的影响范围等相适应。

Guidelines of the Beijing High People’s Court for

Adjudication of Network-related IP Cases[1]

(The Chinese text of the Guidelines shall prevall in case of inconsistency)

Section I: Network-related Copyright

1.The plaintiff who asserts that the defendant has conducted, individually or jointly with others, an act of providing works, performances, or audio or video recordings at issue shall bear the burden of proof.

Where the plaintiff provides evidence proving that the works, performances, or audio or video recordings at issue can be played, downloaded, or obtained by other means via the defendant’s website, the defendant, who asserts nonetheless that he did not conduct the alleged act, shall bear the burden of proof accordingly.

2. The plaintiff may provide evidence identifying the contents of the defendant’s website by methods such as notarization, but should ensure the completeness of both the evidence collection steps and related web pages.

3. The nature of the act conducted by the network service provider may be determined by making an overall judgment by way of inspecting the scene, taking into consideration of the evidence provided by both the plaintiff and the defendant, following the provisions of law and applying logical reasoning and empirical rules.

4. Where the plaintiff, at the time of filing a lawsuit, fails to clarify his claim as to whether the defendant has conducted an act of communication through information network, or an act of abetting or assisting others to communicate through information network, and still leaves his claim ambiguous before the end of the court debate, a comprehensive examination on the nature of the act conducted by the defendant shall be made based on the opinion presented by both the plaintiff and the defendant as well as the evidence on record.

5. The defendant, who asserts that he merely provides network technical services, such as information storage space, searching and linking, shall bear the burden of proof.

The defendant should provide evidence related to the provider of the works, performances, or audio or video recordings at issue, or his relationship with that provider. Otherwise, it may be determined that the defendant provides more than network technical services.

Where the defendant provides no evidence or the evidence provided thereby is insufficient to prove that the defendant merely provides network technical services, such as information storage space, searching and linking, it may be determined that the defendant conducts the act of providing the works, performances, or audio or video recordings.

6.Where the defendant asserts that he provides information storage space, a determination may be made by taking the following factors into comprehensive consideration:

(1) the evidence provided by the defendant can prove that his website is able to provide information storage space to service recipient;

(2) the relevant contents of the defendant’s website clearly indicate he provides the information storage space to a service recipient;

(3) the defendant can provide evidence such as user IDs of uploaders, IP addresses of registration, time of registration, IP addresses of uploading, contact information, as well as time of uploading, and the information uploaded, etc.; and

(4) other factors that can prove that the defendant provides information storage space.

7.Where the defendant can provide evidence in support of any of the following circumstances, it may be determined that the defendant provides linking services:

(1) works, performances, or audio or video recordings at issue are played on a third party website, redirected from the defendant’s website;

(2) works, performances, or audio or video recordings at issue are played on the defendant’s website, but there is sufficient evidence proving that the works, performances, or audio or video recordings at issue are stored on a third party website; and

(3) any other circumstance under which the services provided by the defendant may be determined as linking services.

8.Unauthorized act of jointly providing works, performances, or audio or video recordings at issue by way of division of labor is an act of direct infringement upon the right of communication through information network.

Where there is an intention liaison among the defendants or between the defendant and others to jointly provide works, performances, or audio or video recordings at issue, and have objectively conducted such an act accordingly for that purpose, it may be determined that the said act falls within the circumstances stipulated in the preceding paragraph.

9.Where there exists evidence, such as an agreement showing the willingness to cooperate among the defendants or between the defendant and others, or evidence on record proving that the parties are closely associated with each other in content cooperation and benefit sharing, it may be determined that there is an intention liaison among the parties to jointly provide works, performances, or audio or video recordings at issue, except that the defendant can prove that he merely provides technical services as required by the technical or business model.

10. Exemption provisions concerning network service providers shall not apply to the act of providing works, performances, or audio or video recordings at issue either individually or jointly by way of division of labor.

11.

Article 36 of the Tort Liability Law is a provision relating to constitutive requirements of tort liabilities.

Rules 20, 21, 22, and 23 of Regulations on the Protection of Right of Communication through Information Network serve as the exemption provisions that exempt the network service provider from liability for damages for infringement.

Where the said exemption provisions are not met, Article 36 of the Tort Liability Law shall apply to determine whether the network service provider is liable for damages.

12.Plea fornon-infringement made by webpage “snapshot” service provider on the grounds of searching, linking, or system caching shall not be supported.

13. Whether the contents of the source webpage of a “snapshot” constitutes an infringement is irrelevant in determining infringement resulting from an act of providing webpage “snapshot” service.

14. In determining whether an act of providing webpage “snapshot” service falls within the circumstances under which a regular use of relevant works is not affected and the right holders’ legitimate rights to the works and interests in the works are not unreasonably impaired, the following factors may be taken into comprehensive consideration:

(1) the primary purpose of providing the webpage “snapshot”;

(2) whether the plaintiff can take measures, such as notice and take down, to mitigate damages to the maximum extent;

(3) whether the plaintiff has explicitly notified the defendant to take down the webpage “snapshot”;

(4) whether the defendant still fails to take any measures timely upon knowing that his act is suspected of infringement;

(5) whether the defendant directly gains benefits from the act of providing the webpage “snapshot”; and

(6) other related factors.

15. Where the defendant offers, without authorization, online real-time broadcast, the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant for infringement according to Article 10, paragraph 1, item (17) of the Copyright Law, shall be supported.

16. The provisions in this Section shall apply to the act of infringing other’s copyright through information network using mobile terminals such as mobile phones and tablet computers.

Section II: Network-related Trademark

17. “Platform service provider” refers to an entity which provides network platform service for transaction information and transaction acts.

18. In determining whether a platform service provider shall be held liable for trademark infringement, consideration shall be given to the interests of the right holder, the platform service provider, the online seller, and the general public.

19. Generally, the platform service provider shall not be obligated to check the legitimacy of on-line transaction information or transaction acts beforehand. However, the platform service provider shall take necessary, reasonable, and appropriate measures to prevent trademark infringement, according to the nature, manners, and contents of services provided by its pertinent industry, and information management capabilities and business management capabilities generally required for the platform service provider.

20. Where the plaintiff has preliminary evidence to prove that a platform service provider provides the alleged infringing transaction information or commits a transaction act infringing his trademark, if the platform service provider can prove that the transaction information is provided or the transaction act is conducted by an online seller and the platform service provider is not at fault, the platform service provider shall not be held liable for infringement.

Where the platform service provider can provide evidence identifying the identity, contact information, network address, etc. of the online seller, it may be preliminarily determined that the alleged infringing transaction information is provided or the transaction act is conducted by the online seller.

Where the platform service provider provides no evidence or fails to prove that the alleged infringing transaction information is provided or the transaction act is conducted by an online seller, it may be determined that the platform service provider directly provides the alleged infringing transaction information or directly conducts the transaction act.

21. Where the platform service provider abets or assists the online seller to commit an act of trademark infringement in the course of providing network service, the platform service provider, together with the online seller, shall be held jointly and severally liable.

Where the platform service provider intentionally induces and encourages the online seller to commit an act of trademark infringement by means of language, technical support for recommendation and introduction, bonus point, preferential service, etc., it may be determined that the platform service provider commits the act of abetting the infringement of the online seller .

Where the platform service provider knows that the online seller infringes other’s trademark by using the network services, but does not take necessary measures such as removing, blocking, and disconnecting the website link, or still provides assistance by way of technical and service support, it may be determined that his act assists in the infringement of the online seller.

22. Where the right holder notifies the platform service provider to take necessary measures to remove, block, and disconnect the link to prevent the online seller from infringing his trademark, he shall deliver to the platform service provider such notification in writing or another form provided by the platform service provider.

The contents of the notification as mentioned in the preceding paragraph should enable the platform service provider to determine the specific circumstances of the alleged infringement and to have reasons to believe that there is a high likelihood of trademark infringement. The notification shall include the following contents:

(1) detailed information, such as name and effective contact information of the right holder;

(2) relevant information capable of accurately locating the alleged infringing contents;

(3) proof of trademark ownership and the alleged infringing facts; and

(4) declaration by the right holder guaranteeing the authenticity of the contents in the notification.

23. Where the platform service provider knows, based on the notification delivered by the right holder, that the online seller is committing an act of trademark infringement by using the network service provided by the platform service provider, the platform service provider shall timely take necessary measures such as removing, blocking, and disconnecting the website link.

Judgment on whether necessary measures are taken in a timely, reasonable and appropriate manner shall be made by taking into comprehensive consideration the factors such as the nature of network service, form and contents of the notification, circumstances of the trademark infringement, and technical conditions.

24.After taking necessary measures, the platform service provider shall, within a reasonable time period, clearly inform the online seller of the measures taken. Where a reasonable time period has expired, and the platform service provider is at fault for causing damages to the online seller, the platform service provider shall be held liable for such damages.

25. Where the platform service provider has taken necessary measures to remove, block, and disconnect the website link owing to incorrect notification from the right holder, thereby causing damages to the online seller, the online seller has the right to request the right holder to bear the liability for damages.

26. That the platform service provider “knows” the trademark infringement committed by the online seller using network service provided by the platform service provider includes “clearly know” and “ought to know”.

The following factors may be taken into comprehensive consideration in determining that a platform service provider knows that an online seller is infringing other’s trademarks by utilizing the network service:

(1) the alleged infringing transaction information is placed on the homepage of the website, the homepage of a column or other noticeable locations;

(2) the platform service provider has taken the initiative in editing, selecting, sorting out, ranking, recommending, or revising the alleged infringing transaction information;

(3) the notification of the right holder is sufficient to enable the platform service provider to know that the alleged infringing transaction information is disseminated or the alleged infringing transaction act is committed using the network service provided by the platform service provider;

(4) the platform service provider fails to take reasonable measures accordingly against the repeated acts of infringement upon the same right committed by the same online seller;

(5) the alleged infringing transaction information contains admission of infringement by the online seller;

(6) well-known goods or services are sold or offered at an obviously unreasonable price;

(7) the platform service provider has directly gained economic benefits from the network dissemination of the alleged infringing transaction information or the alleged infringing transaction act; and

(8) other factors that enable the platform service provider to know that the alleged infringing transaction information or the transaction act has infringed other’s trademarks.

27. The platform service provider’s direct gains of benefits from the network dissemination of the alleged transaction information, or the alleged transaction act refers to the circumstances under which the platform service provider has posted advertisement for such specific transaction information, or the transaction act and withdraws corresponding proportion of benefits, or obtains economic benefits that have other direct connection with the specific transaction information or the transaction act.

Advertising fees, technical service fees, service fees and management fees which followed ordinary standard in the industry charged by a platform service provider for providing network service do not belong to the circumstances stipulated in the preceding paragraph.

28. Determination of whether goods or services provided by application software and through information network are identical with or similar to goods or services designated under other’s registered trademark should be made based on the purposes, contents, manners, and objects of the services specifically provided by the application software, and it should not be certainly determined that the former is similar to computer software goods or internet services.

Section III: Network-related Unfair Competition

29.A network-related unfair competition dispute refers to the one arising from an unfair competition act directly or indirectly committed by undertakings through information network.

30.

In adjudication of the network-related unfair competition dispute, discretion shall be excised according to the law, with consideration given to the interests of undertakings, customers and the general public, for the purpose of encouraging the innovation of business models, and ensuring the market fairness and free competition.

Where the alleged act of a business operator merely infringes other’s rights explicitly specified in laws such as copyrights, trademarks and patents, the Anti-unfair Competition Law shall not be applied.

31. Where there exists between undertakings one of the following relationships that may impair the plaintiff’s legitimate rights and interests and give rise to a change in transaction opportunities and competitive advantages, a competitive relationship may be determined as having existed:

(1) the goods or services of the undertakings can be replaced with each other in direct or indirect way; and

(2) business activities of the undertakings may be overlapped, interdependent, or associated in other ways.

32.Where the defendant’s alleged unfair competition act committed through information network falls in the specific circumstances stipulated in the provisions of Chapter 2 of the Anti-unfair Competition Law, Article 2 of the aforementioned law shall not be applied.

33.In respect of network-related unfair competition disputes, publicly recognized business ethics refer to business norms and moral codes that are generally accepted by the undertakings in a specific industry, and satisfy the interests of consumers and the general public.

In determining the publicly recognized business ethics, ethical standards of “economic man” generally recognized and accepted in a specific industry shall be followed, and the legislative intent of Article 1 of the Anti-unfair Competition Law shall be followed.

34. In determining the publicly recognized business ethics, reference may be made to the following factors:

(1) specific industry practices in information network industry;

(2) industrial regulations or self-regulatory norms developed by industry associations or self-regulatory organizations according to the characteristics and competitive demands of the industry;

(3) technical standards in information network industry; and

(4) other contents that shall be referenced in determining the publicly recognized business ethics.

35. Where the defendant conducts any of the following acts through information network that is sufficient to impair the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff, disturb normal market operation order, violate the principle of fair competition, and violate the principle of good faith and publicly recognized business ethics, the said act may be deemed as an unfair competition act under Article 2 of the Anti-unfair Competition Law:

(1) without authorization and justified reasons, using the contents of a website that can increase transactional opportunities and competitive advantages for the plaintiff to an extent that is sufficient to substitute the consumers’ visit to the plaintiff’s original website;

(2) without authorization and justified reasons, using the plaintiff’s commercial signs other than those prescribed by Article 5 of the Anti-unfair Competition Law, which cause confusion among the consumers;

(3) without authorization and justified reasons, modifying the drop-down keywords in the plaintiff’s search bar, so as to directly affect the plaintiff’s transactional opportunities;

(4) without authorization and justified reasons, making use of the plaintiff’s website traffic to insert advertisements in the interface;

(5) without justified reasons, disrupting business activities of the plaintiff by way of interruption, impeding, or any other means;

(6) other circumstances as provided for in Article 2 of the Anti-unfair Competition Law.

36. Where the defendant conducts any of the following acts through information network that is sufficient to mislead the relevant public, the said act may be deemed as false advertising under Article 9, paragraph one of the Anti-unfair Competition Law:

(1) acting obviously contrary to the objective facts when publicizing the defendant and goods or services provided thereby;

(2) using expressions, such as “national”, “highest” or “best” when publicizing the defendant and goods or services provided thereby;

(3) using biased and false descriptions when introducing the defendant and goods or services provided thereby in comparison with the plaintiff and goods or services provided thereby;

(4) using the contents provided by others that are obviously groundless when publicizing and introducing the defendant and goods or services provided thereby; and

(5) other circumstances that constitute false advertising.

37. Where the defendant conducts any of the following acts through information network that is sufficient to damage the plaintiff’s commercial reputation or the reputation of goods, the said act may be deemed as commercial defamation under Article 14 of the Anti-unfair Competition Law:

(1) in the course of disclosing the plaintiff’s negative information, fabricating, misrepresenting and exaggerating the facts so as to mislead the relevant public into making negative comments about the plaintiff;

(2) in the course of disclosing the plaintiff’s negative information, although there is evidence proving that the information is objective and truthful, the information is disclosed in an obviously inappropriate way, which is sufficient to mislead the relevant public into making incorrect comments;

(3) encouraging or inducing network users to make negative comments about the plaintiff by language, bonus points, prizes, preferential services or other methods; and

(4) other circumstances that constitute commercial defamation.

38.In determining whether the defendant’s purchase and use of paid listing services constitute acts of unfair competition, the following factors may be taken into comprehensive consideration:

(1) whether the defendant, without authorization, uses the commercial signs of the plaintiff or his interested party which can identify the quality and source of goods or services as keywords for paid listing;

(2) whether there are justified reasons for using other’s commercial signs as keywords for paid listing;

(3) whether the keywords are contained in the titles and introduction of the website content revealed in the search-results list;

(4) whether the keywords are contained in the defendant’s web page accessible through search results; and

(5) whether the plaintiff’s transactional opportunities or competitive advantages may be changed to such an extent that the plaintiff’s legitimate rights and interests are impaired.

39. Paid listing services provided by the search engine service provider fall within the scope of information retrieval services.

40.Where the search engine service provider has not conducted the acts of selecting, classifying, recommending, and editing keywords in the course of paid listing services, the search engine service provider is not obliged to make a complete and active examination on keywords used for paid listing services, unless the keywords are obviously in violation of the laws and regulations.

Regarding unfair competition acts committed using paid listing services, the plaintiff has the right to notify the search engine service provider to take necessary measures to remove, block, and disconnect the website link. Where the search engine service provider, upon receipt of the notification, fails to take necessary measures timely, the search engine service provider, together with the undertaking who has committed an unfair competition act, shall be held jointly and severally liable for the extended damages.

Where the search engine service provider knows that others have committed an unfair competition act by using paid listing services, but fails to take necessary measures, the search engine service provider shall be held jointly and severally liable.

41. In determining the liability of the defendant for damages according to Article 2 of the Anti-unfair Competition Law, the amount of damages shall be determined according to the plaintiff’s actual losses; where the plaintiff’s losses are difficult to ascertain, the damages may be determined according to the profits gained by the defendant.

If, pursuant to the preceding paragraph, the plaintiff’s actual losses suffered from the unfair competition act are difficult to ascertain, the plaintiff shall be required to prove the defendant’s profits; where the plaintiff has provided preliminary evidence proving the defendant’s profits, and the account books, materials, and back-end data concerning the unfair competition act are under the control of the defendant, the defendant may be ordered to provide such account books, materials, and back-end data; and where the defendant, without justified reasons, refuses to provide such account books, materials, and back-end data or provides false ones, the profits may be determined according to the claim of and the evidence provided by the plaintiff.

The defendant’s profits may be determined by taking into comprehensive consideration the duration and scope of the unfair competition act, website traffic, relevant advertisements or profits in other forms, etc.

42. Where the unfair competition act committed by the defendant through information network causes negative impacts on the plaintiff’s commercial reputation and reputation of goods, the defendant may be ordered to eliminate the negative impacts.

The manner to bear the liability for eliminating negative impacts shall conform to the circumstances, manner, duration and the extent of the adverse consequences of the unfair competition act.

[1]英文文本的翻译得到高卢麟基金会、知产力新媒体、北京万慧达律师事务所、北京东权律师事务所、中国专利代理（香港）有限公司的大力支持，在此对上述机构谨表谢意。