Unfair Competition Cases- False Publicity Committed by an Exhibition Company

文章摘要 A private exhibition company based in Guangdong earned its reputation after organizing exhibitions of an industry for more than 10 years. A well-known exhibition company based in Shanghai cooperated with a foreign company and introduced a world-renowned exhibition brand of that specific industry to

A private exhibition company based in Guangdong earned its reputation after organizing exhibitions of an industry for more than 10 years. A well-known exhibition company based in Shanghai cooperated with a foreign company and introduced a world-renowned exhibition brand of that specific industry to China. The two also decided to hold exhibition in Guangdong. In order to hinder the entry of its competitors, the Guangdong-based company filed complaints with the Administration of Industry and Commerce of Guangdong and Shanghai, claiming that the Shanghai-based company had committed false publicity and requiring the administration mete out punishment. After investigation, it was found that no false publicity was committed. Therefore, no administrative punishment was made.


The Guangdong-based company proceeded to file a lawsuit with the local court on the ground that false publicity had been made. Mr. Yang and his team advised the Shanghai-based company in its collection of evidence, and helped it handle and cooperate with the investigation launched by the Administration of Industrial and Commercial. In order to meet the higher requirement of providing proof as set up by the court, Mr. Yang and his team fully employed evidence preservation tactics such as notarization, and collected a lot of evidence to refute the opposing party’s claim. The legal team also pointed out that the company had abused its right to sue as a measure of unfair competition. Eventually, the court ruled in the Shanghai-based company’s favor and overruled all the claims made by the Guangdong-based company.

最后更新:2018年8月27日

杨春宝一级律师简介

杨春宝一级律师,大成上海高级合伙人、资本市场部主任、国资基金研究中心主任,大成中国区私募基金专业带头人、科技与文化法律研究中心联合牵头人。执业30余年,长期从事私募基金、投融资、并购重组法律服务,尤其对对赌研究颇深且具有非常丰富的实战经验,并专注于金融机构股权投资业务。2004年起多次入选The Legal 500"私募基金"和"公司与商业"等境内外各类律师榜单,代理的中国法院首例适用外国法律审理外国公司的董事损害小股东权益纠纷案入选上海高院发布的《上海法院域外法查明典型案例》和威科先行"要案头条"。具有上市公司独立董事任职资格,系多家知名高校的兼职教授或兼职研究生导师及上海市商务委跨国经营人才培训班讲师。出版《私募股权投资基金风险防控操作实务》等16本投融资法律专著。了解更多

常见法律问题

如何认定展览公司的宣传行为构成虚假宣传?

根据《反不正当竞争法》第八条,虚假宣传指对商品或服务作虚假或引人误解的商业宣传。具体到展览公司,需审查其宣传内容(如展会规模、参展商数量、品牌授权等)是否与事实不符,且足以误导相关公众。本案中,上海公司引入国际品牌并合作办展,宣传内容有据可查,调查后未发现虚假,故不构成。实务中,行政机关会结合宣传材料、合同、授权文件等客观证据综合判断。

举报竞争对手虚假宣传但查无实据,举报人需承担什么法律后果?

若举报人恶意捏造事实或滥用行政举报权利,可能构成商业诋毁(《反不正当竞争法》第十一条),需承担民事责任。但本案中,广东公司仅是举报,未公开散布虚假信息,且调查未发现虚假宣传,故未受处罚。实务中,若举报内容明显失实且造成对方损失,被举报方可起诉要求赔偿。但单纯向行政机关举报,如无恶意,一般不直接构成不正当竞争。

行政机关对虚假宣传举报的调查程序及不予处罚后,举报人能否复议或诉讼?

行政机关收到举报后,应依法核查证据,决定是否立案。本案中,工商部门经调查认定无虚假宣传,作出不予处罚决定。根据《行政处罚法》及《行政复议法》,举报人对不予处罚决定不服,可申请行政复议或提起行政诉讼,但需证明其与处理结果有法律上利害关系。实务中,举报人仅作为竞争者,若行政机关未侵犯其公平竞争权,法院可能不予受理。

以上内容仅供参考,不构成法律意见。如需专业法律服务,请联系杨春宝一级律师:chambers.yang@dentons.cn

  • 本站声明:本站所载之法律论文、法律评论、案例、法律咨询等,除非另有注明,著作权人均为站长杨春宝高级律师本人。欢迎其他网站链接,但是,未经书面许可,不得擅自摘编、转载。引用及经许可转载时均应注明作者和出处"法律桥",并链接本站。本站网址:http://www.LawBridge.org。
  •  
  •         本站所有内容(包括法律咨询、法律法规)仅供参考,不构成法律意见,本站不对资料的完整性和时效性负责。您在处理具体法律事务时,请洽询有资质的律师。本站将努力为广大网友提供更好的服务,但不对本站提供的任何免费服务作出正式的承诺。本站所载投稿文章,其言论不代表本站观点,如需使用,请与原作者联系,版权归原作者所有。

发表回复