Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China
(Adopted at the 1862nd meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on January 29, 2022, and coming into force on March 20, 2022)

For the purposes of correctly trying civil cases caused by acts of unfair competition, this Interpretation is formulated in accordance with the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China, the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, and other relevant laws, in combination with judicial practice.
Article 1    Where a business operator disrupts the market competition order and injures the lawful rights and interests of other business  operators or consumers, without violating, among others, the provisions of Chapter II of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the Patent Law, the Trademark Law, and the Copyright Law, the people' court may make a determination according to Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Article 2    For market participants in a potential relationship of competing for trading opportunities or diminishing competitive advantages, among others, with business operators in production and business activities, the People’s Court may determine the market participants as "other business operators" specified in Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Article 3    The People’s Court may determine a code of conduct generally followed and recognized in a specific commercial field as "business ethics" specified in Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
The People’s Court shall, in combination with the specific circumstances of a case, comprehensively consider factors such as industry rules or business practice, the subjective state of the business operator, the transaction counterparties’ willingness to choose, and the impact on the rights and interests of consumers, the order of market competition, and the public interest,  to judge in accordance with the law whether the business operator violates business ethics.
When determining whether a business operator violates business ethics, the People’s Court may refer to the practice standards, technical standards, and self-regulation conventions, among others, formulated by industry authorities, industry associations, or self-regulatory organizations.
Article 4    For a mark with a certain degree of market recognition and distinctive characteristics distinguishing the source of the goods, the People’s Court may determine it as a mark "with certain influence" specified in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
In determining whether a mark specified in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law has a certain degree of market recognition, the People’s Court shall comprehensively consider factors such as the degree of recognition by the relevant public in the territory of China, the time, area, amount, and target of the sale of the goods, the duration, degree and geographical scope of publicity, and the protection of the mark.
Article 5    Where a mark specified in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law falls under any of the following circumstances, the People’s Court shall determine that it does not have distinctive characteristics that distinguish the source of the goods:
(1) The generic name, image, and model of the goods.
(2) A mark only directly indicating the quality, main raw materials, functions, uses, weight, quantity, or other features of the goods.
(3)  The shape resulting solely from the nature of the goods per se, the shape of the goods which is necessary to obtain a technical effect, or the shape which gives substantial value to the goods.
(4) Other marks lacking distinctive characteristics.
Where a mark specified in subparagraphs (1), (2), and (4) of the preceding paragraph acquires distinctive characteristics through use and has a certain degree of market recognition, and a party requests protection in accordance with Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the People’s Court shall support the request.
Article 6    Where a party contends that a legitimate use of the following marks for objective description and explanation of goods falls under the circumstances stipulated in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the People’s Court shall not support the contention:
(1) Containing the generic name, image, and model of the goods.
(2) Only directly indicating the quality, main raw materials, functions, uses, weight, quantity, or other features of the goods.
(3) Containing a geographic name.
Article 7    Where a mark specified in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, or its distinctive part, is a sign which shall not be used as a trademark according to paragraph 1 of Article 10 of the Trademark Law, and a party requests protection for the mark in accordance with the provision of Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the People’s Court shall not support the request.
Article 8    An overall business image with a unique style consisting of the decoration of a business operator’s premises, the style of business utensils, and the clothing of business personnel, etc., may be determined by the People’s Court as the “decoration” stipulated in Item 1 of Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Article 9    The People’s Court may identify the names of enterprises registered according to law by the administrative department for the registration of market entities and the names of overseas enterprises for commercial use within the territory of China as the “enterprise names” prescribed in Item 2 of Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
The names (including shortened names, trade names, etc.) of individual industrial and commercial households, farmers' specialized cooperatives (associations) and other market entities with certain influence as provided by laws and administrative regulations may be recognized by the People’s Court in accordance with Item 2 of Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Article 10 The use, within the territory of China, of marks of certain influence on goods, packages or containers of goods, transaction documents of goods, or in advertising, exhibitions and other commercial activities to identify the source of the goods may be regarded by the People’s Court as a "use" prescribed in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Article 11    If a business operator, without authorization, uses a mark similar to another person’s enterprise name (including shortened name, trade name, etc.), social organization name (including shortened name, etc.), name (including pen name, stage name, translated name, etc.), main part of domain name, website name, web page, etc., that has certain influence, which misleads a person into believing that it is another person’s goods or has a particular connection with another person, and the party concerned claims that it belongs to the circumstances specified in Item 2 and Item 3 of Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the People’s Court shall support the claim.
Article 12 When determining that a mark is identical or similar to a mark of “certain influence” as prescribed in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the People’s Court may refer to the principles and methods for judging identical or similar trademarks.
The "mislead a person into believing that it is another party’s goods or has a particular connection with another party" prescribed in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law includes mistakenly believing that there is a particular connection with others, such as commercial association, licensed use, title sponsorship, advertising endorsement, etc.
The use of identical or visually indistinguishable marks such as trade names, packaging and decoration on the same goods shall be deemed to be sufficient to cause confusion with others’ marks that have certain influence.
Article 13    Where a business operator conducts one of the following confusing acts, which is sufficient to mislead a person into believing that it is another person’s good or has a particular connection with another person, the People’s Court may determine it in accordance with Item 4 of Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law:
(1) Unauthorized use of marks "having certain influence" other than those provided for in Items 1, 2 and 3 of Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law;
(2) Using another person's registered trademark or an unregistered well-known trademark as the trade name in an enterprise to mislead the public.
Article 14    Where a business operator sells goods bearing a mark in violation of the provisions of Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, which misleads a person into believing that it is another person’s goods or has a particular connection with another person, and the party concerned claims that it constitutes the circumstances prescribed in Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the People’s Court shall support the claim.
Where the business operator sells the goods without knowing they are the infringing goods mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and can prove that the goods are legally obtained and point out the supplier, if the business operator claims not to be liable for compensation, the People’s Court shall support the claim.
Article 15    Where a person intentionally provides facilities such as storage, transportation, mailing, printing, concealment or business operation for another person to commit an act of confusion, if the party concerned requests to determine it in accordance with the Paragraph 1 of Article 1169 of the Civil Code, the People’s Court shall support the request.
Article 16    Where a business operator, in the course of commercial publicity, provides untrue information about the goods to deceive or mislead the relevant public, the People’s Court shall deem it as false commercial publicity stipulated in Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Article 17    Where a business operator commits any of the following acts to deceive or mislead the relevant public, the People’s Court may identify it as “misleading commercial publicity” stipulated in Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law:
(1) One-sided publicity or comparison of goods;
(2) Using scientifically inconclusive views, phenomena, etc. as conclusive facts for the promotion of goods;
(3) Using ambiguous language for commercial promotion;
(4) Other commercial publicity acts that are sufficient for misleading the public.
The People’s Court shall, based on the daily life experience, the general attention of the relevant public, the fact on which misunderstanding occurs, and the actual situation of the target of the publicity and other factors, determine the misleading commercial publicity acts.
Article 18    Where a party claims that a business operator has violated the provisions of Paragraph 1 of Article 8 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and claims compensation for losses, it shall provide evidence to prove that it has suffered losses due to false or misleading commercial publicity.
Article 19    Where a party claims that a business operator has carried out a commercial slandering act specified in Article 11 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, it shall provide evidence to prove that it is the specific damaged target suffered from the commercial slandering act.
Article 20    Where a business operator disseminates misleading information or false information fabricated by others and damages the commercial reputation or goods reputation of its competitors, the People’s Court shall determine it in accordance with Article 11 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Article 21    The People’s Court shall determine  the target redirection which directly occurs without the consent of other business operators and users as “forced target redirection” stipulated in Item 1 in Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
If only a link is inserted and the target redirection is triggered by the user, the People’s Court shall comprehensively consider factors such as the specific way of inserting the link, whether it has reasonable reasons, and the impact on the interests of users and other business operators, to determine whether the act violates the provisions of Item 2 in Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Article 22    If a business operator maliciously interferes with or destroys the network products or services legally provided by other business operators by misleading, deceiving, forcing users to modify, close, or uninstall, etc., without a clear notice in advance or the consent of the users, the People’s Court shall determine it in accordance with Item 2 in Paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.
Article 23    For acts of unfair competition stipulated in Articles 2, 8, 11 and 12 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, if it is difficult to determine the actual losses suffered by the right holder due to infringement or the interests gained by the infringer due to infringement, and the party concerned claims that the amount of compensation should be determined according to the Paragraph 4 of Article 17 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the People’s Court shall support the claim.
Article 24    For infringement committed by the same infringer against the same subject at the same time and within the same geographical scope, where the People’s Court has determined that the copyright, patent right, or exclusive right to use a registered trademark, etc. has been infringed and ordered to bear civil liability, and the party requests the same infringer to bear civil liability on the grounds that the act constitutes unfair competition, the People’s Court shall not support the request.
Article 25    In accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, if a party's claim for ordering the defendant to stop using or change its enterprise name should be supported according to law, the People’s Court shall order to stop using the enterprise name.
Article 26    A civil action brought for an act of unfair competition shall be under the jurisdiction of the People’s Court in the place where the infringement occurs or where the defendant resides.
If a party claims using only the receipt place that the online purchaser can choose at will as the place where the infringement occurs, the People’s Court shall not support the claim.
Article 27    When an alleged act of unfair competition occurs outside the territory of the People's Republic of China, but the infringement result occurs within the territory of the People's Republic of China, if a party contends that the People’s Court in the place where the infringement result occurs should have jurisdiction, the People’s Court shall support the contention.
Article 28    For a civil case of unfair competition accepted by the People’s Court after the implementation of the Decision to Amend the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, if it involves acts which occurred before the implementation of the Decision, the pre-amendment Anti-Unfair Competition Law shall apply; if it involves acts which occurred before the implementation of the Decision and continued after the implementation of the Decision, the Anti-Unfair Competition Law as amended shall apply.
Article 29    This Interpretation shall come into force on March 20, 2022. The Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Some Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases Involving Unfair Competition (No. 2 [2007], SPC) shall be repealed at the same time.
This Interpretation shall apply to cases that have not been finally heard after the implementation of this Interpretation; and for cases that have been finalized before the implementation of this Interpretation, this Interpretation shall not apply to the retrial.