talked about domestic mobile commerce vicious competition in the first case, the day before the Jiangsu Provincial Higher People’s court made a final decision, the appellant (defendant) Suzhou Xinwanghulian Technology Services Limited, to actually unfair competition behavior of responsibility. Suzhou, Beijing, the new network of Internet interconnection charges due to lack of evidence, the court does not support. Final appeal rejected the Suzhou new network technology services limited appeal, the first instance verdict.
new Internet first instance against the truth surfaced
In April 11, 2006
business to the defendant plaintiff take false advertising their products as "products"; fabricating and spreading false facts, serious damage to the plaintiff’s business reputation as "Suzhou Xinwanghulian company and Beijing Xinwanghulian company to court.
case in November 2006, two public hearings in July 2007. A trial in Suzhou City Intermediate People’s court ruled Suzhou; Xinwanghulian industry companies constitute acts of unfair competition, should be open to the business newspaper to apologize and bear the responsibility for compensation. And stop the propaganda "SMS URL" is a "national product" posing.
after the first trial, on the "SMS Web site" national product claims are exposed, unfair competition farce Xinwanghulian director also revealed to the world, causing the breakdown of a piece of.
defendant Suzhou new network interconnection appeal Beijing new network into the defendant
as a losing party in the first instance, Suzhou new Internet company refused to accept the judgment of the first instance, and appealed to the higher people’s Court of Jiangsu province in the near future. Surprisingly, Suzhou Xinwanghulian company’s appeal and not on the first instance on the malicious competition decision objection, Beijing Xinwanghulian company but was originally the same as the defendant in trial as appeal the defendant, that Beijing Xinwanghulian company should bear the main responsibility of this malicious competition case.
Suzhou Xinwanghulian company in the appeal stated as follows: Beijing Xinwanghulian Technology Co. Ltd as agents to provide a unified product and market promotion of training, training in the form of written materials and oral training site training, in the case of "Feng Le Palace event" in some countries "products, personal products, customers will be back" from the side of the trap speech is Beijing Xinwanghulian Technology Co., unified training results of the distributor; in the case of "fengle Palace" incident, Suzhou Xinwanghulian Technology Service Co. Ltd. was responsible for one of the Eucommia beforehand Beijing new network interconnection Shanghai branch is responsible for the business in Suzhou Jiang Bin recognition and support, and Beijing Xinwanghulian Shanghai branch Suzhou Xinwanghulian technology service company sent into the venue, and when the incident occurred Jiang Bin, I also went to the scene so fengle palace, fengle palace event itself, Suzhou Xinwanghulian Technology Service Co. Ltd is only the execution party, the new Beijing Internet network technology limited company should be mainly responsible for the case, and bear the consequences."
Suzhou new network of the appeal, causing the industry inside and outside the media >