最高人民法院发布五起典型案例

（2014年4月30日）

案例1

被告人樊爱东、王圣华、蔡军污染环境案

（一）基本案情

2012年7月下旬，山东兴氟新材料有限公司为处理副产品危险化学品硫酰氯，公司总经理助理邢斌（另案处理）在请示总经理刘根宪（另案处理）后，与被告人樊爱东商定每吨给樊爱东300元交由樊爱东处置。同年7月25日，樊爱东安排被告人王圣华、蔡军驾驶罐车到山东兴氟新材料有限公司拉走35吨硫酰氯，得款10500元。7月27日2时许，樊爱东、王圣华、蔡军将罐车开至山东省高青县花沟镇唐口村南小清河大桥上，将35吨硫酰氯倾倒于小清河中。硫酰氯遇水反应生成的毒气雾团飘至山东省邹平县焦桥镇韩套村，将熟睡中的村民熏醒，致上百村民呼吸系统受损，并造成庄稼苗木等重大财产损失，村民韩学芳（被害人，女，殁年42岁）原患有扩张型心肌病等疾病，因吸入酸性刺激气体，致气管和肺充血、水肿，直接加重心肺负荷，导致急性呼吸循环衰竭死亡。7月28日，王圣华被抓获归案，樊爱东、蔡军投案自首。

（二）裁判结果

山东省淄博市人民检察院以被告人樊爱东、王圣华、蔡军犯以危险方法危害公共安全罪向淄博市中级人民法院提起公诉。淄博市中级人民法院经审理认为，被告人樊爱东、王圣华、蔡军违反国家规定，往河中倾倒具有腐蚀性、刺激性的化学品硫酰氯，严重污染环境，并造成一人死亡、重大财产损失的特别严重后果，其行为均已构成污染环境罪。公诉机关指控犯罪事实成立，但罪名不当。依照《中华人民共和国刑法》和《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理环境污染刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》的相关规定，认定被告人樊爱东犯污染环境罪，判处有期徒刑六年六个月，并处罚金人民币十五万元；被告人王圣华犯污染环境罪，判处有期徒刑六年，并处罚金人民币十万元；被告人蔡军犯污染环境罪，判处有期徒刑五年六个月，并处罚金人民币十万元。宣判后，各被告人均服判，未提出上诉。

（三）典型意义

《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于办理环境污染刑事案件适用法律若干问题的解释》自2013年6月19日施行以来，解决了以往环境污染案件“取证难”、“鉴定难”、“认定难”的问题，全国法院加大了对污染环境犯罪的打击力度，集中审结了一批污染环境犯罪案件。据不完全统计，截至去年12月，全国法院累计审结以污染环境罪、非法处置进口的固体废物罪、环境监管失职罪定罪处罚的刑事案件百余件。其中，审结以污染环境罪定罪处罚的刑事案件八十余件，本案即其中典型。本案的审判，严格界定了污染环境罪与以危险方法危害公共安全罪的区别，也充分体现和发挥了人民法院依法惩治污染环境犯罪，促进生态文明建设和经济社会健康发展的职能作用。

案例2

奇虎公司、奇智公司与腾讯公司、腾讯计算机公司不正当竞争纠纷案

（一）基本案情

腾讯公司、腾讯计算机公司是提供互联网综合服务的互联网公司，腾讯QQ即时通讯软件和腾讯QQ即时通讯系统是其核心产品和服务。2010年10月29日，腾讯公司等发现奇虎公司通过www.360.cn网站向用户提供奇智公司开发的“360扣扣保镖”软件的下载，并通过各种途径进行推广宣传。腾讯公司等认为该软件直接针对腾讯QQ软件，通过虚假宣传，鼓励和诱导用户删除腾讯QQ软件中的增值业务插件、屏蔽其客户广告，同时将奇虎公司产品和服务嵌入腾讯公司QQ软件界面，借机宣传和推广自己的产品。腾讯公司等认为奇虎公司等前述行为不仅破坏了其合法的经营模式，导致其产品和服务的完整性和安全性遭到严重破坏，其公司商业信誉和商品声誉亦遭到严重损害，以奇虎公司等行为违反了公认的商业道德，构成不正当竞争等为由，诉至广东省高级人民法院，请求法院判令两被告：1.立即停止涉案不正当竞争行为，包括但不限于停止开发、传播和发行“360扣扣保镖”及相关软件，停止已发行和传播的“360扣扣保镖”软件现有功能，停止诋毁原告及原告的产品和服务的行为；2.连续三个月在相关网站和报纸上就其不正当竞争行为向原告赔礼道歉，消除影响；3.连带赔偿原告经济损失人民币125000000元；4.承担原告维权支出的合理费用及全部诉讼费用。

（二）裁判结果

经广东省高级人民法院一审、最高人民法院二审，法院审理认为：市场经济是由市场在资源配置中起决定性作用，自由竞争能够确保市场资源优化配置，但市场经济同时要求竞争公平、正当和有序。经营者在市场交易中，应当遵循自愿、平等、公平、诚实信用的原则，遵守公认的商业道德。违反反不正当竞争法的规定，损害其他经营者的合法权益，扰乱社会经济秩序的行为属于不正当竞争。本案奇虎公司等为达到其商业目的，诱导并提供工具积极帮助用户改变QQ软件的运行方式，并同时引导用户安装360安全卫士，替换QQ软件安全中心，破坏了QQ软件相关服务的安全性并对QQ软件整体具有很强的威胁性，减少了腾讯公司经济收益和增值服务交易机会，违反了诚实信用原则和公认的商业道德。奇虎公司等无事实依据地宣称QQ软件会对用户电脑硬盘隐私文件强制性查看，并且以自己的标准对QQ软件进行评判并宣称QQ存在严重的健康问题，造成了用户对QQ软件及其服务的恐慌及负面评价，该评论已超出正当商业评价、评论的范畴，突破了法律界限。奇虎公司等在经营扣扣保镖时，将自己的产品和服务嵌入QQ软件界面，取代了QQ软件的部分功能，其根本目的在于依附QQ软件强大用户群，通过对QQ软件及其服务进行贬损的手段来推销、推广360安全卫士，从而增加自己市场交易机会并获取市场竞争优势，此行为本质上属于不正当地利用他人市场成果，为自己谋取商业机会从而获取竞争优势的行为。违反了诚实信用和公平竞争原则，构成不正当竞争。判决：1.奇虎公司、奇智公司连带赔偿腾讯公司、腾讯计算机公司经济损失及合理维权费用共计500万元。2.奇虎公司、奇智公司连续15日在其网站（www.360.cn、www.360.com）首页显著位置，在新浪网（www.sina.com）、搜狐网（www.sohu.com）和网易网（www.163.com）网站首页显著位置，连续7日在《法制日报》和《中国知识产权报》第一版显著位置就其不正当竞争行为向腾讯公司、腾讯计算机公司赔礼道歉，消除影响。

（三）典型意义

此案为2013年最高法院公众开放日公开庭审案件，亦是最高法院审理的第一起涉及互联网领域不正当竞争的二审案件。本案涉诉双方均为互联网相关领域的重要企业，案件审理结果广受业界、学界等多方关注。最高法院组成了由副院长奚晓明大法官亲任审判长的五人合议庭审理了本案。通过该案的审理，最高人民法院澄清并确立了相关市场竞争规则，对相关互联网企业之间开展有序竞争，促进市场资源优化配置具有里程碑的意义。该案公开宣判后，相关新闻媒体网站纷纷深度报道，网友亦对该案判决高度赞誉。

案例3

雅培贸易（上海）有限公司与台州市黄岩亿隆塑业有限公司、北京溢炀杰商贸有限公司诉前停止侵害专利权及专利侵权纠纷案

（一）基本案情

雅培贸易公司是ZL200730158176.0号名称为“容器”的外观设计专利权（简称涉案专利）的被许可人，并获得涉案专利权人的授权以自己的名义对侵权人申请诉前保全措施及提起诉讼。亿隆公司未经许可生产、销售、许诺销售了侵害涉案专利权的“YL-650A”、“YL-750A”、“YL-1000A”等型号的可密封塑料容器（简称被控侵权产品），溢炀杰公司未经许可销售了被控侵权产品。雅培贸易公司遂向北京市第三中级人民法院申请诉前停止被控侵权行为，并提供了现金担保。

（二）裁判结果

北京市第三中级人民法院经审理认为：被控侵权产品系奶粉罐，亿隆公司和溢炀杰公司主要向奶粉生产企业批发销售被控侵权产品，被控侵权产品将与奶粉一并销售给最终用户，每一个销售环节都很有可能构成对涉案专利权的侵权。而每增加一个销售环节，都会造成损失扩大，侵权行为人增多，雅培贸易公司维权成本增加，维权难度加大。同时，涉案专利权系容器的外观设计专利，有效期仅十年，容器的外观设计更新换代快，被控侵权行为的持续进行将会极大地影响到雅培贸易公司对涉案专利权的行使。因此，如不责令亿隆公司和溢炀杰公司立即停止被控侵权行为，将会对雅培贸易公司合法权益造成难以弥补的损害。据此，法院裁定亿隆公司立即停止生产、销售、许诺销售侵犯涉案专利权的产品；溢炀杰公司立即停止销售侵犯涉案专利权的产品。

法院作出裁定后，经过多次与双方当事人沟通、协调，辨法析理，促使被申请人从最初的拒绝签收诉讼文书转变至自动停止被控侵权行为，并最终成功促成双方达成和解协议，以调解的方式解决双方纠纷。

（三）典型意义

本案系人民法院维护食品安全、准确及时有效保护知识产权的典型案例。首先，在社会效果方面，食品安全，尤其是奶粉安全问题是人民群众重点关注的问题。雅培奶粉是世界知名奶粉品牌，本案的处理结果及时制止假奶粉罐的泛滥，从源头上对假奶粉进行治理，体现了人民法院关注民生，维护食品安全的决心和努力。其次，在加强知识产权保护方面，法院考虑销售环节、维权成本、权利保护期限等具体因素，准确认定行为保全中“难以弥补损害”要件，迅速作出诉前行为保全裁定，准确及时保护当事人的权利。最后，在确保诉前行为保全的实际效果方面，法院积极督促被申请人执行保全裁定，并最终促成了双方达成和解协议，有效保护了申请人的权利，充分实现了以行为保全促调解的社会效果。本案是北京市法院依据修改后的民事诉讼法作出的首例涉及专利权的诉前行为保全裁定，表明了人民法院积极满足社会司法需求，依法加强知识产权司法保护的实践努力。

案例4

唐兰与程永莉房屋买卖合同纠纷案

（一）基本案情

2000年11月7日，重庆市九龙坡区土地房屋权属登记中心收到以唐兰为卖方、程永莉为买方的《房屋买卖合同》、《房地产交易合同登记申请表》等关于唐兰所有房屋的房屋买卖材料，材料上均盖有“唐兰”字样私章，部分材料签有“唐兰”字样签名，重庆市九龙坡区土地房屋权属登记中心凭上述材料将登记在唐兰名下的房屋过户给了程永莉。2003年4月17日，唐兰以其从未与程永莉签订房屋买卖合同为由向法院提起行政诉讼。重庆市第一中级人民法院二审以主体不适格为由裁定驳回唐兰的起诉，并在裁判理由中认为：唐兰与程永莉盖章签订制式房地产买卖合同，经登记部门审查，获准房屋权属转移登记。2007年3月，唐兰向重庆市九龙坡区人民法院提起本案民事诉讼，请求确认房屋买卖合同无效，并判令程永莉将诉争房屋返还给唐兰。诉讼中，法院查明，上述“唐兰”的签名均为程永莉丈夫所签，“唐兰”字样的私章无法证明为唐兰所有。该案经一审、二审以及重庆高院再审，均在合同是有效还是无效之间争议，重庆高院再审判决认为合同有效并据此驳回了唐兰的诉讼请求。唐兰不服，向检察机关申诉，2012年5月16日，最高人民检察院向最高人民法院提起抗诉。

（二）裁判结果

最高人民法院再审认为，涉案合同不涉及有效与无效的问题，而是是否成立的问题。在双方当事人就合同关系是否成立存在争议的情况下，根据法律规定，应由主张合同关系成立的一方当事人承担举证责任，在“唐兰”签名被证实并非唐兰本人所签的情况下，程永莉不能证明“唐兰”字样的私章为唐兰本人所有并加盖时，应当承担举证不能的诉讼后果。行政裁定书认定的事实只能证明房管部门行政行为的合规性，并不能证明民事行为的成立，且多方面证据均证明唐兰并未签订《房地产买卖合同》，唐兰与程永莉之间没有就涉案房屋成立房屋买卖合同关系。据此最高人民法院判决程永莉向唐兰返还房屋。

（三）典型意义

该案庭审过程中，最高人民检察院首次接受当事人当庭质证，对于我国民事抗诉程序的丰富和发展具有重要意义。在该案的合同效力形态上，当事人在有效与无效之间争议，原审法院也在合同有效与无效之间裁判，但经审理发现涉案合同仅涉及是否成立的问题，并在此基础上正确运用合同成立的举证规则，合理分配举证责任，从而做到对当事人实体权利的保护，对于民事判决中举证责任的适用方法具有指导意义。

案例5

魏卓夫申请执行张宝峰、张泽政、李玉明公证债权文书纠纷执行案

（一）基本案情

魏卓夫与张宝峰为邻居。2011年张宝峰因生意筹集资金向魏卓夫借款人民币4100万元整，期限为一年。李玉明作为张宝峰的朋友自愿对债务承担连带保证责任，张宝峰的儿子张泽政自愿以其名下的房产为借款提供抵押担保。同年12月8日，魏卓夫与张宝峰、张泽政、李玉明签订了《借款合同》，并在北京市中信公证处对该合同办理了具有强制执行效力的债权文书公证。还款期限届满后，张宝峰未能偿还借款本金。魏卓夫于2013年9月18日向北京市中信公证处申请了《执行证书》，该证书确认张宝峰应偿还魏卓夫借款本金4100万元及相应的借款利息、违约金，李玉明对该借款承担连带保证责任，张泽政对该借款承担抵押担保责任。

（二）执行情况

2013年9月27日，魏卓夫向北京市朝阳区人民法院申请强制执行。执行法官收案后，即联系被执行人督促其主动履行还款义务，但被执行人拒不履行义务。随后，执行法官依法查封了三名被执行人名下的四套房产与三辆汽车。2013年12月30日，执行法官再次电话联系张宝峰督促其履行时，其不但无任何主动履行意愿，且态度蛮横，并对执行法官言语威胁。

2014年1月9日，执行法官等6名执行干警与多家媒体一起赶到被执行人张宝峰之子张泽政位于北京市朝阳区900多平米的房屋进行强制执行。执行现场共有被执行人所雇佣保姆、司机、厨师及房客四人，在执行法官出示证件后，上述人员仍有阻碍执行公务的行为。执行法官在控制住现场秩序后，依法在房屋门口张贴拍卖公告，并向被执行人张宝峰送达传票和限制高消费令，对其乘坐飞机、入住高档酒店等高消费行为依法予以限制。执行过程中，执行法官还当场扣押被执行人所有的宾利车钥匙一把。

次日，张宝峰便主动向执行法官打电话，承认错误并表示积极履行还款义务。2014年1月22日，魏卓夫到法院递交了执行和解协议，本案顺利执结。

（三）典型意义

该案属于典型的被执行人有能力履行而拒不履行法律义务的案件。本案三名被执行人生活富足，名下有数套房产，住着价值近6000万的豪宅，拥有宾利、宝马等多辆名车，却欠债不还。在法院立案执行后，被执行人张宝峰仍然态度强硬，拒绝履行，甚至对执行法官言语威胁，抗拒执行，是典型的失信被执行人。

本案法院向被执行人发出限制高消费令，禁止被执行人乘坐飞机、列车软卧，限制其贷款或办理信用卡，不得担任企业法定代表人、董事、监事、高级管理人员等，在社会征信系统内对其进行信用惩戒，形成了一处失信处处受制、最大限度压缩其生存空间的执行威慑效应。正是在遭受信用惩戒之后，本案被执行人才主动与申请执行人取得联系并达成执行和解协议。这充分说明，信用惩戒是一种行之有效的执行威慑机制。同时，在本案执行中，执行法院通过媒体曝光，如实记录法院强制执行的过程，不仅加深了社会对执行工作的理解，而且震慑了其他的被执行人和债务人，使人们直观地感受到拒不执行行为的严重后果。本案执行的过程说明，媒体除了具有引导形成诚实守信的社会风气、推动社会诚信建设的功能外，还具有助推债务人履行义务从而降低执行成本、提高执行效益的作用。

The Supreme People's Court Releases Five Typical Cases

(April 30, 2014)

Case 1

Defendants Fan Aidong, Wang Shenghua, and Cai Jun in the Environmental Pollution Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

In late July 2012, Shandong Xingfu New Materials Co., Ltd. agreed with the defendant Fan Aidong to pay Fan Aidong 300 yuan per ton for the disposal of the hazardous chemical thiol chloride as a byproduct. Assistant General Manager Xing Bin (to be dealt with separately) consulted General Manager Liu Genxian (to be dealt with separately). On July 25th of the same year, Fan Aidong arranged for defendants Wang Shenghua and Cai Jun to drive a tanker to Shandong Xingfu New Materials Co., Ltd. to remove 35 tons of sulfuryl chloride, and received a payment of 10500 yuan. At around 2:00 pm on July 27th, Fan Aidong, Wang Shenghua, and Cai Jun drove the tanker to the South Xiaoqing River Bridge in Tangkou Village, Huagou Town, Gaoqing County, Shandong Province, and dumped 35 tons of sulfuryl chloride into the Xiaoqing River. The toxic gas mist generated by the reaction of thiol chloride with water drifted to Hantao Village, Jiaoqiao Town, Zouping County, Shandong Province, waking up the sleeping villagers, causing damage to the respiratory system of hundreds of villagers and causing significant property damage such as crops and seedlings. Villager Han Xuefang (victim, female, 42 years old) was originally suffering from dilated cardiomyopathy and other diseases, and inhaled acidic stimulating gases, causing congestion and edema of the trachea and lungs, directly increasing the center of gravity and lung load, Causing death from acute respiratory and circulatory failure. On July 28th, Wang Shenghua was arrested and brought to justice, while Fan Aidong and Cai Jun surrendered.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Procuratorate of Zibo City, Shandong Province has filed a public prosecution with the Intermediate People's Court of Zibo City for the crime of endangering public safety through dangerous methods committed by defendants Fan Aidong, Wang Shenghua, and Cai Jun. After trial, the Intermediate People's Court of Zibo City found that the defendants Fan Aidong, Wang Shenghua, and Cai Jun violated national regulations by dumping corrosive and irritating chemicals such as sulfuryl chloride into the river, seriously polluting the environment and causing one person's death and significant property damage, all of which constituted the crime of environmental pollution. The prosecution's accusation of criminal facts is established, but the charges are inappropriate. According to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China and the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Environmental Pollution, it is determined that the defendant Fan Aidong has committed the crime of environmental pollution and is sentenced to six years and six months in prison, with a fine of RMB 150000; The defendant Wang Shenghua committed the crime of polluting the environment and was sentenced to six years in prison, with a fine of RMB 100000; The defendant Cai Jun committed the crime of polluting the environment and was sentenced to five years and six months in prison, with a fine of RMB 100000. After the verdict was pronounced, all defendants accepted the verdict and did not file an appeal.

（3） Typical significance

Since its implementation on June 19, 2013, the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Environmental Pollution has solved the problems of "difficulty in obtaining evidence", "difficulty in identifying", and "difficulty in determining" in previous environmental pollution cases. Courts across the country have increased their efforts to crack down on environmental pollution crimes and have concentrated on resolving a number of environmental pollution crime cases. According to incomplete statistics, as of December last year, more than 100 criminal cases have been convicted and punished by courts nationwide for crimes such as environmental pollution, illegal disposal of imported solid waste, and dereliction of environmental supervision. Among them, more than 80 criminal cases were convicted and punished for polluting the environment, and this case is a typical one. The trial of this case strictly defines the difference between the crime of polluting the environment and the crime of endangering public safety through dangerous methods, and fully reflects and plays the role of the people's court in punishing environmental pollution crimes in accordance with the law, promoting the construction of ecological civilization and the healthy development of the economy and society.

Case 2

Case of Unfair Competition Dispute between Qihu Company, Qizhi Company, Tencent Company, and Tencent Computer Company

（1） Basic facts of the case

Tencent Corporation and Tencent Computer Corporation are internet companies that provide comprehensive internet services. Tencent QQ instant messaging software and Tencent QQ instant messaging system are their core products and services. On October 29, 2010, Tencent and others discovered that Qihu Company provided users with the download of the "360 Buckle Bodyguard" software developed by Qizhi Company through the website www.360.cn, and promoted it through various channels. Tencent and others believe that the software directly targets Tencent QQ software, encouraging and inducing users to remove value-added business plugins from Tencent QQ software through false advertising, blocking customer advertisements, and embedding Qihoo's products and services into Tencent QQ software interface to promote and promote their own products. Tencent and others believe that the aforementioned actions of Qihu Company not only undermine its legitimate business model, but also cause serious damage to the integrity and safety of its products and services, as well as its commercial reputation and commodity reputation. They file a lawsuit with the Guangdong Provincial High People's Court on the grounds that Qihu Company and other actions violate recognized business ethics and constitute unfair competition, Request the court to order the two defendants: 1. Immediately stop the unfair competition behavior involved in the case, including but not limited to stopping the development, dissemination, and distribution of "360 Detention Bodyguard" and related software, stopping the existing functions of the "360 Detention Bodyguard" software that has been released and disseminated, and stopping the defamation of the plaintiff and the original products and services; 2. Apologize to the plaintiff for their unfair competition behavior on relevant websites and newspapers for three consecutive months to eliminate the impact; 3. Joint and several compensation of RMB 125000000 for the plaintiff's economic losses; 4. Bear the reasonable expenses incurred by the plaintiff in defending their rights and all litigation costs.

（2） Judgment results

After the first instance of the Guangdong Provincial High People's Court and the second instance of the Supreme People's Court, the court held that the market economy plays a decisive role in resource allocation, and free competition can ensure the optimal allocation of market resources. However, the market economy also requires fair, legitimate, and orderly competition. Operators should follow the principles of voluntariness, equality, fairness, honesty and credibility in market transactions, and abide by recognized business ethics. Any behavior that violates the provisions of the Anti Unfair Competition Law, damages the legitimate rights and interests of other operators, and disrupts social and economic order belongs to unfair competition. In order to achieve their commercial goals, Qihu Company and others in this case induced and provided tools to actively help users change the operation mode of QQ software, and at the same time guided users to install 360 Security Guard, replacing the QQ software security center, which disrupted the security of QQ software related services and posed a strong threat to the overall QQ software, reduced Tencent's economic benefits and value-added service trading opportunities, and violated the principle of good faith and recognized business ethics. Qihoo Company and others claimed without factual basis that QQ software will forcibly view users' computer hard drive privacy files, and judge QQ software according to their own standards. They also claimed that QQ software has serious health problems, causing users to panic and negative evaluations of QQ software and its services. This comment has exceeded the scope of legitimate business evaluations and comments, breaking through legal boundaries. Qihu Company and others embed their products and services into the QQ software interface when operating the deduction of bodyguards, replacing some of the functions of the QQ software. Their fundamental purpose is to rely on the powerful user group of the QQ software, promote and promote 360 Security Guard by derogatory means of QQ software and its services, thereby increasing their market trading opportunities and gaining market competitive advantages. This behavior is essentially an unfair use of other people's market achievements, The act of seeking business opportunities for oneself to gain a competitive advantage. Violating the principles of honesty, credibility, and fair competition constitutes unfair competition. Judgment: 1. Qihu Company and Qizhi Company jointly compensate Tencent Company and Tencent Computer Company for economic losses and reasonable rights protection costs totaling 5 million yuan. 2. Qihu Company and Qizhi Company have been prominently displayed on the homepage of their websites (www.360. cn, www.360. com) for 15 consecutive days, and on the homepage of Sina (www.sina. com), Sohu (www.sohu. com), and Netease (www.163. com) for 7 consecutive days, they have apologized to Tencent and Tencent Computer for their unfair competition behavior in the prominent position on the first page of Legal Daily and China Intellectual Property Daily, in order to eliminate the impact.

（3） Typical significance

This case was publicly heard on the 2013 Supreme Court Public Open Day, and it was also the first second instance case involving unfair competition in the internet field heard by the Supreme Court. Both parties involved in this case are important enterprises in the internet related field, and the trial results have received widespread attention from the industry, academia, and other parties. The Supreme Court formed a five person panel with Vice President Xi Xiaoming as the presiding judge to hear this case. Through the trial of this case, the Supreme People's Court clarified and established relevant market competition rules, which is of milestone significance for orderly competition among relevant internet enterprises and promoting the optimal allocation of market resources. After the public verdict of the case, relevant news media websites reported in depth, and netizens also highly praised the verdict of the case.

Case 3

Abbott Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., Taizhou Huangyan Yilong Plastic Industry Co., Ltd., and Beijing Yiyangjie Trading Co., Ltd. Stop Infringement of Patent Rights and Patent Infringement Dispute Case Before Litigation

（1） Basic facts of the case

Abbott Trading Company is the licensee of the design patent right (referred to as the involved patent) with the name "Container" (ZL200730158176.0), and has been authorized by the involved patent holder to apply for pre litigation preservation measures and file a lawsuit against the infringer in their own name. Yilong Company produced, sold, and promised to sell sealable plastic containers (referred to as the accused infringing products) of models such as "YL-650A", "YL-750A", and "YL-1000A" that infringed on the patent rights involved without permission, while Yiyangjie Company sold the accused infringing products without permission. Abbott Trading Company applied to the Beijing Third Intermediate People's Court to stop the alleged infringement before filing a lawsuit and provided cash guarantee.

（2） Judgment results

The Beijing Third Intermediate People's Court held that the accused infringing product is a milk powder can, and Yilong Company and Yiyangjie Company mainly wholesale and sell the accused infringing product to the milk powder production enterprise. The accused infringing product will be sold together with the milk powder to the end user, and every sales link is likely to constitute infringement of the patent rights involved. And every additional sales link will lead to increased losses, an increase in infringers, an increase in the cost of safeguarding rights for Abbott Trading Company, and an increase in the difficulty of safeguarding rights. At the same time, the patent right involved in the case is a design patent for the container, with a validity period of only ten years. The design of the container is undergoing rapid updates, and the continuation of the alleged infringement will greatly affect Abbott Trading Company's exercise of the patent right involved. Therefore, if Yilong Company and Yiyangjie Company are not ordered to immediately stop the alleged infringement, it will cause irreparable damage to the legitimate rights and interests of Abbott Trading Company. Based on this, the court ruled that Yilong Company immediately stopped producing, selling, and promising to sell products that infringed on the patent rights involved in the case; Yiyangjie Company immediately stopped selling products that infringed on the patent rights involved.

After the court made a ruling, after multiple communications, coordination, and legal analysis with both parties, it prompted the respondent to shift from initially refusing to sign the litigation documents to automatically stopping the accused infringement behavior, and ultimately successfully facilitated a settlement agreement between the two parties to resolve the dispute through mediation.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case of the People's Court maintaining food safety and accurately, timely and effectively protecting intellectual property rights. Firstly, in terms of social effects, food safety, especially the safety of milk powder, is a key concern for the people. Abbott milk powder is a world-renowned milk powder brand. The handling of this case promptly stopped the proliferation of fake milk powder cans and addressed fake milk powder from the source, reflecting the determination and efforts of the people's court to pay attention to people's livelihood and maintain food safety. Secondly, in strengthening intellectual property protection, the court considers specific factors such as the sales process, cost of rights protection, and duration of rights protection, accurately identifies the "difficult to make up for damage" element in behavior preservation, quickly makes a pre litigation behavior preservation ruling, and accurately and timely protects the rights and interests of the parties. Finally, in ensuring the actual effect of preservation of pre litigation behavior, the court actively urged the respondent to execute the preservation ruling, and ultimately facilitated a settlement agreement between the two parties, effectively protecting the applicant's rights and fully realizing the social effect of promoting mediation through preservation of behavior. This case is the first pre litigation action preservation ruling made by the Beijing Municipal Court based on the revised Civil Procedure Law, which involves patent rights. It demonstrates the practical efforts of the people's court to actively meet the judicial needs of society and strengthen the judicial protection of intellectual property in accordance with the law.

Case 4

Tang Lan and Cheng Yongli's Dispute over the House Purchase and Sale Contract

（1） Basic facts of the case

On November 7, 2000, the Land and Housing Ownership Registration Center of Jiulongpo District, Chongqing received the "House Purchase and Sale Contract" and "Real Estate Transaction Contract Registration Application Form" with Tang Lan as the seller and Cheng Yongli as the buyer, all of which were stamped with the words "Tang Lan" and some of the materials were signed with the words "Tang Lan", The Land and Housing Ownership Registration Center of Jiulongpo District, Chongqing City transferred the property registered under Tang Lan's name to Cheng Yongli based on the above materials. On April 17, 2003, Tang Lan filed an administrative lawsuit with the court on the grounds that she had never signed a house sales contract with Cheng Yongli. The Chongqing First Intermediate People's Court ruled in the second instance to dismiss Tang Lan's lawsuit on the grounds that the subject was not qualified. In the judgment reasons, it was found that Tang Lan and Cheng Yongli signed a standard real estate sales contract with their seals, and after examination by the registration department, the transfer of property ownership registration was approved. In March 2007, Tang Lan filed a civil lawsuit with the People's Court of Jiulongpo District, Chongqing, requesting confirmation of the invalidity of the property purchase and sale contract, and ordered Cheng Yongli to return the disputed property to Tang Lan. In the lawsuit, the court found that the signatures of "Tang Lan" mentioned above were all signed by Cheng Yongli's husband, and the private seal with the words "Tang Lan" cannot be proven to be owned by Tang Lan. After the first and second trials, as well as the retrial by the Chongqing High Court, the case was disputed as to whether the contract was valid or invalid. The Chongqing High Court's retrial decision deemed the contract to be valid and rejected Tang Lan's lawsuit accordingly. Tang Lan was dissatisfied and appealed to the procuratorial organs. On May 16, 2012, the Supreme People's Procuratorate filed a protest with the Supreme People's Court.

（2） Judgment results

The Supreme People's Court held in a retrial that the contract in question does not involve the issue of validity or invalidity, but rather the question of whether it is established. In the event of a dispute between the two parties regarding the establishment of the contractual relationship, according to legal provisions, the party claiming the establishment of the contractual relationship shall bear the burden of proof. If the signature of "Tang Lan" is confirmed to be not signed by Tang Lan himself, Cheng Yongli shall bear the legal consequences of not being able to prove that the private seal with the words "Tang Lan" belongs to Tang Lan himself and is stamped. The facts identified in the administrative ruling can only prove the compliance of the administrative actions of the housing management department, and cannot prove the establishment of the civil action. Moreover, various evidence prove that Tang Lan did not sign the "Real Estate Sales Contract", and there was no property purchase and sale contract relationship between Tang Lan and Cheng Yongli regarding the involved property. According to this, the Supreme People's Court ruled that Cheng Yongli returned the house to Tang Lan.

（3） Typical significance

During the trial of this case, the Supreme People's Procuratorate accepted the parties' cross examination in court for the first time, which is of great significance for the enrichment and development of China's civil protest procedures. In the form of contract validity in this case, the parties disputed between validity and invalidity, and the original court also ruled between validity and invalidity of the contract. However, after trial, it was found that the contract only involved the issue of whether it was established. Based on this, the rules of proof for the establishment of the contract were correctly applied, and the burden of proof was reasonably distributed, thus protecting the substantive rights of the parties. This has guiding significance for the application of the burden of proof in civil judgments.

Case 5

Wei Zhuofu applied for the execution of disputes over notarized debt documents by Zhang Baofeng, Zhang Zezheng, and Li Yuming

（1） Basic facts of the case

Wei Zhuofu and Zhang Baofeng are neighbors. In 2011, Zhang Baofeng borrowed RMB 41 million from Wei Zhuofu to raise funds for his business, with a term of one year. Li Yuming, as a friend of Zhang Baofeng, voluntarily assumes joint and several liability for debt guarantee. Zhang Baofeng's son, Zhang Zezheng, voluntarily provides mortgage guarantee for the loan with his property under his name. On December 8th of the same year, Wei Zhuofu signed the "Loan Contract" with Zhang Baofeng, Zhang Zezheng, and Li Yuming, and notarized the creditor's rights documents with compulsory execution effect at the CITIC Notary Office in Beijing. After the repayment deadline expired, Zhang Baofeng failed to repay the loan principal. On September 18, 2013, Wei Zhuofu applied for the "Execution Certificate" from the Beijing CITIC Notary Public Office, which confirmed that Zhang Baofeng should repay Wei Zhuofu's loan principal of 41 million yuan and corresponding loan interest and liquidated damages. Li Yuming bears joint and several guarantee liability for the loan, and Zhang Zezheng bears mortgage guarantee liability for the loan.

（2） Implementation status

On September 27, 2013, Wei Zhuofu applied for compulsory execution to the Chaoyang District People's Court of Beijing. After receiving the case, the executing judge immediately contacted the person to be executed to urge them to voluntarily fulfill their repayment obligations, but the person to be executed refused to fulfill their obligations. Subsequently, the executing judge lawfully seized four properties and three cars under the names of the three executed individuals. On December 30, 2013, when the executing judge contacted Zhang Baofeng by phone again to urge him to fulfill, he not only showed no willingness to fulfill voluntarily, but also had an arrogant attitude and threatened the executing judge verbally.

On January 9, 2014, the executive judge and six other police officers, along with multiple media outlets, rushed to the house of Zhang Zezheng, the son of Zhang Baofeng, located in Chaoyang District, Beijing, for compulsory execution. At the execution site, there were four people employed by the executed person, including nannies, drivers, chefs, and tenants. After the execution judge presented their documents, the above-mentioned personnel still engaged in acts that hindered the execution of their official duties. After controlling the order at the scene, the executing judge posted an auction notice at the door of the house in accordance with the law, and served a subpoena and a restriction order on high consumption to Zhang Baofeng, the person subjected to execution, to restrict his high consumption behavior such as flying and staying in high-end hotels in accordance with the law. During the execution process, the executing judge also seized one Bentley car key belonging to the person being executed on the spot.

The next day, Zhang Baofeng took the initiative to call the executive judge, admitting his mistake and expressing his willingness to fulfill his repayment obligations. On January 22, 2014, Wei Zhuofu submitted an execution settlement agreement to the court, and the case was successfully concluded.

（3） Typical significance

This case belongs to a typical case where the person being executed has the ability to fulfill but refuses to fulfill legal obligations. The three executed individuals in this case have a prosperous life, have several properties under their name, live in luxury homes worth nearly 60 million yuan, own multiple luxury cars such as Bentley and BMW, but still owe debts. After the court filed the case for execution, the person subjected to execution, Zhang Baofeng, remained firm and refused to perform. He even threatened the executing judge verbally and resisted execution, making him a typical dishonest person subjected to execution.

The court in this case issued a restriction order on high consumption to the person subjected to execution, prohibiting them from taking soft sleeper flights or trains, restricting them from obtaining loans or credit cards, and prohibiting them from serving as legal representatives, directors, supervisors, senior management personnel, etc. of enterprises. They imposed credit penalties on them within the social credit reporting system, creating a deterrent effect of being subject to dishonesty and minimizing their living space. It was after receiving credit punishment that the person being executed in this case proactively contacted the applicant for execution and reached an execution settlement agreement. This fully demonstrates that credit punishment is an effective enforcement deterrence mechanism. At the same time, in the execution of this case, the enforcement court exposed the process of court enforcement through the media and truthfully recorded it, which not only deepened society's understanding of the enforcement work, but also deterred other defendants and debtors, making people intuitively feel the serious consequences of refusing to execute. The execution process of this case indicates that the media not only has the function of guiding the formation of an honest and trustworthy social atmosphere and promoting the construction of social integrity, but also has the function of assisting debtors in fulfilling their obligations, thereby reducing execution costs and improving execution efficiency.