文/汪文琦 徐文婷

摘要：司法实践中针对著作权法和反不正当竞争法双重保护情况下适用何种规则裁判有不同的处理，适用规则的不统一导致了实务上的混乱。解决这一个问题的关键在于厘清著作权法和反不正当竞争法之间的关系。学说上对这一问题有补充保护说、有限保护说和平行保护说三种观点，从法律历史的发展看，反不正当竞争法的独立价值日益彰显，其与知识产权专门之间保护目的和保护法益的差异也日益明显，两者有平行适用的法理基础。最高人民法院支持了有限保护说，但有限保护之外还留有平行保护的适用空间，在与著作权法立法政策相兼容的范围内仍有适用反不正当竞争法平行保护的空间，可以将与立法政策相兼容理解为有独立于著作权法保护的法益。

关键词：著作权法 反不正当竞争法 平行保护 补充保护

引言

知识产权侵权诉讼中存在大量著作权法与反不正当竞争法双重保护的情形。当原告对同一个侵权行为同时请求著作权法和反不正当竞争法保护时，法院该如何处理两部法律的适用问题。不同法院对两项诉讼请求有着不同的处理方式，或以请求权竞合要求择一适用，或分别认定共同确定赔偿金额。不同的处理方式无疑对原告的诉讼策略的选择提出了考验。针对这一现象，笔者将采用实证分析与理论分析结合的方法，对两部法律双重保护情形下的类型和适用规则进行分析。

一、基于司法判决的类型化分析

通过“北大法宝”、“威科先行”数据库检索，对案由同时包括“不正当竞争纠纷”和“著作权权属、侵权纠纷”的判决书进行筛选，总共得到了125件案例。大致可以将这些案例归为以下几类：

（一）著作权与知名商品特有的名称、包装及装潢的双重保护

原告同时主张同时著作权和知名商品的名称、包装及装潢保护的案例，共有56件，约占总数的44.8%，为所有类型中最多的种类。其中又可以细分为知名商品的名称和知名商品的包装、装潢两类。前者通常是有两个不同的行为分别构成著作权侵权和擅自使用他人有一定影响力的商品名称，在未经许可在商品上使用他人享有著作权的美术作品构成著作权侵权，又在商品上使用了他人有一定影响力的商品名称。如法院就在认定著作权侵权之外，分别认定了“使命召唤”和“海绵宝宝”构成有一定影响力的商品名称；后者则表现为同一行为同时构成了著作权侵权和擅自使用知名商品特有的包装装潢，共有47件，占本类型案件总数的83.9%，也占了所有案件总数的37.6%。权利人既享有美术作品的著作权，又通过宣传和使用享有了特有的商品包装、装潢的权益。行为人未经许可擅自在自己的产品上使用就构成了对上述两项权益的侵害。司法实践中不同法院却对此种的情形存在着不同的处理方法。大多数情况下，法院会对行为是否构成著作权侵权和知名商品包装、装潢的构成要件分别认定。但也有少数法院，直接因为请求权竞合要求原告择一适用，而对另一项请求权不作认定。

根据判决结果对此类56件案件进行分类，两项请求权都成立的有34件，两项都不成立的有3件。构成一种请求权要件但不构成另一种的共13件，因为请求权竞合对其中一个请求权成立与否未作出认定的有6件。

两项请求权成立有不同的判断路径和标准，因此并不是同时成立的关系。著作权认定的关键在于是否具有独创性，仅针对作品的构成要素不考虑市场因素；而知名商品的包装装潢与市场因素紧密结合，首先要认定是否构成知名商品，之后再去判断商品上的包装装潢是否具有显著性和识别性，即一般消费者能识别来源。对于构成著作权侵权但不构成不正当竞争行为的案例中，法院也通常会以不能认定为知名商品、不具有显著性或者不会使一般消费者产生混淆认定不构成不正当竞争行为；对于不构成著作权侵权但构成不正当竞争行为的案件，仅有2例，分别以无法证明著作权权属和行为人也将外包装设计图进行了著作权登记驳回了著作权侵权的诉讼请求。但是后一例判决存在着明显错误，法院错误认识了著作权登记的效力，认为完成了著作权登记就具有独创性，因而径直认定为不构成著作权侵权。但是，对于同一行为同时构成著作权侵权和不正当竞争行为的处理方式，各个法院存在理解和适用上的不同一，多数法院对两者同时成立分别进行了判断，之后考虑了同时构成两者的主观恶意共同确定赔偿金额，而少数法院直接适用请求权竞合规则要求当事人择一主张，到底何种处理方式更为妥当，并无定论。

（二）著作权侵权与虚假宣传

原告同时主张著作权侵权与虚假宣传的案件，共38件，约占总数的30.4%。这些案例又可以大致分为两类：一是由不同的行为分别构成著作权侵权和虚假宣传，因为当事人相同且行为存在关联性而放在同一案件中审理；二是同一行为既构成著作权侵权又构成虚假宣传，这就要求权利人享有著作权的作品不仅具有著作权法上的独创性更要求其本身的内容在功能上具有宣传推广的作用或者反映了商品或服务的某些优势，诸如广告文字或视频、产品图片等。比如将权利人的广告视频更改开头名称和形象后用于宣传，冒用了其中权利人的宣传内容和荣誉，使公众产生了误导，非法获取了属于权利人的商业交易机会。虚假宣传的本质是造成一般消费者的误解，可以是误认为与权利人有特定关系，也可以是对行为人的商品或服务的某些特征产生错误认识。

其中，23件同时成立了著作权侵权和虚假宣传，两者不构成的有2件，6件仅成立著作权侵权，6件仅成立不正当竞争行为，由于请求权竞合对其中一项未认定的有1件。在认定不构成虚假宣传的7件案例中，通常发生在擅自使用权利人的产品图片的情形下，在产品图片中仅有产品外观信息，并没有反映出原、被告的商标标识、生产厂家等内容，并未足以使公众对产品来源造成误解或将原、被告的产品混淆，所以不构成虚假宣传。只有在著作权有识别来源的功能时才构成虚假宣传。而著作权侵权的判定不需要这些标准，因此两者的评价方式和保护法益都有明显的区别。一个保护的权利人享有的专有权利，另一个规制的搭便车的不正当竞争行为、保护的市场的公平竞争秩序。对于1例未认定虚假宣传的行为，法院只是没有特别指出，但是在说理部分却说明了竞争关系的存在，一方商业机会的增加伴随着另一方机会的较少，这是明显的不正当竞争行为的判断要件。因此法院显然将虚假宣传的判断揉合到了著作权侵权的判断中去，难免让人看的云里雾里。

（三）著作权法与反不正当竞争法一般条款的双重保护

原告同时主张构成著作权侵权和违反反不正当竞争法一般条款，共20件，占总数的16%，其中有17个是针对同一行为同时请求著作权法和反不正当竞争法保护的，17件中又有8件因为行为已经被著作权法评价法院不再适用反不正当竞争法重复保护。可知在某些行为在著作权侵权的认定上存在不确定性时，如对于他人享有权利的体育赛事或游戏直播的进行转播，原告通常会选择附加上反不正当竞争法一般条款的兜底保护。

通过分析法院说理部分可知，法院通常持反不正当竞争法对著作权法起补充、兜底或附加保护的作用，在已经适用著作权法对行为进行评价或保护的情况下，不宜再使用反不正当竞争法对同一行为重复保护。对于一般条款的适用规则，许多法院认为应当符合以下构成要件：一是法律对该种行为没有特别作出规定；二是竞争行为实际损害其他经营者的合法权益；三是行为违反公认的商业道德和诚实信用原则而具有不正当性。因此对于一般条款的适用，并不会存在多个请求权同时存在的情形，只有当著作权法没有规定的时候，一般条款才得以适用。因此上述7个案例不是使用请求权竞合规定，而是通过已被著作权法评价，不符合一般条款的适用条件不再重复保护。

（四）著作权与商业秘密

原告同时主张构成著作权侵权和侵害商业秘密的案件，共15件，占总数的12%，其中认定两者同时构成的有4件，认定仅侵犯著作权的有7件，没有仅认定侵害商业秘密的案件，认定两者都不构成的有4件。可见认定侵犯商业秘密的认定难度远远高于侵犯著作权。认定不构成侵犯商业秘密的11件案件中，绝大多数都是因为原告无法证明对其依据的作品具有不为公众所熟知，即不具有秘密性。对于两者的请求权选择和责任问题，有法院认为《反不正当竞争法》保护的商业秘密和《著作权法》保护的作品在保护的利益和构成要件上有明显的差异，就特定对象的商业秘密保护和著作权保护并非特殊法和一般法的关系，权利人可以就特定的被控侵权行为同时主张商业秘密的不正当竞争行为以及侵害著作权，但民事责任只能择一承担。而另一个法院则认为两被告对源程序和技术文档的复制行为属于既侵犯著作权又侵犯商业秘密的竞合行为，并在确定赔偿金额和适用法律依据时同时适用了两部法律。两个法院支持了两个行为构成请求权竞合，但是两个法院又对两个行为分别进行了认定，由于不构成商业秘密的认定比较简单，法院直接依据原告主张的内容不具有秘密对原告侵害商业秘密的行为不予支持。

综上，在著作权法和反不正当竞争法双重保护领域存在的最主要问题就是在同一行为既构成著作权侵权又构成不正当竞争行为时，究竟如何适用法律的问题。大多数法院都会对两项请求权是否成立分别进行认定，但也有些法院直接以请求权竞合要求当事人择一选择，在当事人不进行的选择的情况下，也有法院主动选择更适宜的法律。到底是平行适用还是择一选择更符合学理和法条文义，解决这个问题的关键，无疑需要厘清反不正当竞争法和著作权法之间的关系。有些法院认为著作权法与反不正当竞争法是特别法与一般法的关系，所以要优先适用著作权法，也有些法院认为反不正当竞争法是对著作权法的补充或附加保护。两者究竟是什么关系，在学术和实务中也存在颇多争议。

二、学理对著作权法与反不正当竞争法关系的论争

（一）不同学说的论争

关于著作权法与反不正当竞争法的关系，有学者主张补充保护说：对于著作权法没有规制的行为，可以适用反不正当竞争法予以规制，两者类似于冰山与海水的关系，许多法院都认可反不正当竞争法对著作权法未做规定的领域的补充作用，如未登记著作权的包装装潢作品；有学者主张有限保护说：反不正当竞争法应在不抵触知识产权立法政策的前提下进行扩展保护，著作权法明确排除在外的对象就不再受反不正当竞争法保护，典型的如已经超过著作权保护期限的作品不再受反不正当竞争法保护，有法院持此观点认为游戏的改编权问题已经在著作权的框架下进行了否定评价，著作权的控制范围已经有了清晰的边界，在控制范围之外的行为应该纳入公有领域，不应再重复判断；也有学者认可平行保护说，该学说主张两者是独立而平行的两个请求权，不存在谁优先适用、也不存在补充关系，也不存在规范的竞合。司法实践中，有法院在判决中直接支持了平行保护说，他认为著作权法与反不正当竞争法保护的法益不同，著作权法的目的在于保护权利人的智力成果，反不正当竞争法的目的在于保护公平竞争，制止不正当竞争行为，两者保护的主体、范围、方式及侧重点均不相同。对于权利人而言，著作权法上的救济未必能弥补带有不正当竞争性质的同一行为造成的损害。

两部法律的主要区别在于权利是否明确，著作权法明确了专有权利的构成要件，而反不正当竞争法所保护的权益需要在个案中进行认定。上述特征决定了知识产权专门法保护的确定性、周全性和高效率性，成为补充保护说的支持者认为需要优先适用专门法保护的重要原因。但是著作权法保护的确定性并不是绝对的，在著作权权属和独创性不明晰但商品包装的知名度和显著性很明确的场合，反而是不正当竞争行为的判断更明确。而从实务中两者一起适用的频率来，平行保护不会造成重叠保护的低效和复杂，法院已经能区分两者保护的法益和目的，而且反不正当竞争法第二章的特别规定的已经形成了全面完整的裁判规则，对不正当竞争行为的认定并不会比著作权侵权认定复杂。

（二）从历史发展看两者关系

从历史的发展看，反不正当竞争法不是依附于知识产权法发展而来的，而是从侵权法的一般规则衍生出来，用于保护诚实经营者的利益和公共市场秩序的，但是随着保护公共利益的色彩逐渐加深也具有了一定的公法属性。

反不正当竞争法起源于19世纪后半期已经发生工业革命后的欧洲，行会的解体和自由贸易的发展，原有的贸易秩序受到了巨大的挑战，市场亟需一部规制不正当贸易行为的法律。法国法官直接运用《法国民法典》侵权法的一般规则制止不正当的贸易行为。之后德国法发展出了成文的不正当竞争法律，该法律的第一条也脱胎于《德国民法典》中侵权的一般条款。

不正当竞争法律诞生之初的功能之一就是填补工业产权保护早期的立法空白，为工业产权提供外围保护，主要规制的是商标法和专利法等工业产权。《保护工业产权巴黎公约》明确规制了不正当竞争行为，因此不正当竞争也被纳入到工业产权的保护范围之中。然而随着反不正当竞争法保护范围的不断扩展，一些无关知识产权的行为也被涵盖在内，对应到我国《反不正当竞争法》体系中，第六条的混淆行为对于工业产权的保护具有补充作用，但是其他行为，如第七条的商业贿赂、第八条的虚假宣传、第九条的侵犯商业秘密、第十一条的互联网不正当竞争行为，都与保护知识产权的关系不大。可以看到随着知识产权专门法的进一步发展，反不正当竞争法的辅助保护功能在弱化，竞争功能在强化。著作权虽然不属于工业产权的范围，但是著作权也可以通过使用和宣传具有标识来源、彰显品质的含义，也能具有工业产权的特征。因此，知识产权法与反不正当竞争法虽有交叉，但只是一小部分，反不正当竞争法有独立保护的范围。并且针对交叉部分而言，功能上的补充辅助作用，并不影响法律适用上的独立。

我国的反不正当竞争法颁布实施于1993年，随着改革开放的深入和市场经济的发展，市场活力得以迸发，也亟需一部对于市场行为和市场主体进行规制的法律。我国的反不正当竞争法参照国外立法经验制定，已经经过了两次修订，反不正当竞争法的立法目的从最开始的保护经营者利益，扩展到消费者以及公共利益的保护，其多重的保护法益已不能再被知识产权专门法涵盖。

因此，从反不正当竞争法的发展历程看，反不正当竞争法已经与著作权等知识产权专门法确立了不同的保护路径和保护目标，这也是著作权法和反不正当竞争法分别评价同一行为进行平行保护的法理基础。

三、现行法律对反不正当竞争法与著作权法关系的界定

（一）评析反不正当竞争法新司法解释

1.第一条——反不正当竞争法一般条款的补充保护作用

对于反不正当竞争法与著作权等知识产权专门法的关系，现行法律中并没有直接释明，反不正当竞争法新司法解释第一条对反不正当竞争法一般条款的使用条件进行了说明，在专门法和反不正当竞争法第二章没有规定之外情形下可以适用一般条款，但是却没有说明有规定的情况下能否适用一般条款。最高法民三庭负责人在答记者问中就表示：“既厘清了一般条款与具体行为条款、知识产权专门法规定之间的适用关系，也明确了一般条款对反不正当竞争法及商标法等其他知识产权专门法的兜底适用地位。”从司法解释的角度看，反不正当竞争法的一般条款对其他特别规定具有兜底保护的作用。如在观战模式下游戏画面不受著作权法保护时、在作品的要素如人物名称不受著作权法保护时，一般条款都起到补充或兜底保护的作用。

2.第二十四条——否认平行保护说的合理性

新司法解释的第二十四条，“针对同一侵权人针对同一主体在同一时间和地域范围内实施的侵权行为，法院已经认定过侵害著作权并判令承担民事责任的，当事人又以构成不正当竞争要求承担民事责任的，不予支持。”该条显然是对平行保护说的否认。因此平行保护说的支持者激烈地抨击该条的不合理性，认为它混淆了民法中的对象和客体，对象是民事法律关系中的事实要素，而客体是民事法律关系指向的权益。对同一对象上的不同客体寻求保护并不构成重复救济。一幅画是一个对象，可以形成著作权，也可以形成知名商品的包装，两者属于不同客体，可以分别请求保护。笔者并不完全认同上述观点，因为即使保护的权益不同，如债权和人身权益，也会因为发生请求权的竞合只能择一选择，所以对于解决同一侵权行为能否请求著作权和反不正当竞争法双重保护的关键，在于以请求权竞合的概念为基础，判断行使两项请求权的目的是否重合。王泽鉴教授认为，请求权竞合是指以同一给付目的的数个请求权并存，当事人得择一而行使，其中一个请求权因目的达成而消灭时，其他请求权亦因目的达成而消灭。也有法院指出，请求权竞合指一个事实符合多个法律构成要件，从而成立多个请求权，但目的只有一个。可见，请求权竞合不仅要同时符合多个请求权的法律构成要件，而且多个请求权之间的目的相同。法律禁止请求权竞合的情况下重复评价的理由是禁止重复得利，但是当著作权法和反不正当竞争法保护的目的和法益存在差别时，择一选择某个请求权可能出现无法填补受害人损失的情况。如在侵害著作权和虚假宣传竞合时，仅依据作品的知名度、独创性确定赔偿金额，因其作品缺乏知名度或独创性较低法定赔偿确定的损失较低，此时如果不对虚假宣传的成立与否进行判断，受害人因行为人虚假宣传的不正当竞争行为导致的交易机会较少的损失就无法得到填补。实践中，虽然法院在适用法定赔偿时会考虑到同时构成著作权侵权和不正当竞争影响赔偿金额，但在没有对行为构成要件进行充分审查的情况下，对该行为的性质和影响难免有失偏颇。在择一选择达不成当事人弥补损失的目的时，不构成请求权竞合的情形，著作权侵权和不正当竞争行为需要被分别认定。

在上述案例中有14件认定了请求权竞合，也有少数否认了请求权竞合的存在。法院在双重保护案例中较少适用请求权竞合理论，有以下两点原因：一是较多案件对不同的行为分别构成侵害著作权和不正当竞争进行审理，因多个行为具有关联性而将它们放到一个诉讼程序中；二是法院分别对行为是否符合两者的构成要件进行了认定，并在赔偿金额时考虑同时构成著作权侵权和不正当竞争行为的主观恶意。

（二）最高人民法院的意见——平行保护说的适用余地

1.最高人民法院意见的三层内涵

在最高人民法院《关于当前经济形势下知识产权审判服务大局若干问题的意见》和《关于充分发挥知识产权审判职能作用推动社会主义文化大发展大繁荣和促进经济自主协调发展若干问题的意见》中更为详细的阐述了处理知识产权专门法和反不正当竞争法的关系。笔者将该部分内容总结为以下三层含义：一是反不正当竞争法的补充保护作用不得抵触知识产权专门法的立法政策；二是专门法已作穷尽性规定的，反不正当竞争法原则上不再提供补充或附加保护，但是在与专门法立法政策的相兼容的范围内，仍可以从制止不正当竞争的角度给予保护；三是反不正当竞争法原则规定与特别规定的关系。特别规定中已经穷尽性规定，如明文禁止的行为，只能按照特别规定规制。对于未作特别规定的竞争行为，只有具有损害和不正当性，不制止不足以维护公平竞争秩序的，可以适用原则规定予以规制。

最高人民法院的意见肯定了反不正当竞争法对知识产权专门法的补充作用，因此有人认为最高法院采纳了补充保护说，并且认为知识产权专门法与反不正当竞争法在利益衡量时所需考虑的因素高度重合，因此两者在立法目的和调整对象上不存在明显的差异。对于上述观点笔者并不赞同，反不正当竞争法只有在不与专门立法政策相抵触的情况下才能使用，最高院更准确的来说采用的是有限保护说。而且反不正当竞争法调整对象和保护法益上虽与知识产权专门法有部分重合但更多的是独立成分。从立法的目的上来，著作权法的目的是鼓励作品的创作与传播，规制的是作者、传播者与受众之间的权利义务关系；而反不正当竞争法维护的是经营者和消费者的合法权益，市场的公平竞争秩序。两者的立法目的、调整对象和保护法益上都有明显的差异。

因此，随着反不正当竞争法保护范围和法益的扩张，反不正当竞争法的独立性愈加彰显，补充保护说的基础也发生了动摇。

2.平行保护的空间——评“与立法政策相兼容”

最高法院在有限保护说之外还创设了例外，他认为即使专门法已有规定，但在与专门法立法政策相兼容的的范围内，仍可以为了维护公平竞争秩序的角度对不正当竞争行为进行规制。也就是说在立法政策兼容的角度，平行适用说仍有适用的余地。然而何为“立法政策相兼容”又是实务中认定的难点。笔者认为，如果拟保护的合法权益与知识产权专门法保护的权利不等同或者说反不正当竞争法有独立于知识产权专门法保护的法益时，则与专门法立法政策相兼容。兼容有并存之意，如果反不正当竞争法与著作权所欲保护的法益不重合，为共同实现两者的立法目的，确有平行独立适用两者保护的必要。以同时构成作品和有一定影响力的包装装潢为例，前者保护的是权利人对于作品享有的专有权利，实质上保护的是一种智力成果，后者脱离了对作品构成要件的认定而聚焦于显著性和识别性，因为随着包装装潢的运用，作品已经因其具有的知名度而具有了标识功能，实质上保护的是经营成果，两种成果带来的利益不能相互覆盖，因此需要平行对立保护。

因此，反不正当竞争法保护的法益可以分为了独立型、补充型两类。独立型法益是指反不正当竞争法独立保护的一般竞争利益，如虚假宣传、商业贿赂、互联网不正当竞争行为等，补充型法益是指不在专门法保护范围内，却有保护必要的法益，如不能获得著作权法保护的作品名称。根据所保护的法益和知识产权专门法的关系，反不正当竞争法体系内存在多种不同的法益，这也决定了基于两者的请求权的关系不是单一的补充或平行关系，而是在侵害反不正当竞争法所保护的独立性法益时平行使用，在侵害补充型法益时补充保护。

四、结语

我国的法律和司法实践中明确认定了反不正当竞争法对著作权法的补充保护作用。但是随着反不正当竞争法独立价值的日益彰显，著作权法与反不正当竞争法之间的关系并不再是纯粹的补充保护的关系。“与立法政策相兼容”的判断方式的引入，为两者的平行适用留下了余地。平行保护规则的优势在于既关注到了著作权法与反不正当竞争法有各自独立的保护目的和法益，也更好地保护了权益享有者的利益。

——本文荣获2022年度台州市律师行业优秀论文研讨会二等奖

参考文献：

[1]王迁：《知识产权法教程（第六版）》，中国人民大学出版社2021年版。

[2]孔祥俊：《反不正当竞争法新原理》， 法律出版社2019年版。

[3]孔祥俊：《商标与不正当竞争法：原理和判例》，法律出版社 2009 年版。

[4]谢晓尧：《竞争秩序的道德解读》，法律出版社2005年版。

[5]范长军：《德国反不正当竞争法研究》，法律出版社2010版。

Wen/Wang Wenqi, Xu Wenting

Abstract: In judicial practice, there are different treatments for determining which rules to apply under the dual protection of copyright law and anti unfair competition law. The non-uniformity of the applicable rules has led to confusion in practice. The key to solving this problem lies in clarifying the relationship between copyright law and anti unfair competition law. In theory, there are three views on this issue: supplementary protection theory, limited protection theory, and parallel protection theory. From the development of legal history, the independent value of anti unfair competition law is increasingly evident, and the difference between its protection purpose and legal interests with the specialized protection of intellectual property is becoming increasingly evident. The two have a legal basis for parallel application. The Supreme People's Court has supported the theory of limited protection, but there is still room for parallel protection in addition to limited protection. Within the scope of compatibility with the legislative policies of the Copyright Law, there is still room for parallel protection of the Anti Unfair Competition Law. Compatibility with legislative policies can be understood as having independent legal interests protected by the Copyright Law.

Keywords: Copyright Law, Anti Unfair Competition Law, Parallel Protection, Supplementary Protection

introduction

There are a large number of cases where copyright law and anti unfair competition law are both protected in intellectual property infringement litigation. When the plaintiff requests both copyright law and anti unfair competition law protection for the same infringement, how should the court handle the application of the two laws. Different courts have different ways of handling two litigation claims, either by competing claims or jointly determining the amount of compensation. The different handling methods undoubtedly put the plaintiff's choice of litigation strategy to the test. In response to this phenomenon, the author will use a combination of empirical analysis and theoretical analysis to analyze the types and applicable rules of the dual protection of the two laws.

1、 Typological Analysis Based on Judicial Judgments

Through the search of the "Peking University Magic Treasure" and "Weike First" databases, a total of 125 cases were selected based on judgments that included both "unfair competition disputes" and "copyright ownership and infringement disputes". These cases can be roughly classified into the following categories:

（1） The dual protection of copyright and the unique name, packaging, and decoration of well-known products

There are 56 cases where the plaintiff simultaneously advocates for the protection of both copyright and the name, packaging, and decoration of well-known goods, accounting for approximately 44.8% of the total, which is the largest category among all types. It can be further divided into two categories: the name of well-known products and the packaging and decoration of well-known products. The former usually involves two different behaviors, namely copyright infringement and unauthorized use of a product name that others have a certain influence on. The unauthorized use of an art work that others have copyright on a product constitutes copyright infringement, and the use of a product name that others have a certain influence on a product. In addition to determining copyright infringement, the court separately determined that "Call of Duty" and "SpongeBob" constitute influential product names [see Ningbo Intermediate People's Court (2016) Zhejiang 02 Min Chu No. 65 Civil Judgment]; The latter, on the other hand, constitutes both copyright infringement and unauthorized use of packaging and decoration unique to well-known goods, with a total of 47 cases, accounting for 83.9% of the total number of cases of this type and 37.6% of all cases. The rights holder not only enjoys the copyright of art works, but also enjoys unique rights in product packaging and decoration through promotion and use. The unauthorized use of the product by the perpetrator constitutes infringement of the aforementioned two rights and interests. In judicial practice, different courts have different methods of handling such situations. In most cases, the court will determine whether the act constitutes copyright infringement and the constituent elements of well-known product packaging and decoration separately. But there are also a few courts that directly require the plaintiff to choose one application due to the competing claims, and do not recognize another claim.

According to the judgment results, 56 cases of this type were classified, with 34 cases having both claims and 3 cases not having both claims. There are a total of 13 elements that constitute one claim but not another, as there are 6 cases where the competing claims have not been determined whether one of the claims is valid or not.

There are different judgment paths and standards for the establishment of two claims, so they are not established simultaneously. The key to copyright recognition is whether it has originality, and only considers the constituent elements of the work without considering market factors; The packaging and decoration of well-known products are closely combined with market factors. Firstly, it is necessary to determine whether they constitute a well-known product, and then to determine whether the packaging and decoration on the product is significant and identifiable, that is, the general consumer can identify the source [see Civil Judgment No. 200 of Anhui Intermediate People's Court of Bozhou City (2017) and Civil Judgment No. 26 of Lishui Intermediate People's Court (2015).]. In cases that constitute copyright infringement but do not constitute unfair competition behavior, the court usually determines that it does not constitute unfair competition behavior based on the fact that it cannot be recognized as a well-known product, is not significant, or does not cause confusion among ordinary consumers; For cases that do not constitute copyright infringement but constitute unfair competition behavior, there are only 2 cases where the claim for copyright infringement was rejected based on the inability to prove the ownership of the copyright and the fact that the perpetrator also registered the outer packaging design as a copyright. However, in the latter case, there was a clear error in the judgment. The court mistakenly recognized the effectiveness of copyright registration and believed that the completion of copyright registration would have originality, thus directly determining that it did not constitute copyright infringement. However, there are differences in understanding and application among different courts regarding the handling of the same act that constitutes both copyright infringement and unfair competition. Most courts have made separate judgments on the simultaneous establishment of the two, and then considered the subjective malice that constitutes both to jointly determine the compensation amount, However, there is no consensus on which approach is more appropriate when a few courts directly apply the rule of concurrent claims, requiring the parties to choose one claim.

（2） Copyright infringement and false publicity

There are 38 cases where the plaintiff simultaneously claims copyright infringement and false advertising, accounting for approximately 30.4% of the total. These cases can be roughly divided into two categories: firstly, different behaviors constitute copyright infringement and false advertising, and are tried in the same case because the parties involved are the same and their behaviors are related; The second is that the same act constitutes both copyright infringement and false advertising, which requires the copyright owner to not only have originality in copyright law, but also require their own content to have the function of promoting or reflecting certain advantages of the goods or services, such as advertising text or videos, product images, etc. For example, changing the opening name and image of the advertising video of the rights holder for promotion, falsely using the publicity content and honor of the rights holder, misleads the public and illegally obtains commercial transaction opportunities belonging to the rights holder. The essence of false advertising is to cause misunderstandings among general consumers, which can be mistaken for having a specific relationship with the rights holder or for producing erroneous recognition of certain characteristics of the goods or services of the perpetrator.

Among them, 23 cases simultaneously established copyright infringement and false advertising, with 2 cases not constituting the two. 6 cases only established copyright infringement, 6 cases only established unfair competition behavior, and 1 case was not recognized due to competing claims. In the 7 cases that were determined not to constitute false advertising, it usually occurred in the case of unauthorized use of product images of the rights holder. The product images only contained product appearance information and did not reflect the trademark identification, manufacturer, and other content of the plaintiff and defendant, which was not enough to cause public misunderstanding of the product source or confusion of the plaintiff and defendant's products, so it did not constitute false advertising. [Refer to the Civil Judgment No. 0008 of the People's Court of Zhangjiagang City, Jiangsu Province (2014).] Only when the copyright has the function of identifying the source can it constitute false propaganda. The determination of copyright infringement does not require these standards, so there are significant differences in the evaluation methods and protection laws between the two. The exclusive rights enjoyed by one protected rights holder, the unfair competition behavior of free riding regulated by another, and the fair competition order of the protected market. For one case where false advertising was not identified, the court did not specifically point out the existence of a competitive relationship in the reasoning section. The increase in business opportunities for one party is accompanied by a decrease in opportunities for the other party, which is a clear criterion for judging unfair competition behavior. Therefore, the court clearly mixed the judgment of false propaganda with the judgment of copyright infringement, which is inevitably confusing to people.

（3） Dual Protection of General Provisions of Copyright Law and Anti Unfair Competition Law

The plaintiff simultaneously claimed to constitute copyright infringement and violation of the general provisions of the Anti Unfair Competition Law, totaling 20 cases, accounting for 16% of the total. Among them, 17 cases requested protection from both the Copyright Law and the Anti Unfair Competition Law for the same act, and 8 out of 17 cases were no longer subject to repeated protection from the Anti Unfair Competition Law by the Copyright Law Evaluation Court because the act had already been evaluated. It can be seen that when there is uncertainty in the determination of copyright infringement in certain behaviors, such as broadcasting sports events or live games that others have rights to [see Beijing Internet Court (2020) Jing 0491 Min Chu 17208 Civil Judgment], plaintiffs usually choose to add general provisions of anti unfair competition law as a cover for protection.

By analyzing the reasoning part of the court, it can be seen that courts usually hold the role of anti unfair competition law as a supplement, cover, or additional protection to copyright law. In situations where copyright law has already been applied to evaluate or protect behavior, it is not appropriate to use anti unfair competition law to repeatedly protect the same behavior. [Refer to the Civil Judgment No. 2836 (2019) of the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province.] For the application rules of general clauses, many courts believe that the following constitutive requirements should be met: firstly, there is no special provision in the law for this type of behavior; Secondly, competitive behavior actually damages the legitimate rights and interests of other operators; The third reason is that the behavior violates recognized business ethics and the principle of good faith, resulting in unjustifiability. [Refer to the Civil Judgment No. 20405 of the Guangzhou Internet Court (2020) Yue 0192 Min Chu.] Therefore, there is no situation where multiple claims exist simultaneously for the application of general terms. Only when there is no provision in copyright law can the general terms be applied. Therefore, the above 7 cases are not based on the requirement of competing claims, but rather have been evaluated by copyright law and will no longer be protected repeatedly if they do not meet the general conditions of application. [Refer to Civil Judgment No. 687 of Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (2021) Hu 73 Min Zhong]

（4） Copyright and Trade Secrets

The plaintiff simultaneously claimed 15 cases of copyright infringement and infringement of trade secrets, accounting for 12% of the total. Among them, 4 cases were found to constitute both, 7 cases were found to only infringe on copyright, and there were no cases of only infringing on trade secrets. There were 4 cases where both were found not to constitute. It can be seen that the difficulty of identifying infringement of trade secrets is much higher than that of infringing copyright. Among the 11 cases that were determined not to constitute infringement of trade secrets, the vast majority were due to the plaintiff's inability to prove that the work on which they relied was not well-known to the public, i.e. did not have confidentiality. Regarding the choice of claim rights and responsibilities between the two, some courts believe that there are significant differences in the interests and constituent elements of protection between trade secrets protected by the Anti Unfair Competition Law and works protected by the Copyright Law. The protection of trade secrets and copyright for specific objects is not a relationship between special law and general law, The right holder can simultaneously claim unfair competition of trade secrets and infringement of copyright for specific accused infringement behaviors, but civil liability can only be borne by either party. [Refer to the Civil Judgment No. 220 of Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (2018) Hu 73 Min Zhong.] However, another court held that the two defendants' copying of the source program and technical documents was a competing act that infringed both copyright and trade secrets, and applied both laws when determining the compensation amount and applicable legal basis. [Refer to the Civil Judgment No. 10448 of the First Intermediate People's Court of Beijing (2011) Yizhong Minchu Zi] Two courts supported that two actions constituted a competing claim, but the two courts also determined the two actions separately. Due to the relatively simple determination that they did not constitute trade secrets, the court directly did not support the plaintiff's infringement of trade secrets based on the plaintiff's claim that the content did not contain secrets.

In summary, the main issue in the dual protection field of copyright law and anti unfair competition law is how to apply the law when the same act constitutes both copyright infringement and unfair competition. Most courts will determine whether the two claims are valid separately, but some courts directly require the parties to choose based on the competing claims. In cases where the parties do not make a choice, there are also courts that actively choose a more suitable law. The key to solving this problem is undoubtedly to clarify the relationship between anti unfair competition law and copyright law, whether it is more in line with academic principles and legal provisions, whether it is a parallel application or a choice. Some courts believe that copyright law and anti unfair competition law are a special law and general law relationship [see Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (2019) Hu 73 Min Zhong 377 Civil Judgment, Changsha Intermediate People's Court (2018) Xiang 01 Min Chu 3359 Civil Judgment], so priority should be given to the application of copyright law. Some courts also believe that anti unfair competition law is a supplement or additional protection to copyright law. There is also considerable controversy in academia and practice regarding the relationship between the two.

2、 The Debate on the Relationship between Copyright Law and Anti Unfair Competition Law in Academic Theory

（1） Debates on Different Theories

Regarding the relationship between copyright law and anti unfair competition law, some scholars advocate for supplementary protection, stating that behaviors that are not regulated by copyright law can be regulated by the anti unfair competition law, similar to the relationship between icebergs and seawater, Many courts recognize the complementary role of the Anti Unfair Competition Law in areas not covered by the Copyright Law, such as unregistered packaging and decoration works [see Civil Judgment No. 4 of Zhejiang Zhoushan Intermediate People's Court (2019) Zhejiang 09 Minchu]; Some scholars advocate for limited protection, stating that the Anti Unfair Competition Law should extend protection on the premise of not contradicting intellectual property legislation policies. Objects explicitly excluded by the Copyright Law will no longer be protected by the Anti Unfair Competition Law, Typically, works that have exceeded the copyright protection period are no longer protected by anti unfair competition laws. Some courts hold this view that the issue of game adaptation rights has been negatively evaluated within the framework of copyright, and the scope of copyright control has been clearly defined. Actions outside the scope of control should be included in the public domain, We should not make repeated judgments [Lu Chunxin, "Determination of the Application Boundary of the Anti Unfair Competition Law in Intellectual Property Protection," Law Journal, Issue 9, 2019.]; Some scholars also recognize the parallel protection theory, which advocates that the two are independent and parallel claims, and there is no priority application, no supplementary relationship, and no normative competition. [Zhang Weijun, "The Relationship between Anti Unfair Competition Law and Intellectual Property Law from the Case of Jin Yong v. Jiangnan", "Intellectual Property Law", Issue 10, 2018.] In judicial practice, some courts have directly supported the parallel protection theory in their judgments. He believes that the legal interests protected by copyright law and anti unfair competition law are different. The purpose of copyright law is to protect the intellectual achievements of rights holders, while the purpose of anti unfair competition law is to protect fair competition, The subjects, scope, methods, and focus of protection for preventing unfair competition are different between the two. For rights holders, remedies in copyright law may not necessarily compensate for the damage caused by the same behavior with unfair competition. [Refer to Hainan Provincial Higher People's Court's Civil Judgment (2018) Qiongminzhong No. 552.]

The main difference between the two laws lies in whether the rights are clear. The Copyright Law specifies the constituent elements of exclusive rights, while the rights protected by the Anti Unfair Competition Law need to be determined in individual cases. The above characteristics determine the certainty, comprehensiveness, and efficiency of specialized law protection for intellectual property, and become an important reason for supporters of the theory of supplementary protection to prioritize the application of specialized law protection. However, the certainty of copyright law protection is not absolute. In situations where the ownership and originality of copyright are unclear but the visibility and significance of product packaging are clear, the judgment of unfair competition behavior is more clear. In terms of the frequency at which the two are applied together in practice, parallel protection will not cause inefficiency and complexity in overlapping protection. Courts can already distinguish the legal interests and purposes of the two protections, and the special provisions of Chapter 2 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law have formed comprehensive and complete judgment rules. The determination of unfair competition behavior is not more complex than the determination of copyright infringement.

（2） Looking at the Relationship between the Two from the Perspective of Historical Development

From the perspective of historical development, the Anti Unfair Competition Law did not rely on the development of intellectual property law, but derived from the general rules of tort law to protect the interests of honest operators and public market order. However, as the color of protecting public interests gradually deepens, it also has a certain public law attribute. Wei Zhi: "On the Relationship between Unfair Competition Law and Intellectual Property Law", Journal of Peking University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), Issue 6, 1999

The Anti Unfair Competition Law originated in Europe after the Industrial Revolution in the second half of the 19th century. With the disintegration of guilds and the development of free trade, the original trade order was greatly challenged, and the market urgently needed a law to regulate unfair trade practices. Kong Xiangjun: "On the New Positioning of Anti Unfair Competition Law", Chinese and Foreign Law, 2017, Issue 3. French judges directly apply the general rules of the French Civil Code infringement law to stop unfair trade practices. Afterwards, German law developed a written law on unfair competition, and the first article of this law was also derived from the general clause on infringement in the German Civil Code. [Liu Xiaochang, Copyright and Anti unfair Competition Protection of Literal Works Elements: From the Perspective of "Tongren Works", Trial Research, WeChat official account, July 26, 2019. Quoted from Xie Xiaoyao: Between Experience and System: Research on the Typology of Judicial Cases of Unfair Competition, Law Press, 2010 edition, page 151.]

One of the functions of unfair competition law at its inception was to fill the early legislative gaps in industrial property protection, providing peripheral protection for industrial property, mainly regulating industrial property rights such as trademark law and patent law. The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property explicitly regulates acts of unfair competition, therefore unfair competition is also included in the scope of industrial property protection. However, with the continuous expansion of the protection scope of the Anti Unfair Competition Law, some unrelated intellectual property behaviors have also been covered. Correspondingly, in the system of China's Anti Unfair Competition Law, the confusion behavior in Article 6 has a supplementary effect on the protection of industrial property rights. However, other behaviors, such as commercial bribery in Article 7, false propaganda in Article 8, infringement of trade secrets in Article 9, and unfair competition on the Internet in Article 11, It has little to do with protecting intellectual property rights. It can be seen that with the further development of specialized intellectual property laws, the auxiliary protection function of anti unfair competition laws is weakening and the competition function is strengthening. Although copyright does not fall within the scope of industrial property rights, it can also have the meaning of identifying sources and highlighting quality through use and promotion, and can also have the characteristics of industrial property rights. Therefore, although intellectual property law and anti unfair competition law intersect, they are only a small part, and anti unfair competition law has independent protection scope. And for the cross section, the supplementary and auxiliary function in function does not affect the independence of legal application.

The Anti Unfair Competition Law of China was promulgated and implemented in 1993. With the deepening of reform and opening up and the development of the market economy, market vitality has erupted, and there is an urgent need for a law to regulate market behavior and market entities. Our country's Anti Unfair Competition Law has been formulated based on foreign legislative experience and has undergone two revisions. The legislative purpose of the Anti Unfair Competition Law has expanded from protecting the interests of operators to protecting the interests of consumers and the public. Its multiple protection legal interests can no longer be covered by intellectual property specialized laws.

Therefore, from the development process of the Anti Unfair Competition Law, it can be seen that the Anti Unfair Competition Law has established different protection paths and objectives from specialized intellectual property laws such as copyrights. This is also the legal basis for copyright law and anti Unfair Competition Law to evaluate the same behavior for parallel protection.

3、 The Definition of the Relationship between Anti Unfair Competition Law and Copyright Law in Current Law

（1） Analysis of the New Judicial Interpretation of the Anti Unfair Competition Law

Article 1- Supplementary protective effect of general provisions of the Anti Unfair Competition Law

The relationship between the Anti Unfair Competition Law and specialized intellectual property laws such as copyrights is not directly explained in current laws. The first article of the new judicial interpretation of the Anti Unfair Competition Law explains the conditions for the use of general provisions of the Anti Unfair Competition Law. General provisions can be applied in situations other than those not specified in the specialized law and Chapter 2 of the Anti Unfair Competition Law, but it does not specify whether general provisions can be applied in cases where there are provisions. The person in charge of the Supreme People's Court of China stated in an answer to reporters' questions: "This not only clarifies the application relationship between general provisions and specific behavioral provisions, as well as the provisions of the Intellectual Property Law, but also clarifies the basic application status of general provisions to other intellectual property laws such as the Anti Unfair Competition Law and Trademark Law, https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-351301.html Visited on June 23, 2022 From the perspective of judicial interpretation, the general provisions of the Anti Unfair Competition Law have a protective effect on other special provisions. When the game screen is not protected by copyright law in the watching mode [see Shanghai Intellectual Property Court (2015) Hu Zhi Min Zhong Zi No. 641 Civil Judgment], and when the elements of the work, such as character names, are not protected by copyright law [see Guangzhou Tianhe District People's Court (2016) Yue 0106 Min Chu No. 12068 Civil Judgment], the general provisions serve as supplementary or protective measures.

Article 24- Denying the Rationality of the Theory of Parallel Protection

Article 24 of the new judicial interpretation states that "if the court has already determined the infringement of copyright and ordered the parties to bear civil liability for the same infringement committed by the same infringer against the same subject at the same time and within the same geographical scope, and the parties demand civil liability for constituting unfair competition, it is not supported." This article clearly denies the theory of parallel protection. Therefore, supporters of the parallel protection theory fiercely criticize the irrationality of this article, believing that it confuses the object and object in civil law, where the object is a factual element in civil legal relations and the object is the rights pointed to by civil legal relations. Seeking protection for different objects on the same object does not constitute duplicate remedies. A painting is an object that can form copyright or a packaging of well-known goods. The two belong to different objects and can request protection separately. [He Peng, "Haihua Research | Differentiated Protection of Different Rights and Interests by Special Law on Intellectual Property Rights and Anti unfair Competition Law", Haihua Yongtai Law Firm's WeChat official account, April 12, 2022, So the key to resolving whether the same infringement can be protected by both copyright and anti unfair competition laws is to judge whether the purposes of exercising the two claims coincide based on the concept of competing claims. Professor Wang Zejian believes that the competition of claims refers to the coexistence of multiple claims for the same purpose of payment, and the parties may choose to exercise them. When one claim is extinguished due to the achievement of the purpose, the other claims are also extinguished due to the achievement of the purpose. [Wang Zejian: "Civil Law Thinking - Basic Theoretical System of Claim Rights", Peking University Press, 2017 edition, p. 131.] Some courts have also pointed out that the competition of claim rights refers to the fact that a fact meets multiple legal components, thus establishing multiple claim rights, but with only one purpose. [Refer to the Civil Judgment No. 564 of the Nanjing Railway Transport Court (2017) Su 8602 Min Chu], it can be seen that the competing claims not only need to meet the legal requirements of multiple claims at the same time, but also have the same purpose between multiple claims. The reason for repeated evaluation in cases where the law prohibits the competition of claims is to prohibit repeated gains. However, when there are differences in the purpose and legal interests of copyright law and anti unfair competition law protection, choosing a particular claim may result in the inability to compensate for the losses suffered by the victim. If the compensation amount is determined solely based on the popularity and originality of the work when infringing upon copyright and competing with false advertising, and the legal compensation determined due to the lack of popularity or low originality of the work is lower, if the establishment of false advertising is not judged, the losses caused by the victim's unfair competition behavior of false advertising cannot be compensated. In practice, although courts may consider both copyright infringement and unfair competition when applying statutory compensation, without sufficient examination of the constituent elements of the act, it is inevitable that the nature and impact of the act may be biased. When the choice fails to achieve the purpose of compensating for the losses of the parties, it does not constitute a situation of competing claims, and copyright infringement and unfair competition behavior need to be recognized separately.

In the above-mentioned cases, 14 have identified the existence of concurrent claims, while a few have denied the existence of concurrent claims. There are two reasons why courts rarely apply the theory of concurrent claims in dual protection cases: firstly, in many cases, different behaviors constitute infringement of copyright and unfair competition, and multiple behaviors are placed in one litigation procedure due to their relevance; The second is that the court has determined whether the behavior meets the constitutive requirements of both, and considered the subjective malice that constitutes both copyright infringement and unfair competition behavior when compensating the amount [see (2014) Hangbinzhichu Zi No. 111 (2014) Hangbinzhichu Zi No. 111 Civil Judgment].

（2） Opinion of the Supreme People's Court on the Application Scope of the Parallel Protection Theory

1. The Three Connotations of the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court

In the opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Service of Intellectual Property Trials under the Current Economic Situation and on Several Issues Concerning Fully Utilizing the Function of Intellectual Property Trials to Promote the Great Development and Prosperity of Socialist Culture and Promoting Autonomous and Coordinated Economic Development, the relationship between handling intellectual property specialized laws and anti unfair competition laws is elaborated in greater detail. The author summarizes this section into the following three meanings: firstly, the supplementary protection effect of the Anti Unfair Competition Law shall not conflict with the legislative policies of the Intellectual Property Law; Secondly, where specialized laws have already made exhaustive provisions, the Anti Unfair Competition Law no longer provides supplementary or additional protection in principle. However, within the scope of compatibility with the legislative policies of specialized laws, protection can still be provided from the perspective of preventing unfair competition; The third is the relationship between the principles and special provisions of the Anti Unfair Competition Law. The exhaustive provisions in the special regulations, such as behaviors explicitly prohibited, can only be regulated in accordance with the special regulations. For competition behaviors that have not been specifically regulated, only those that have harmfulness and unfairness and are not enough to maintain a fair competition order without stopping can be regulated by applying principles and regulations.

The opinion of the Supreme People's Court affirms the complementary role of the Anti Unfair Competition Law in the intellectual property specialized law. Therefore, some people believe that the Supreme Court has adopted the theory of supplementary protection, and that the factors that need to be considered in the measurement of interests between the Intellectual Property Specialized Law and the Anti Unfair Competition Law are highly overlapping. Therefore, there is no significant difference in the legislative purpose and adjustment object between the two. [Zeng Fengchen, "The Doctrinal Development of Judicial Policy on the Relationship between Anti Unfair Competition Law and Intellectual Property Law", "Jiao Tong University Law", Issue 2, 2021.] The author does not agree with the above viewpoint. Anti Unfair Competition Law can only be used when it does not conflict with specialized legislative policies, and the Supreme Court more accurately adopts the theory of limited protection. Moreover, although there is some overlap with the specialized law on intellectual property rights in terms of regulating objects and protecting legal interests of the Anti Unfair Competition Law, it is more of an independent component. From the perspective of legislation, the purpose of copyright law is to encourage the creation and dissemination of works, regulating the rights and obligations between authors, disseminators, and audiences; The Anti Unfair Competition Law safeguards the legitimate rights and interests of operators and consumers, as well as the fair competition order in the market. There are significant differences in the legislative purpose, adjustment objects, and protection of legal interests between the two.

Therefore, with the expansion of the protection scope and legal benefits of the Anti Unfair Competition Law, the independence of the Anti Unfair Competition Law has become increasingly prominent, and the foundation of the supplementary protection theory has also been shaken.

2. Space for Parallel Protection - Comment on "Compatibility with Legislative Policies"

The Supreme Court has also created exceptions to the limited protection theory, believing that even if there are provisions in specialized laws, within the scope compatible with the legislative policies of specialized laws, unfair competition behavior can still be regulated from the perspective of maintaining a fair competition order. That is to say, from the perspective of legislative policy compatibility, there is still room for the theory of parallel application. However, what constitutes "compatibility of legislative policies" is a difficult point to identify in practice. The author believes that if the legitimate rights and interests to be protected are not equal to the rights protected by specialized intellectual property laws, or if the anti unfair competition law has legal interests independent of the protection of specialized intellectual property laws, it is compatible with the legislative policies of specialized laws. Compatibility implies coexistence. If the interests of anti unfair competition law and copyright protection do not overlap, it is necessary to apply the protection of both in parallel and independently in order to jointly achieve the legislative objectives of the two. Taking both the composition of a work and the influential packaging and decoration as examples, the former protects the exclusive rights enjoyed by the rights holder over the work, essentially protecting an intellectual achievement. The latter focuses on saliency and recognition, breaking away from the recognition of the constituent elements of the work. As packaging and decoration are used, the work already has a labeling function due to its popularity, and essentially protects the business results, The benefits brought by the two achievements cannot be mutually covered, therefore parallel and opposing protection is needed. Therefore, the legal interests protected by the Anti Unfair Competition Law can be divided into two categories: independent and supplementary. Independent legal interests refer to general competitive interests that are independently protected by the Anti Unfair Competition Law, such as false advertising, commercial bribery, internet unfair competition behavior, etc. Supplementary legal interests refer to legal interests that are not within the scope of specialized law protection but are necessary for protection, such as the names of works that cannot be protected by copyright law. According to the relationship between the protected legal interests and specialized intellectual property laws, there are various legal interests within the anti unfair competition law system, which also determines that the relationship between the claims based on the two is not a single supplementary or parallel relationship, but rather a parallel use when infringing on independent legal interests protected by the anti unfair competition law, and supplementary protection when infringing on supplementary legal interests.

4、 Conclusion

The supplementary protection role of the Anti Unfair Competition Law in copyright law has been clearly recognized in China's legal and judicial practice. However, with the increasingly prominent independent value of anti unfair competition law, the relationship between copyright law and anti unfair competition law is no longer purely a supplementary protection relationship. The introduction of the judgment method of "compatibility with legislative policies" has left room for the parallel application of the two. The advantage of parallel protection rules is that they not only focus on the independent protection purposes and legal interests of copyright law and anti unfair competition law, but also better protect the interests of rights holders.

——This article won the second prize at the 2022 Taizhou Lawyer Industry Excellent Paper Seminar

Reference:

[1] Wang Qian: "Intellectual Property Law Tutorial (Sixth Edition)", China Renmin University Press, 2021 edition.

[2] Kong Xiangjun: "New Principles of Anti Unfair Competition Law", Law Press, 2019 edition.

[3] Kong Xiangjun: "Trademark and Unfair Competition Law: Principles and Precedents", Law Press, 2009 edition.

[4] Xie Xiaoyao: "Moral Interpretation of Competitive Order", Law Press, 2005 edition.

[5] Fan Changjun: "Research on German Anti Unfair Competition Law", Law Press, 2010 edition.