The shopping festivals of major online platforms are approaching. Do you have the habit of reading online reviews before shopping? In the era of the Internet economy, "online reviews" have become an important reference for consumers when purchasing goods, but they have also cause

In July 2023, a sun protection clothing company in Wuxi, Jiangsu Province discovered that an article titled "Look at the ingredients (scientific) to choose beautiful sun protection clothing! Super Simple yet practical!" The article conducted a horizontal evaluation of 8 different brands of sun protection clothing on the market, including the sun protection clothing products of this Wuxi company. In the evaluation article, not only did professional equipment be used to test the UV protection indicators of different sun protection clothing, but there were also contents such as "Brand A has thick fabrics and slow delivery" and "Brand B is full of ice and has strong sun protection" to guide consumers. Choose sun protection clothing from their recommended brands.

After investigation, it was found that the account that published this review article belonged to an e-commerce company. Therefore, the Wuxi company filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Suzhou Industrial Park on the grounds that false publicity and commercial slander constituted unfair competition, claiming various economic losses. Reasonable expenses for losses and rights protection were RMB 550,000.

Zhang Jihong, President of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of Suzhou Industrial Park People’s Court: In order to prove that the defendant’s statements were untrue, the plaintiff also notarized the purchase of products sold by the defendant’s flagship store, as well as the plaintiff’s own products sold by its own flagship store. products, they also entrusted a third-party organization to conduct evaluation and submitted relevant test reports. The test report also provided corresponding information on the sun protection index capability. The results also showed that the plaintiff’s products were qualified, while the defendant’s products were in Some of the above indicators do not meet the requirements.

In this regard, the defendant was unable to restore the test data in the evaluation article, nor did it retain relevant information at the time. During the trial, the judge also organized both parties to conduct an on-site measurement of the performance of the sun protection clothing, but the results were still inconsistent with the evaluation article. The court therefore determined that the defendant’s evaluation data lacked scientific validity and reliability. In addition, the defendant proposed that the evaluation article only had numbers for different product brands and did not “name them by name”, which did not constitute unfair competition. The court did not agree with this.

Zhang Jihong, President of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of Suzhou Industrial Park People’s Court: Because this review article not only contains text, but also contains a lot of pictures. Although it has individual letters that are different from the brand trademark or have some blocking, it is consumer friendly. If the reader is a relevant member of the public, that is, a member of the public who is familiar with these sun protection clothing brands, he or she can guess it.

The Suzhou Industrial Park People's Court held in the first instance that the UV protection performance data of different brands of sun protection clothing indicated in the defendant company's evaluation article lacked scientific validity and reliability, could easily mislead the relevant public, influence consumers' purchasing decisions, and constituted false propaganda. As an act of fair competition, the defendant company was legally ordered to immediately stop the conduct involved in the case and compensate the plaintiff brand party 45,000 yuan. There will be no repeated evaluation of the plaintiff brand party's claim that the same behavior constituted commercial defamation.

The court of first instance held that the content related to the defendant company’s evaluation articles constituted unfair competition through false propaganda. Both the original and the defendant were dissatisfied with the verdict and appealed. The focus of the dispute between the two parties is, in addition to the unfair competition and behaviors that constitute false propaganda, whether the defendant’s evaluation behavior constitutes commercial defamation.So, how to define legitimate competition and commercial defamation?

Xu Feiyun, the first-level judge of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court: During the trial of the case, the plaintiff still had a strong opinion. He believed that how could the court not determine that these behaviors constituted commercial defamation? If you If these behaviors are allowed to exist, then there will be no cost for everyone to slander them.

review article made subjective comments about the plaintiff’s products such as thick fabrics and weak ice feel, and provided guidance to consumers in the comment area. The plaintiff believed that the defendant had commercially defamed its own brand based on false publicity and subjective evaluation. In order to further clarify the facts, the court specially designed a "blind test" in the second instance.

Xu Feiyun, deputy chief judge of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court and first-level judge: After covering the brand on the spot, it was left to both parties to express their personal feelings during the trial, which was equivalent to an on-site try-on. Both the plaintiff and the defendant came to surprisingly consistent conclusions regarding the thickness of the clothes themselves and whether they had an icy or cool feeling. This confirmed that when the defendant released it to the public, the clothes it said were thicker and colder. Not enough, which means that these facts were basically verified during the trial. There is no obvious deviation from the objective facts, and there are no negative or derogatory remarks, so we believe that this behavior does not reach the level of commercial defamation, so we reject these accusations of commercial defamation.

Based on the ascertained facts, the Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court held that in this case, the accused behavior was not serious in terms of the nature and circumstances of the behavior. The first-instance judgment has achieved corresponding relief to the plaintiff brand party and has provided order to the affected market competition. reinstated, so the final appeal was dismissed and the original judgment was upheld.

In recent years, online evaluation has become an important way for peer competition and product promotion. The number of similar lawsuits and disputes accepted by courts in various places is also increasing day by day. What kind of evaluation is legal and reasonable? How to determine the boundary between evaluation and commercial slander?

In the trial of this case, the first and second instance always adhered to the bottom line, which is objectivity, truth and legitimacy. The court firmly ruled that the defendant's evaluation data were unscientific and unobjective, and ruled it "false propaganda." The court also tolerated subjective evaluations based on objective facts in reasonable competition.

Xu Feiyun, deputy chief judge and first-level judge of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of Suzhou Intermediate People's Court: itself has a certain tolerance for these commercial remarks. The legislative purpose of our Anti-Unfair Competition Law is to protect competition. It is not to protect specific competitors. What it wants to maintain is the market competition order of fair competition. As long as your behavior does not obviously deviate from the legal provisions, it is actually allowed by the law. If you elevate any unethical and inappropriate remarks to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law for negative evaluation, it will undoubtedly have the effect of suppressing competition.

is not only a commercial entity, this case also has certain reference value for individuals to conduct evaluation and comparison on the Internet. The judge reminded that evaluators should also fulfill their basic duty of care when publishing evaluation results on a public platform.

Xu Feiyun, deputy chief judge of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court: As for some personal feelings of like or dislike, these personal subjective feelings are not subject to the strict requirements of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. .Therefore, whether you are a company or an individual, as long as you engage in evaluation activities, you must abide by the most basic requirements of the law. What are the most basic requirements, objectivity and truth.