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.