陈高乾律师|全国首例视频刷量不正当竞争案

2020年知识产权宣传周期间，上海市公布了上一年度的知识产权保护十大典型案例”。这十大典型案例由市高院、市检察院、市公安局等多部门报送，经专家评选等程序，涵盖专利、商标、版权、商业秘密、反不正当竞争等领域，涉及民事、刑事和行政执法的知识产权案例。

During the 2020 intellectual property publicity week, Shanghai announced the top ten typical cases of intellectual property protection in the previous year of 2019. These ten typical cases are submitted by the Municipal High Court, the Municipal Procuratorate, the Municipal Public Security Bureau, and other departments, and are subject to expert selection and other procedures, covering the fields of patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and anti-unfair competition, as well as intellectual property cases involving civil, criminal, and administrative law enforcement.

在此批案例中，笔者注意到有一个“视频刷量行为”被认定为反不正当竞争的典型个案，这起案例系北京爱奇艺科技有限公司诉杭州飞益信息科技有限公司、吕某、胡某不正当竞争纠纷案。

Among these cases, the author noticed that a typical case of anti-unfair competition was identified as "video browsing behavior". This case is a dispute over unfair competition between Beijing iqiyi Technology Co., Ltd., Hangzhou Feiyi Information Technology Co., Ltd., Lu and Hu.

一、案情简介

    I. Brief introduction of the case

原告北京爱奇艺科技有限公司系爱奇艺网站的经营者。被告杭州飞益信息科技有限公司是一家专门提供视频刷量服务的公司，其与被告吕某、胡某通过分工合作，运用多个域名，不断更换访问IP地址等方式，连续访问爱奇艺网站视频，在短时间内迅速提高视频访问量，达到刷单成绩，以牟取利益。

The plaintiff Beijing iqiyi Technology Co., Ltd. is the operator of iqiyi's website. The defendant Hangzhou Feiyi Information Technology Co., Ltd. is a company that specializes in providing video brushing services. Through division of work and cooperation with defendants Lu and Hu, they used multiple domain names and constantly changed their IP addresses to visit iqiyi's website video continuously, rapidly increasing the number of video visits in a short period of time, achieving the results of brushing, and making profits accordingly.

原告诉请判令三被告停止不正当竞争行为，赔偿损失，消除影响。三被告辩称，其与原告的经营范围、盈利模式均不相同，不具有竞争关系，且《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》明确了各类不正当竞争行为，涉案的刷量行为未在《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》禁止之列，不构成不正当竞争。

The plaintiff appealed to judge the three defendants to stop unfair competition, compensate for losses and eliminate the impact. The three defendants argued that their business scope and profit model were different from those of the plaintiff, and that they did not have a competitive relationship, and that the Law of the people's Republic of China on Anti-unfair Competition defined all kinds of unfair competition behavior. The brushing behavior involved in the case is not prohibited by the Anti-unfair Competition Law of the people's Republic of China and does not constitute unfair competition.

二、处理结果

Ⅱ.The result of JUDGEMENT

徐汇区法院认为，三被告通过技术手段干扰、破坏爱奇艺网站的访问数据，违反公认的商业道德，损害爱奇艺公司以及消费者的合法权益，构成不正当竞争，可依据《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第二条予以认定。

The Xuhui District Court held that the three defendants interfered with and destroyed the visit data of iqiyi's website through technical means, violated recognized business ethics, harmed the legitimate rights and interests of iqiyi and consumers, and constituted unfair competition, which COULD be determined in accordance with Article 2 of the Anti-unfair Competition Law of the people's Republic of China.

被告不服此判决，随即提起上诉至上海知识产权法院。上海知识产权法院认为，涉案视频刷量行为构成虚假宣传。三被告分工合作，共同实施了涉案视频刷量行为，应承担连带赔偿责任。故判决驳回上诉，维持原判。

The defendant disagreed with the verdict and immediately filed appeals to the Shanghai intellectual property Court. The Shanghai intellectual property Court held that the amount of video brushing involved in the case constituted false propaganda. The three defendants worked together and jointly carried out the amount of video brushing involved in the case and should be jointly and severally liable for compensation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the original verdict was upheld.

三、案件点评

III. Comments on the case

近年来，随着互联网产业发展，依赖互联网的新经营模式和商业逻辑推陈出新，由于新类型不正当竞争行为在法律定性和规则适用上缺乏明确指引，对既有法律规则的解读和适用提出了新的挑战。

In recent years, with the development of the Internet industry, the new business model and business logic relying on the Internet have emerged. Due to the lack of clear guidance on the nature of the law and the application of rules in the new type of unfair competition, it poses new challenges to the interpretation and application of existing legal rules.

新类型行为既可能是《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第二章所列举的不正当竞争行为，升级的一种表现形式，又可能属于法律未列举的行为。本案中的视频刷量行为作为一种全新的经营模式和竞争手段，是当前互联网产业发展中所引发新问题的典型个案。

The new type of behavior MAY not only be a form of unfair competition behavior listed in the second chapter of the Anti-unfair Competition Law of the people's Republic of China, but also belong to the behavior not LISTED in the law. The video browsing behavior in this case, as a new business model and competitive means, is a typical case of new problems caused by the development of the Internet industry.

本案中一、二审法院（徐汇区人民法院及上海知识产权法院）分别采用《中华人民共和国反不正当竞争法》第2条的竞争法一般条款和第9条规定的“虚假宣传”条款对刷量行为进行规制，反映了一、二审法院在刷量行为的定性上的差异。二审法院对于刷量行为的处理，在法律定性和规则适用上准确把握了一般条款和具体条款的关系，对于解决新类型不正当竞争行为案件起到了较好的示范作用。

In this case, the courts of first and second instance (Xuhui District people's Court and Shanghai intellectual property Court) respectively adopted the general provisions of the Competition Law of Article 2 of the Anti-unfair Competition Law of the people's Republic of China and the provisions of "false propaganda" stipulated in Article 9 to regulate the behavior of brushing, which reflects the qualitative differences between the courts of first and second instance in the behavior of brushing. In dealing with the behavior of brushing, the court of second instance accurately grasped the relationship between general provisions and specific provisions in the nature of the law and the application of the rules, which played a good exemplary role in solving new types of unfair competition cases.