Obviously, intellectual property law only outlines the framework and protection scope of rights from a static perspective, ignores many relevant factors in the operation of rights, and fails to take into account the diversity of rights erosion. For example, if a well-known trademark is used by a non-trademark registrant for a completely different type of product, although the user of the trademark usually does not compete with the trademark registrant, this behavior is related to competition. On the one hand, irresponsible misuse by illegal users will affect the credibility of the trademark, cause confusion and dilution among manufacturers, and lead to a decline in the asset value and competitive advantage of the trademark registrant; on the other hand, illegal users will unfairly obtain superior advantages. The advantage of competitors who do not use this well-known trademark is to use this advantage to improve their competitiveness and put their opponents at a disadvantage. According to my country's Trademark Law, this kind of behavior does not infringe the exclusive right of a registered trademark, and the Trademark Law is beyond its reach. The anti-unfair competition law can prohibit such acts of eroding other people's well-known trademarks on the grounds of anti-dilution. Competition law emerged as a supplementary protection mechanism to overcome the shortcomings of intellectual property law in rights relief. The purpose is to build a second line of defense for rights protection when intellectual property law cannot effectively provide protection. A form of remedial relief protection. Some scholars vividly describe competition law as “covering up” areas that existing intellectual property laws cannot control. Intellectual property law is like an “iceberg” on the sea, while competition law is “the sea water that supports the iceberg.” As Article 1, paragraph 2, of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) “Model Clauses against Unfair Competition” stipulates: “The application of Articles 1 to 6 shall be independent of, and shall be supplementary to, legislative provisions on other intellectual property topics. ”, indicating that the legal protection provided for patents, industrial designs, trademarks, etc. in accordance with special intellectual property laws does not hinder the application of Article 1. Intellectual property rights have been inextricably linked to market competition from the day they were confirmed, but this link has become more prominent in the context of economic globalization. On the one hand, this "prominence" is reflected in the prominent position of intellectual property rights in market competition and the requirement to be protected. For example, the protection of intellectual property rights is not only protected by the "Intellectual Property Law", but also protected by the "Intellectual Property Law" in the Competition Law. The protection of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, the Foreign Trade Law, and the special chapter protection of the Criminal Law. Some of the legal systems for the protection of these rights are direct protection, some are wide-mouthed protection, and some are in-depth protection, which all reflect the importance that national laws attach to intellectual property rights. Another aspect of this "prominence" is that the contradiction between the protection of intellectual property rights as private rights and the maintenance of the entire market economic order has become more prominent. In some cases, intellectual property rights holders take advantage of their legal monopoly status to eliminate or restrict competition, disrupt the market economic order, and harm the interests of other competitors and consumers. We call this behavior knowledge Abuse of property rights. This means that on the one hand, intellectual property law focuses on protecting private rights, and competition law focuses on protecting public interests. Each has its own emphasis and cannot be confused. On the other hand, it can also be seen that in the personal rights of the owner of intellectual property rights, How to find a good balance point on the scale between the protection of interests and the protection of public interests of the entire society. Our country mainly uses the "Anti-Monopoly Law" in the competition law to achieve the balance of interests in regulating and protecting intellectual property abuses.

The main legal systems in competition law are Articles 12 and 15 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, Article 55 of the Anti-Monopoly Law, and Articles 27 and 30 of the Foreign Trade Law. All have specific provisions on the protection and regulation of intellectual property rights. Below we will explain the protected and regulated intellectual property rights through specific legal systems.

my country’s intellectual property law is mainly composed of three special laws: the Trademark Law, the Patent Law and the Copyright Law. Among them, the Trademark Law clearly defines the act of counterfeiting a registered trademark as an infringement. Regarding intellectual property rights, Article 52*** of the Trademark Law lists five acts that infringe on the exclusive right to use trademarks; at the same time, laws of various countries also list the act of counterfeiting someone else’s registered trademark at the top of the list of unfair competition acts.

But at the same time, based on the important private law principle of prohibiting the abuse of rights, the exercise of any right has boundaries. Only when rights are subject to reasonable and necessary restrictions can the exercise of rights in the entire society be harmonious and orderly.

Intellectual property law itself imposes certain restrictions on the use of intellectual property rights, such as compulsory licensing under patent law, fair use under copyright, and the time limit of the three major intellectual property rights. Regionality is an internal limitation of rights. However, it cannot be denied that there are other intellectual property abuses committed by intellectual property owners, and this is not a problem that a single intellectual property law can solve. The promulgation of the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China in August 2008 also included the abuse of intellectual property rights in the market economy to restrict and exclude competition within the scope of its regulation, which provided clear legal provisions for the abuse of intellectual property rights. . This operator's rights protection provides a precise legal basis. At the same time, the Anti-Monopoly Law also clearly stipulates that the law has extraterritorial effect and is binding on multinational companies and enterprises that use their monopoly position in the field of intellectual property to exclude or restrict competition.

Because under my country's current market economy conditions, most of the monopoly companies in specific industries are multinational companies, large enterprises, and large groups, such as Microsoft and Cisco. They refuse licenses through adoption in the Chinese market , tying, price discrimination, corporate mergers and acquisitions and other methods to eliminate or restrict competition, maintain their monopoly position, grab a large amount of profits, harm our country's national economy, and harm the legitimate rights of consumers. These will all be regulated after the implementation of the new Anti-Monopoly Law. Coca-Cola's acquisition of Huiyuan Juice has been subject to national antitrust scrutiny, because once the acquisition is successful, Coca-Cola will obtain advanced production technology and trademark use rights in the field of juice, which will affect the structure of the entire beverage market and affect the interests of other operators. , to the benefit of the final consumer. Therefore, once someone, including Microsoft, files a lawsuit against it, it will be reviewed by the Anti-Monopoly Bureau of the Ministry of Commerce. The key department in the review is to review whether intellectual property rights have been abused.

So to determine whether a company uses intellectual property rights to exclude or restrict competition, the key is to examine whether it abuses intellectual property rights. This will be the focus of antitrust litigation in the field of intellectual property rights in the future.