1. Requirements for confusing behavior 1. Subject of confusing behavior: operator. 2. Confusing behavioral objects: signs that have a certain influence. The confused objects mainly include three types of identifiers. The first category is product identification, that is, product names, packaging, decoration and other identifications that others have certain influence on. The second category is subject identification, including company name and its abbreviation, trade name, etc., social organization name and its abbreviation, etc., natural person's name, pen name, stage name, translated name, etc. The third category is some special identifiers in network activities, such as the main part of domain names, website names, web pages, etc. that others have certain influence on. 3. Objective aspects of confusing behavior: unauthorized use. Use without the consent of the right holder, not limited to use in the same or similar manner, leading people to mistakenly think that it is someone else's product or that it has a specific connection with someone else. If used with the consent of the rights holder, it will not constitute confusing behavior. The result of confusion is to cause people to mistake it for someone else's product or to have a specific connection with someone else. Whether it is confusing will ultimately be judged based on the result. 4. Confusing the subjective aspect of the behavior: the perpetrator has a subjective and intentional psychological attitude. That is, knowing or should know that the behavior will cause people to mistake it for someone else's product or have a specific connection with someone else, but hope or allow this result to happen. 2. 1. Article 6 of the "Anti-Unfair Competition Law" Operators shall not engage in the following confusing behaviors to cause people to mistakenly think that they are other people's goods or have a specific connection with others: (1) Unauthorized use of product names that have a certain influence on others, Identical or similar logos such as packaging and decoration; (2) Unauthorized use of other people’s company names (including abbreviations, font sizes, etc.), social organization names (including abbreviations, etc.), names (including pen names, stage names, translated names, etc.) that have certain influence; (3) Unauthorized use of the main part of other people's domain names, website names, web pages, etc. that have certain influence; (4) Other confusing behaviors that can lead people to mistakenly think that they are other people's products or have a specific connection with others. 2. Article 18 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law: If an operator violates the provisions of Article 6 of this Law and engages in confusing behavior, the supervision and inspection department shall order it to stop the illegal behavior and confiscate the illegal goods. If the illegal business volume exceeds 50,000 yuan, a fine of not more than five times the illegal business volume may be imposed; if there is no illegal business volume or the illegal business volume is less than 50,000 yuan, a fine of not more than 250,000 yuan may be imposed. If the circumstances are serious, the business license will be revoked. 3. Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the "Law of the People's Republic of China and the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China" (Fa Interpretation [2022] No. 9) 3. Case analysis analyzes the elements of confusing behavior. The following behaviors are not constitute unfair competition. 1. The marks involved in the lawsuit do not constitute similarity. The premise and basis of unfair competition is that the marks held are similar. If they do not constitute similarity and cannot cause confusion, it cannot constitute unfair competition. Whether the logos are similar can be determined in accordance with the rules for trademark similarity, but it needs to be comprehensively judged in the context of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and whether it is likely to cause confusion. Case: (2019) Hunan 0103 Minchu No. 7568 "Haidilao" VS "Hedi Lao" The "Hedi Lao" logo of the defendant Hedi Lao restaurant and the "Hai Di Lao" trademark of the plaintiff Haidilao Company are not similar trademarks . Regardless of the font shape, pronunciation, composition, color, or the dishes operated by the plaintiff and defendant, ordinary consumers will not misunderstand the source of Hedi Lao's catering services or think that its source is different from that registered by the plaintiff. There is a specific connection between the trademarks Haidilao, so the defendant Hedilao Restaurant does not constitute an infringement of the trademark rights of the plaintiff Haidilao Company's registered trademark "Haidilao". 2. Although there was unauthorized use, it did not cause confusion or misunderstanding. According to the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, even if the respondent uses the same or similar logo without authorization, it does not constitute unfair competition if it cannot cause confusion or misunderstanding.

Case: (2021) Qian Minzhong No. 856 Guizhou Changtong Cable Co., Ltd. VS Guizhou Changtong Group Intelligent Manufacturing Co., Ltd. The defendant Guizhou Changtong Group Intelligent Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and the plaintiff Guizhou Changtong Cable Co., Ltd. are engaged in different operations. The plaintiff admits that there are differences between the two industries; there are significant differences between the "Guizhou Changtong Cable Co., Ltd." used by the plaintiff and the defendant's "Guizhou Changtong Group Intelligent Manufacturing Co., Ltd." and the former "Guizhou Changtong Group Co., Ltd." , for the attention of the relevant public, they will not think that the plaintiff company and the defendant are the same company, so as to confuse them; from the perspective of their popularity, based on the ascertained facts and the aforementioned effective judgment, the defendant company’s popularity does not stem from clinging to The goodwill of the plaintiff is formed, and confusion is not easy to form; as for the defendant's "Changtong Intelligent Manufacturing" corporate name, non-relevant public can clearly see the difference from the plaintiff's "Changtong Cable" and will not identify the two. There is a controlling relationship or a mother-child relationship. Therefore, the use of the words "Changtong Group" in the name of the accused enterprise will not cause the relevant public to mistakenly think that it is the plaintiff's goods or services, or think that there is a specific relationship between the two, and that the two have the relationship of parent company and subsidiary company. 3. The logo involved in the lawsuit is not a “logo with certain influence”. The object of infringement by confusion is "marks with certain influence" owned by other operators. To determine that "marks with certain influence" need to be analyzed in conjunction with the "market visibility" of the mark and the requirements of "distinguishing the source of the goods". Case: (2021) Beijing 73 Minzhong No. 2969 "Houda" VS "Ruida" In the unfair competition case between Houda Company and Ruida Company, the court held that whether it was the unauthorized use of product names, packaging and decoration, or confusion of corporate names Behavior or other confusing behavior, "having a certain impact" is the prerequisite for leading to the mistaken belief that there is a specific connection, and it is also the prerequisite for the application of Article 6 protection. The documented evidence submitted by Houda Company in this case is insufficient to prove that the title of the book it claims has a certain influence and has established a unique corresponding relationship with it and has become an interest that should be protected by the law. Therefore, Article 6 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law cannot be applied. Protect. 4. When the “Copyright Law”, “Trademark Law” and other intellectual property department laws already regulate relevant behaviors, it is not appropriate to seek protection under the “Anti-Unfair Competition Law”. The "Anti-Unfair Competition Law" has a limited and complementary relationship with the laws of various departments of intellectual property. When the departmental laws of intellectual property cannot provide effective protection and comply with the relevant provisions of the "Anti-Unfair Competition Law", the "Anti-Unfair Competition Law" may be applied. Fair Competition Law". The protection under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law is different from the protection of registered trademarks or copyrights. Only when it has the practical significance of identifying the source of goods, it falls under the protection within the meaning of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.