Key Points in Litigation Practice of Laws and Regulations Concerning Unfair Competition in Enterprise Names In practice, there are very few court cases regarding unfair competition in enterprise names. We can refer to the "Anti-Unfair Competition" when preparing for litigation. Article 5, Item 3 of the Fair Competition Law, "Unauthorized use of enterprise names" and its cases. Specifically, the factors that should be considered in litigation practice are as follows: (1) Prerequisites for the similarity of company names to constitute unfair competition 1) Whether the company names constitute similarity. The similarity between the name of a company registered later and the name of a company registered earlier is the basis for unfair competition. To determine whether business names are similar, you can refer to the principles for determining similar trademarks. 2) Whether there is a competitive relationship between the two enterprises. Generally, a later-registered enterprise must operate the same or similar business as an earlier-registered enterprise, thereby ensuring that the two enterprises have the same or similar customer groups, thus providing a prerequisite for confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public. But this does not mean that to constitute unfair competition, there must be a direct competitive relationship between operators, as the Supreme People's Court has stated in Guiding Case No. 30 - Lan Jianjun, Hangzhou Little Thumb Automobile Maintenance Technology Co., Ltd. v. Tianjin Little Thumb In the trademark infringement and unfair competition dispute case of Automobile Maintenance Service Co., Ltd., it was held that “the Anti-Unfair Competition Law does not restrict operators from having a direct competitive relationship, nor does it require them to engage in the same industry. Between operators There is an indirect competition relationship, and if the perpetrator violates the provisions of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law and harms the legitimate rights and interests of other operators, it should also be deemed as unfair competition. Therefore, although the defendant Tianjin Little Thumb Company and the plaintiff Hangzhou Little Thumb Company are engaged in different industries, Tianjin Little Thumb Company is engaged in the automobile repair industry, and Hangzhou Little Thumb Company is engaged in technology development activities such as automobile glass repair and rapid repair of automobile paint. However, given that Hangzhou Little Thumb Company is a relevant operator in the corporate repair market, there is an indirect competitive relationship with Tianjin Little Thumb Company. "In short, unfair competition can be constituted as long as the conditions of "benefiting oneself at the expense of others" are met. (2) The court determined that what constituted unfair competition was the focus of attention: 1) The later-registered enterprise had the subjective malice of “free riding”. Generally, the greater the subjective malice, the greater the possibility that the court will determine that it constitutes unfair competition. When the court considers whether the later-registered enterprise has subjective malice, it mainly focuses on the following two aspects: First, the popularity of the name of the earlier-registered enterprise. If when a later enterprise registers, the name of the earlier registered enterprise already has a certain market reputation and is known to the relevant public, including the later enterprise, it is usually presumed that the later registered enterprise has subjective bad faith. The "market visibility" here also has different requirements depending on the region where the two companies are located. If the later-registered enterprise and the earlier-registered enterprise are within the same jurisdiction of the registration authority, the earlier-registered enterprise is usually required to have a certain market reputation in the area; if the later-registered enterprise and the earlier-registered enterprise belong to different administrative divisions, , usually requires that the visibility of the name of a previously registered enterprise can break through local limitations and be known to the relevant public in the area where the later registered enterprise is located. The second is the distinctiveness of the previously registered enterprise name. The more distinctive the name of a previously registered enterprise is, such as some artificial non-universal words, the less likely it is to be similar to the name of another company under normal circumstances. Therefore, if the name of a later registered enterprise uses a name that is similar to that of an earlier registered enterprise, The later-registered company is most likely to imitate the company name of the earlier-registered company, and its subjective malice will be more obvious. 2) Whether it causes confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public. The ultimate effect of the above three factors is whether it can lead to confusion and misunderstanding among the relevant public, causing the relevant public to mistakenly believe that the later-registered enterprise has a specific connection such as an affiliated enterprise relationship with the earlier-registered enterprise, thus damaging the interests of the earlier-registered enterprise. , ultimately leading to unfair competition.