Guiding Cases AnalyticsTM
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Guiding Cases AnalyticsTM
指导性案例分析 TM
Dr. Mei Gechlik
Founder and Director, China Guiding Cases Project
Jennifer Ingram
Managing Editor, China Guiding Cases Project
China’s Fifty-Seven Civil Guiding Cases
Issue No. 7 (September 2018)*
*
The citation of this piece is: Mei Gechlik and Jennifer Ingram, China’s Fifty-Seven Civil Guiding Cases,
STANFORD LAW SCHOOL CHINA GUIDING CASES PROJECT, Guiding Cases AnalyticsTM, Issue No. 7, Sept. 2018,
http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-cases-analytics.
Guiding Cases AnalyticsTM is a proprietary serial publication of the China Guiding Cases Project that
aggregates important information on all Guiding Cases released to date and performs quantitative analyses to identify
trends and issues worthy of further study.In November 2010, the Supreme People’s Court of China (the “SPC”) issued the
Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Work on Case Guidance (the “Provisions”)
to establish a groundbreaking system that is aimed at “summariz[ing] adjudication experiences,
unify[ing] the application of law, enhanc[ing] adjudication quality, and safeguard[ing] judicial
impartiality”. 1 Under this system, the SPC determines and uniformly releases Guiding Cases
(“GCs”), “which have guiding effect on adjudication and enforcement work in courts throughout
the country”. 2 In particular, according to Article 7 of the Provisions, courts adjudicating
subsequent cases similar to GCs “should refer to” GCs. 3 Leading judges of the SPC have
explicitly identified GCs as de facto binding precedents. 4
Each GC is a summary of the original ruling or judgment from which the GC is derived,
supplemented with a crucial section titled “Main Points of the Adjudication”. The legal rule(s)
considered in the case, the facts, the outcomes of legal proceedings, and the reasons for the final
ruling/judgment are summarized in the “Related Legal Rule(s)”, “Basic Facts of the Case”,
“Results of the Adjudication”, and the “Reasons for the Adjudication” sections, respectively.
General principles prepared by the SPC and that it expects all of the courts in China to refer to are
presented as short paragraph(s) in the “Main Points of the Adjudication” section. In addition, the
original rulings or judgments from which GCs are derived must be those that “have already come
into legal effect” and that “are of widespread concern to society”, “[involve] legal provisions [that]
are of relatively general nature”, “are of a typical nature”, “are difficult, complicated, or of new
types”, or are “other cases which have guiding effect”. 5
To date, the SPC has released 96 GCs, of which 57 are civil GCs. Among these civil GCs,
20 cover intellectual property, unfair competition, and/or anti-monopoly law. This issue of
Guiding Cases AnalyticsTM provides an overview of all of these civil GCs, covering, inter alia,
their types, their sources, and the characteristics pertinent to their application in subsequent similar
cases. The analytics provided here will be updated on a regular basis to deepen the understanding
of civil GCs.
I. Number of Civil Guiding Cases
The first batch of GCs was released in late 2011. Since then, the SPC has issued 18
batches of GCs, bringing the total number of GCs to 96. Like the number of GCs released per
batch, the number of civil GCs released per batch varies. The number of civil GCs released per
1
《最高人民法院关于案例指导工作的规定》 (Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Work
on Case Guidance), Preamble, passed by the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on Nov. 15,
2010, issued on and effective as of Nov. 26, 2010, STANFORD LAW SCHOOL CHINA GUIDING CASES PROJECT, English
Guiding Cases Rules, June 12, 2015 Edition, http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-cases-rules/20101126-english.
2
Id. Article 1.
3
Id. Article 7.
4
See, e.g., Judge GUO Feng, On the Issue of the Application of the Supreme Court’s Guiding Cases, 1 CHINA
LAW CONNECT 19, 21 (June 2018), also available at STANFORD LAW SCHOOL CHINA GUIDING CASES PROJECT, June
2018, http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/commentaries/clc-1-201806-23-guo-feng.
5
《最高人民法院关于案例指导工作的规定》 (Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Work
on Case Guidance), supra note 1, Article 2.quarter also varies (see Charts 1 and 2). Overall, 2015 saw the greatest number of civil GCs (i.e.,
12) released in one calendar year.
Chart 1: Number of Civil GCs Released per Batch
Chart 2: Number of Civil GCs Released per QuarterII. Types of Civil Guiding Cases
Of the 57 civil GCs released to date, 20 involve intellectual property law, unfair
competition law, and/or anti-monopoly law, with the remaining shedding light on various topics of
company law (seven), contract law (eight), and other areas of civil law (see Table 1). Table 2 lists
the legal rules that have been cited in the 57 civil GCs released thus far.
Table 1: Four Major Types of Civil Guiding Cases
Number of Civil
Types of Civil Guiding Cases GCs (released to
date)
Intellectual Property, Unfair Competition, and/or
20
Anti-Monopoly Law
(GC Nos. 20, 29–30, 45–49, 55, 58, 78–86, 92)
Company 7
(GC Nos. 8–10, 15, 67–68, 96)
Contract
8
( GC Nos. 1, 7, 17–18, 23, 33, 64, 72)
Others (e.g., Bankruptcy, Divorce, Environment, Finance)
(GC Nos. 2, 19, 24–25, 31, 34–37, 22
50–54, 56–57, 65–66, 73–75, 95)
Total 57
Table 2: Number of Civil GCs by Legal Rules Cited
Total No. of
Related Legal Rules GC No(s). Civil GCs
Anti-Monopoly Law 78, 79 2
Anti-Unfair Competition Law 29, 30, 45, 47, 58 5
Auction Law 35 1
Bankruptcy Law 73 1
Civil Procedure Law 2, 7, 25, 34, 36, 37, 56, 68, 82, 84 10
Company Law 8, 9, 10, 15, 96 5
Contract Law 1, 33, 64, 67, 72, 73, 86 7
Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules
Relating to International Carriage by Air signed at
Warsaw in 1929, amended at The Hague in 1955 51 1
Convention, Supplementary to the Warsaw
Convention, for the Unification of Certain Rules
Relating to International Carriage by Air Performed
by a Person Other Than the Contracting Carrier 51 1
Copyright Law 48, 80, 81 3Total No. of
Related Legal Rules GC No(s). Civil GCs
Environmental Protection Law 75 1
Food Safety Law 23 1
General Principles of the Civil Law 15, 29, 35, 50, 51, 65 6
Guarantee Law 57 1
Insurance Law 25, 52, 74 3
Implementing Regulation of the Copyright Law 80, 81 2
Labor Contract Law 18 1
Law on Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests 17 1
Maritime Law 31 1
Marriage Law 66 1
Patent Law 20, 55, 84, 85 4
Property Law 53, 54, 65, 72, 95 5
Regulation on the Protection of New Plant Varieties 86, 92 2
Regulation on Property Management 65 1
Regulation on the Protection of Computer Software 48, 49 2
Road Traffic Safety Law 19, 24 2
Succession Law 50 1
Tort Liability Law 19, 24, 83 3
Trademark Law 46, 58, 82 3
III. Sources of Civil Guiding Cases
The underlying ruling or judgment of a GC can be rendered by any regular court within
China’s four-tier system or by a special court. In China, special courts have jurisdiction to handle
specific types of cases, such as military, railroad transportation, maritime, and intellectual property
cases. Candidate GCs are submitted level by level through the court system until they are
ultimately selected and approved by the Adjudication Committee of the SPC. 6
Of the 57 civil GCs released to date, 20 are based on rulings/judgments originally rendered
by the SPC itself, 19 by high people’s courts, 12 by intermediate people’s courts, five by basic
people’s courts, and one by a maritime court, which is a special court (GC No. 31) (see Chart 3).
6
《最高人民法院关于案例指导工作的规定》 (Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Work
on Case Guidance), supra note 1, Articles 3–6.Chart 3: Number of Rulings/Judgments Rendered by Different Courts
Released as Civil GCs**
**
The first number is the number of rulings/judgments, followed by the percentage.
1. Supreme People’s Court
All but two of the 20 civil GCs whose original rulings/judgments were rendered by the
SPC were released in recent years (i.e., 2014−2017). Three of these GCs were enforcement
reconsideration cases (GC Nos. 34–36). These cases show the SPC’s keen interest in providing
more guidance on this topic, which has not been clearly understood (see Table 3).
Table 3: Rulings/Judgments Rendered by the SPC Released as Civil GCs
GC Released
No. in: Type of Case
7 2012 Q2 A Construction Project Contract Dispute
20 2013 Q4 An Invention Patent Infringement Dispute
33 2014 Q4 A Dispute over Contracts Affirmed to be Invalid
34 2014 Q4 An Enforcement Reconsideration Case
35 2014 Q4 An Enforcement Reconsideration Case on an Entrusted Auction
An Enforcement Reconsideration Case on a Dispute over the Rights and Interests
36 2014 Q4 in Securities
47 2015 Q2 An Unfair Competition Dispute
52 2015 Q2 A Dispute over an Insurance Contract for the Carriage of Goods by Sea
55 2015 Q4 A Utility Model Patent Infringement Dispute
56 2015 Q4 A Case of Objections to Jurisdiction in a Product Liability Dispute
67 2016 Q3 A Dispute over a Transfer of Shareholding
68 2016 Q3 A Dispute over Corporate LendingGC Released
No. in: Type of Case
72 2016 Q4 A Dispute over a Sale and Purchase Contract for a Commercial Housing Property
75 2016 Q4 A Case of Public Interest Litigation over Environmental Pollution
78 2017 Q1 A Dispute over Abusing Dominant Market Positions
79 2017 Q1 A Dispute over a Bundled Transaction
81 2017 Q1 A Copyright Infringement Dispute
82 2017 Q1 A Trademark Infringement Dispute
84 2017 Q1 A Dispute over Infringement of an Invention Patent
85 2017 Q1 A Dispute over Infringement of an Exterior Design Patent
2. Lower-Level Courts in Different Provinces and Provincial-Level Municipalities
Among those civil GCs whose underlying rulings/judgments that were not originally
rendered by the SPC itself, the SPC has selected relatively more from Shanghai and Jiangsu (nine
civil GCs each) for release as civil GCs. Other cases are predominantly from Zhejiang, Beijing,
and Anhui (three civil GCs each) as well as Tianjin and Shandong (two civil GCs each) (see Chart
4).
Chart 4: Number of Rulings/Judgments Rendered by the Courts in the Following
Provinces/Provincial-Level Municipalities Released as Civil GCs**
**
The first number is the number of rulings/judgments, followed by the percentage.IV. Facts and Reasons in Civil Guiding Cases and Implications for Application
As mentioned at the beginning of this piece, judges in China have been instructed that they
“should refer to” GCs when adjudicating similar cases. Initially, they were not given any guidance
on how to determine whether a case is similar to a GC. In 2015, the Detailed Implementing Rules
on the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Work on Case Guidance” was
issued, Article 9 of which provides: 7
Where a case being adjudicated is, in terms of the basic facts and application of
law, similar to a Guiding Case released by the Supreme People’s Court, the
[deciding] people’s court at any level should refer to the “Main Points of the
Adjudication” of that relevant Guiding Case to render its ruling or judgment.
(emphasis added)
The phrase “in terms of the basic facts and application of law” suggests that the “Basic Facts of
the Case” and the “Reasons for the Adjudication” sections of each GC should be examined closely
to decide whether a fact of a pending case is distinguishable and whether the legal issues of the
pending case involve the application of law as explained in the reasoning part of the GC.
It is, therefore, critical to make sure that each GC has detailed “Basic Facts of the Case”
and “Reasons for the Adjudication” sections. Unfortunately, on average, these two sections are
quite short in most GCs. Based on the analysis of all 96 GCs released to date, on average,
approximately 40% of the total number of Chinese characters in the six main sections of each GC
(i.e. “Keywords”, “Main Points of the Adjudication”, “Related Legal Rule(s)”, “Basic Facts of the
Case”, “Results of the Adjudication”, and the “Reasons for the Adjudication” sections) are found
in the “Basic Facts of the Case” and another 40% in the “Reasons for the Adjudication”. 8
Similar percentages are also seen in civil GCs (see Chart 6). Given that, on average, the
above-mentioned six main sections of a civil GC have about 3,000 Chinese characters (see Chart
5), 40% of this length means only 1,200 Chinese characters. The remaining 20% comprises
“Keywords” (approximately 20 to 30 Chinese characters), “Related Legal Rule(s)” (one or two
titles of relevant legislation), “Main Points of the Adjudication” (typically, one to three
paragraphs), and “Results of the Adjudication” (usually, a couple of paragraphs).
7
《〈 最 高 人 民 法 院 关 于 案 例 指 导 工 作 的 规 定 〉 实 施 细 则 》(Detailed Implementing Rules on the
“Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Work on Case Guidance”), passed by the Adjudication
Committee of the Supreme People’s Court on Apr. 27, 2015, issued on and effective as of May 13, 2015, STANFORD
LAW SCHOOL CHINA GUIDING CASES PROJECT, English Guiding Cases Rules, June 12, 2015 Edition,
http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-cases-rules/20150513-english.
8
Mei Gechlik and Jennifer Ingram, China’s Ninety-Six Guiding Cases, STANFORD LAW SCHOOL CHINA
GUIDING CASES PROJECT, Guiding Cases AnalyticsTM, Issue No. 6, Sept. 2018, http://cgc.law.stanford.edu/guiding-
cases-analytics.Chart 5: Number of Chinese Characters in Six Main Sections of Each Civil GC
Chart 6: Relative Length of the “Facts” and “Reasons” Sections of Each Civil GC
A closer comparison of the 18 batches shows that while the average length of civil GCs
and the relative length of the “Basic Facts” section of issued civil GCs has been going up and
down, the relative length of the “Reasons” sections of issued civil GCs has gradually increased to
approximately 50%. In addition, since Batch No. 8, the “Reasons” section of each civil GC has
been longer than the “Facts” section (see Chart 6). The SPC’s effort to provide more “reasons” isin line with the objective to “push forward the reasoning reform of adjudication documents” stated
in the Fourth Five-Year Reform Plan of the People’s Court (2014–2018). 9 More reasons provided
in civil GCs will allow courts and lawyers handling subsequent cases similar to these civil GCs to
carefully analyze whether the subsequent cases are truly similar to the civil GCs referenced or
whether they should be distinguished. If implemented well, this will help China to gradually
develop its legal culture of applying cases.
9
《最高人民法院关于全面深化人民法院改革的意见人民法院第四个五年改革纲要（2014–2018）》
(The Opinion of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Comprehensively Deepening the Reform of the People’s
CourtThe Fourth Five-Year Reform Plan of the People’s Court (2014–2018)), issued on Feb. 4, 2015,
http://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-13520.html.APPENDIX: LIST OF 57 Civil Guiding Cases
GC No. Case Name (translated by the CGCP)
《上海中原物业顾问有限公司诉陶德华居间合同纠纷案》(Shanghai Centaline Property
1
Consultants Limited v. TAO Dehua, An Intermediation Contract Dispute)
《吴梅诉四川省眉山西城纸业有限公司买卖合同纠纷案》(WU Mei v. Meishan Xicheng
2
Paper Co., Ltd. of Sichuan Province, A Sale and Purchase Contract Dispute)
《牡丹江市宏阁建筑安装有限责任公司诉牡丹江市华隆房地产开发有限责任公司、张继增建
7 设工程施工合同纠纷案》(Mudanjiang Municipality Hongge Construction and Installation Co.,
Ltd. v. Mudanjiang Municipality Hualong Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. and ZHANG Jizeng,
A Construction Project Contract Dispute)
《林方清诉常熟市凯莱实业有限公司、戴小明公司解散纠纷案》(LIN Fangqing v. Changshu
8
Kailai Industry Co., Ltd. and DAI Xiaoming, A Corporate Dissolution Dispute)
《 上 海 存 亮 贸 易 有 限 公 司 诉 蒋 志 东 、 王 卫 明 等 买 卖 合 同 纠 纷 案 》 (Shanghai Cunliang
9 Trading Co., Ltd. v. JIANG Zhidong, WANG Weiming et al., A Sale and Purchase Contract
Dispute)
《李建军诉上海佳动力环保科技有限公司公司决议撤销纠纷案》(LI Jianjun v. Shanghai
10 Jiapower Environment Protection Science and Technology Co., Ltd., A Corporate Resolution
Revocation Dispute)
《徐工集团工程机械股份有限公司诉成都川交工贸有限责任公司等买卖合同纠纷案》
15 (XCMG Construction Machinery Co., Ltd. v. Chengdu Chuanjiao Industry and Trade Co., Ltd. et
al., A Sale and Purchase Contract Dispute)
《张莉诉北京合力华通汽车服务有限公司买卖合同纠纷案》(ZHANG Li v. Beijing Heli
17
Huatong Automobile Service Co., Ltd., A Sale and Purchase Contract Dispute)
《中兴通讯（杭州）有限责任公司诉王鹏劳动合同纠纷案》(ZTE (Hangzhou) Company
18
Limited v. WANG Peng, A Labor Contract Dispute)
《赵春明等诉烟台市福山区汽车运输公司卫德平等机动车交通事故责任纠纷案》(ZHAO
19 Chunming et al. v. The Automobile Transport Company of Fushan District, Yantai Municipality,
WEI Deping, et al., A Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability Dispute)
《深圳市斯瑞曼精细化工有限公司诉深圳市坑梓自来水有限公司、深圳市康泰蓝水处理设
20 备有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案》(Shenzhen Siruiman Fine Chemicals Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen
Kengzi Water Supply Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Kangtailan Water Treatment Equipment Co., Ltd.,
An Invention Patent Infringement Dispute)
《孙 银山 诉南 京欧 尚超 市 有限 公司 江宁 店买 卖合 同 纠纷 案》 (SUN Yinshan v. Nanjing
23
Auchan Hypermarket Co., Ltd. Jiangning Store, A Sale and Purchase Contract Dispute)
《荣宝英诉王阳、永诚财产保险股份有限公司江阴支公司机动车交通事故责任纠纷案》
24
(RONG Baoying v. WANG Yang and Alltrust Insurance Co., Ltd. Jiangyin Branch, A MotorGC No. Case Name (translated by the CGCP)
Vehicle Traffic Accident Liability Dispute)
《华泰财产保险有限公司北京分公司诉李志贵、天安财产保险股份有限公司河北省分公司
25 张家口支公司保险人代位 求偿权纠纷案》 (Huatai Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Ltd.
Beijing Branch v. LI Zhigui and Zhangjiakou Subbranch of Tianan Property Insurance Company
Limited of China Hebei Provincial Branch, An Insurer's Subrogation Right Dispute)
《天津中国青年旅行社诉天津国青国际旅行社擅自使用他人企业名称纠纷案》(Tianjin
29 China Youth Travel Service v. Tianjin Guoqing International Travel Agency, A Dispute over an
Unauthorized Use of Another’s Enterprise Name)
《兰建军、杭州小拇指汽车维修科技股份有限公司诉天津市小拇指汽车维修服务有限公司
30 等侵 害商 标权 及 不正 当竞 争纠 纷案 》 (LAN Jianjun and Hangzhou Suremoov Automotive
Technology Company Limited v. Tianjin Xiaomuzhi Automobile Maintenance and Repair Services
Co., Ltd. et al., A Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Dispute)
《江苏炜伦航运股份有限公司诉米拉达玫瑰公司船舶碰撞损害赔偿纠纷案》(Jiangsu
31
Weilun Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Miranda Rose Limited, A Ship Collision Damages Dispute)
《 瑞 士 嘉 吉 国 际 公 司 诉 福 建 金 石 制 油 有 限 公 司 等 确 认 合 同 无 效 纠 纷 案 》 (Cargill
33 International S.A. v. Fujian Jinshi Vegetable Oil Producing Co., Limited et al., A Dispute over
Contracts Affirmed to be Invalid)
《李晓玲、李鹏裕申请执行厦门海洋实业（集团）股份有限公司、厦门海洋实业总公司执
34 行复议案》 (Application by LI Xiaoling and LI Pengyu for Enforcement against Xiamen Marine
Industry (Group) Co., Ltd. and Xiamen Marine Industry Controlling Corporation, An
Enforcement Reconsideration Case)
《广东龙正投资发展有限公司与广东景茂拍卖行有限公司委托拍卖执行复议案》
35 (Guangdong Longzheng Investment Development Co., Ltd. and Guangdong Jingmao Auction Co.,
Ltd., An Enforcement Reconsideration Case on an Entrusted Auction)
《中投信用担保有限公司与海通证券股份有限公司等证券权益纠纷执行复议
36 案 》 (Zhongtou Credit Guarantee Co., Ltd. and Haitong Securities Co., Ltd. et al., An
Enforcement Reconsideration Case on a Dispute over the Rights and Interests in Securities)
《上海金纬机械制造有限公司与瑞士瑞泰克公司仲裁裁决执行复议案》 (Shanghai Jwell
37 Machinery Co., Ltd. and Retech Aktiengesellschaft, Switzerland, An Enforcement Reconsideration
Case on an Arbitral Award)
《北京百度网讯科技有限公司诉青岛奥商网络技术有限公司等不正当竞争纠纷案》(Beijing
45 Baidu Netcom Science and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Qingdao Aoshang Network Technology Co.,
Ltd., An Unfair Competition Dispute)
《山东鲁锦实业有限公司诉鄄城县鲁锦工艺品有限责任公司、济宁礼之邦家纺有限公司侵
46 害商标权及不正当竞争纠纷案》(Shandong Lu Jin Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Juancheng Lu Jin
Crafts Co., Ltd. and Jining Lizhibang Home Textiles Co., Ltd., A Trademark Infringement and
Unfair Competition Dispute)
47 《意大利费列罗公司诉蒙特莎（张家港）食品有限公司、天津经济技术开发区正元行销有GC No. Case Name (translated by the CGCP)
限公司不正当竞争纠纷案》(Ferrero International S.A. in Italy v. Montresor (Zhangjiagang)
Food Co., Ltd. and Zhengyuan Marketing Co., Ltd. in Tianjin Economic - Technological
Development Area, An Unfair Competition Dispute)
《北京精雕科技有限公司诉上海奈凯电子科技有限公司侵害计算机软件著作权纠纷案》
48 (Beijing Jingdiao Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Naikai Electronic Science and Technology Co., Ltd., A
Computer Software Copyright Infringement Dispute)
《石鸿林诉泰州华仁电子资讯有限公司侵害计算机软件著作权纠纷案》(SHI Honglin v.
49 Taizhou Huaren Electronic Information Co., Ltd., A Dispute over Computer Software Copyright
Infringement)
《李某、郭某阳诉郭某和、童某某继承纠纷案》(A certain Ms. LI and GUO X Yang v. GUO
50
X He and a certain Ms. TONG, A Succession Dispute)
《阿 卜杜 勒 •瓦希 德诉 中 国东 方航 空股 份有 限公 司 航空 旅客 运输 合同 纠纷 案 》 (Abdul
51 Waheed v. China Eastern Airlines Corporation Limited, A Dispute over a Contract for the
Carriage of Passengers by Air)
《海南丰海粮油工业有限公司诉中国人民财产保险股份有限公司海南省分公司海上货物运
52 输保险合同纠纷案》(Hainan Fenghai Grain and Oil Industry Co., Ltd. v. The Hainan Branch of
PICC Property and Casualty Company Limited, A Dispute over An Insurance Contract for the
Carriage of Goods By Sea)
《福建海峡银行股份有限公司福州五一支行诉长乐亚新污水处理有限公司、福州市政工程
53 有限公司金融借款合同纠纷案》 (The Fuzhou Wuyi Sub-Branch of Fujian Haixia Bank Co.,
Ltd. v. Changle Yaxin Sewage Treatment Co., Ltd. and Fuzhou Municipal Administration
Engineering Co., Ltd., A Dispute over a Financial Borrowing Contract)
《中国农业发展银行安徽省分行诉张大标、安徽长江融资担保集团有限公司执行异议之诉
54 纠纷案》 (The Anhui Branch of the Agricultural Development Bank of China v. ZHANG Dabiao
and Anhui Changjiang Financing Guarantee Group Co., Ltd., A Dispute Concerning a Suit over
an Objection to Enforcement)
《柏万清诉成都难寻物品营销服务中心等侵害实用新型专利权纠纷案》 (BAI Wanqing v.
55 Chengdu Hard-To-Find Items Marketing Services Center et al., A Utility Model Patent
Infringement Dispute)
《韩凤彬诉内蒙古九郡药业有限责任公司等产品责任纠纷管辖权异议案》 (HAN Fengbin v.
56 Inner Mongolia Jiujun Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al., A Case of Objections to Jurisdiction in a
Product Liability Dispute)
《温州银行股份有限公司宁波分行诉浙江创菱电器有限公司等金融借款合同纠纷案》 (The
57 Ningbo Branch of Bank of Wenzhou Co., Ltd. v. Zhejiang Chuangling Electric Appliance Co., Ltd.
et al., A Dispute over a Financial Borrowing Contract)
《成都同德福合川桃片有限公司诉重庆市合川区同德福桃片有限公司、余晓华侵害商标权
58 及不正当竞争纠纷案》 (Chengdu Tongdefu Hechuan Peach Piece Co., Ltd. v. Chongqing
Hechuan Tongdefu Sliced-Walnut Cake Co., Ltd. and YU Xiaohua, A Trademark Infringement
and Unfair Competition Dispute),GC No. Case Name (translated by the CGCP)
《刘超捷诉中国移动通信集团江苏有限公司徐州分公司电信服务合同纠纷案》 (LIU
64 Chaojie v. The Xuzhou Branch of China Mobile Group Jiangsu Company Limited, A Dispute
Over a Telecommunications Service Contract)
《上海市虹口区久乐大厦小区业主大会诉上海环亚实业总公司业主共有权纠纷案》 (The
65 Owners’ Association of the Jiule Building Community, Hongkou District, Shanghai Municipality
v. Shanghai Huanya Industrial Corporation, A Dispute over Owners’ Joint Ownership Rights)
66 《雷某某诉宋某某离婚纠纷案》(A certain LEI v. a certain SONG, A Dispute over Divorce)
《汤长龙诉周士海股权转让纠纷案》 (TANG Changlong v. ZHOU Shihai, A Dispute over a
67
Transfer of Shareholding)
《上海欧宝生物科技有限公司诉辽宁特莱维置业发展有限公司企业借贷纠纷案》 (Shanghai
68 Oubao Biotechnology Co., Ltd. v. Liaoning Trevi Real Estate Development Co., Ltd., A Dispute
over Corporate Lending)
《汤龙、刘新龙、马忠太、王洪刚诉新疆鄂尔多斯彦海房地产开发有限公司商品房买卖合
72 同纠纷案》 (TANG Long, LIU Xinlong, MA Zhongtai, and WANG Honggang v. Xinjiang Ordos
Yanhai Real Estate Development Co., Ltd., A Dispute over a Contract for the Sale and Purchase
of Commercial Housing)
《通州建总集团有限公司诉安徽天宇化工有限公司别除权纠纷案》 (Tongzhou Construction
73 General Contracting Group Co., Ltd. v. Anhui Tianyu Chemical Co., Ltd., A Dispute over a Right
of Exclusion)
《中国平安财产保险股份有限公司江苏分公司诉江苏镇江安装集团有限公司保险人代位求
74 偿权纠纷案》 (The Jiangsu Branch of Ping An Property & Casualty Insurance Company of
China, Ltd. v. Jiangsu Zhenjiang Installation Group Co., Ltd., A Dispute over an Insurer’s Right
of Subrogation)
《中国生物多样性保护与绿色发展基金会诉宁夏瑞泰科技股份有限公司环境污染公益诉讼
75 案》 (China Biodiversity Conservation and Green Development Foundation v. Ningxia Ruitai
Technology Co., Ltd., A Case of Public Interest Litigation over Environmental Pollution)
《北京奇虎科技有限公司诉腾讯科技（深圳）有限公司、深圳市腾讯计算机系统有限公司
78 滥 用 市 场 支 配 地 位 纠 纷 案 》 (Beijing Qihu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Tencent Technology
(Shenzhen) Company Limited and Shenzhen Tencent Computer Systems Company Limited, A
Dispute over Abusing Dominant Market Positions)
《吴小秦诉陕西广电网络传媒（集团）股份有限公司捆绑交易纠纷案》 (WU Xiaoqin v.
79 Shaanxi Broadcast & TV Network Intermediary (Group) Co., Ltd., A Dispute over a Bundled
Transaction)
《洪福远、邓春香诉贵州五福坊食品有限公司、贵州今彩民族文化研发有限公司著作权侵
80 权纠纷案》 (HONG Fuyuan and DENG Chunxiang v. Guizhou Wufufang Foods Co., Ltd. and
Guizhou Jincai Ethnic Culture R & D Co., Ltd., A Copyright Infringement Dispute)
《张晓燕诉雷献和、赵琪、山东爱书人音像图书有限公司著作权侵权纠纷案》(ZHANG
81
Xiaoyan v. LEI Xianhe, ZHAO Qi, and Shandong Aishuren Audio-Video & Book Co., Ltd., AGC No. Case Name (translated by the CGCP)
Copyright Infringement Dispute)
《王碎永诉深圳歌力思服饰股份有限公司、杭州银泰世纪百货有限公司侵害商标权纠纷
82 案》 (WANG Suiyong v. Shenzhen Ellassay Fashion Co., Ltd. and Hangzhou Intime Century
Department Store Co., Ltd., A Trademark Infringement Dispute)
《威海嘉易烤生活家电有限公司诉永康市金仕德工贸有限公司、浙江天猫网络有限公司侵
害 发 明 专 利 权 纠 纷 案 》 (Weihai Jiayikao Household Appliance Co., Ltd. v. Yongkangshi
83
Jinshide Industry & Trading Co., Ltd. and Zhejiang Tmall.com Network Co., Ltd., A Dispute over
Infringement of an Invention Patent)
《礼来公司诉常州华生制药有限公司侵害发明专利权纠纷案》(Lilly Company v. WATSON
84
Pharmaceuticals (Changzhou) Co., Ltd., A Dispute over Infringement of an Invention Patent)
《高仪股份公司诉浙江健龙卫浴有限公司侵害外观设计专利权纠纷案》(Grohe AG v.
85 Zhejiang Jianlong Sanitary Ware Co., Ltd., A Dispute over Infringement of an Exterior Design
Patent)
《天津天隆种业科技有限公司与江苏徐农种业科技有限公司侵害植物新品种权纠纷案》
86 (Tianjin Tianlong Seeds Science and Technology Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Xunong Seeds Science and
Technology Co., Ltd., A Dispute over Infringement of Rights to New Plant Varieties)
《莱州市金海种业有限公司诉张掖市富凯农业科技有限责任公司侵犯植物新品种权纠纷
92 案》(Laizhou Jinhai Seeds Co., Ltd. v. Zhangye Fukai Agricultural Science and Technology
Limited Liability Company, A Dispute over Infringement of Rights to a New Plant Variety)
《中国工商银行股份有限公司宣城龙首支行诉宣城柏冠贸易有限公司、江苏凯盛置业有限
95 公司等金融借款合同纠纷案》 (Xuancheng Longshou Branch of the Industrial and Commercial
Bank of China v. Xuancheng Baiguan Trading Co., Ltd. and Jiangsu Kaisheng Property Company
Limited, A Dispute over a Financial Borrowing Contract)
《宋文军诉西安市大华餐饮有限公司股东资格确认纠纷案》(SONG Wenjun v. Xi'an Dahua
96 Food and Beverage Co., Ltd., A Dispute over a Confirmation of the Qualification of
Shareholders)You can also read
