Anti-unfair Competition Research On Departing Employee Accessing To Business Opportunity Of The Former Employer

In this paper, on the basis of brief introduction to the case, we use the relevantknowledge of the unfair competition law to illustrate the dispute focus, in order to enhance thereason of this case judgment. The paper is divided into three parts:The first part: brief introduction to the case and focus problems. Shandong FoodCompany brought a suit against Ma Daqing and ShengKeDaChengCompany, because thedefendant illegally obtained the business opportunity.The plaintiff requested the defendant tocompensate the economic loss caused by unfair competition. The trial process was mainlyconcentrated in the focus problems: Is the business opportunity protected by Anti-unfairCompetition Law? Should article2in Anti-unfair Competition Law be the general terms asthe basis of the referee? Can the defendant’s behavior involved be concluded that it has nojustification according to the article2in Anti-unfair Competition Law?The second part: legal analysis of the focus problems. This part is the body of the paper.Business opportunity, as the competition interests, should be protected by Anti-unfairCompetition Law. Business opportunity, gain and loss in competitive business dealers, willnot be able to deduce the behavior of illegitimacy. We judge whether the behavior violates theAnti-unfair Competition Law set by the market rules and fair trade order. Article2interpretedin the Anti-unfair Competition Law can be applicable as a general terms and conditions.General terms and conditions includes the voluntary, equality, fairness, honesty and creditprinciple and acknowledged business ethics, as an abstract of the code of conduct. We wouldrequire the principle concreted in the specific cases, combining the principles and the specificfacts of cases, constantly interpreting the specific meaning of the code of conduct. Theprinciple of good faith and the universally accepted business ethics require people to obeyprohibitive obligations in business strife. If the offender violates prohibitive obligations inbusiness strife, the behavior has been illegitimacy. Ma Daqing is not in violation ofprohibitive obligations in business strife, and competing for the business opportunity cannotbe regarded as unfair competition.The third part: the countermeasures of improper access to business opportunity.From the analysis of the case, we can conclude components of unfair access to businessopportunity: the commercial opportunity should be legitimate and relative certainty. At thesame time this kind unfair competition occurs between competitors, intended for other people’s business opportunity. Through this case, in the later legislation and judicial practice,we should timely summarize and make laws and judicial interpretation, in order to make clearthe significance of protecting business opportunity, constantly to push this type unfaircompetition theory research.