Analysis The Case Of GuangZhou Pharmaceuticals Corporation V The JDB Group With False Advertising Competition

30 years of reform and opening up, as China's market economy, China has entered the er30 years of reform and opening up, as China's market economy, China has entered the era of market economy. Competition between economic entities of the market is becoming increasingly fierce, there have been a lot of unfair competition phenomenon. False propaganda is one of them.According to China's "Anti-Unfair Competition Law" Article IX prohibitions can be summed up, false propaganda refers to competition in the market activities, operators to use advertisement or other means, of its goods as false and misleading propaganda, harm others behavior interests. However, because of the law on how to determine the false propaganda not a complete standard, in practice often generated considerable controversy. How false propaganda conduct identify accurate is an issue we need to focus.In Guangzhou Pharmaceutical v JDB false propaganda dispute case, Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Group believes that the JDB Group external propaganda "JDB herbal tea for seven consecutive years won the'China first beverage cans'", "Chinese received pot of herbal tea JDB packaged beverage market'seven consecutive championships" and other slogans six constituted false advertising, violation of its goodwill,then to court. In fact, two of them have long dispute.As early as 2012, the parties had to resort to a court of trademark attribution.One year later, Guangzhou Pharmaceutical Group because the JDB Group advertising using the "Wong LaoJi renamed JDB " or "national sales leader of the red cans JDB herbal tea renamed" or with the same meaning, similar slogan acts considered to constitute false advertising, violation of its goodwill, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court filed a lawsuit.The case has been the third time the two sides in court.Guangzhou Pharmaceutical and JDB series litigation has caused widespread concern in the domestic legal profession.Although the case has been upheld the sentence, but there are still many issues worth considering.Because this case is a greater impact, the issue more cases, coupled with the domestic laws for the false propaganda of the criteria is not clear, the views of many is only a discussion is mature, hope everyone a lot of correction, but also hope that through the analysis of legal problems appear in the case, cause public attention on the case of false propaganda, to further improve China's relevant laws.