|
|
|
Shandong Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation, Shandong Sanfod Group Co., Ltd. and Shandong Sanfod Nissui Co. Ltd. v. Ma Daqing and Qingdao SKD Credit Trading Co., Ltd. (case of unfair competition)
|
|
山東省食品進出口公司、山東山孚集團有限公司、山東山孚日水有限公司訴馬達慶、青島聖克達誠貿易有限公司不正當競爭糾紛案
|
|
【法寶引證碼】
|
- Type of Dispute:
IPR--＞Unfair Competition
- Legal document：
Judgment
- Judgment date：
03-18-2009
- Procedural status：
Trial at Second Instance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shandong Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation, Shandong Sanfod Group Co., Ltd. and Shandong Sanfod Nissui Co. Ltd. v. Ma Daqing and Qingdao SKD Credit Trading Co., Ltd. (unfair competition dispute)
BASIC FACTS
Plaintiff: Shandong Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation, at: Sanfod Building, 96 Xianggangzhong Road, Qingdao City.
Legal representative: Teng Haibo, chairman of the board of directors of this company.
Plaintiff: Shandong Sanfod Group Co., Ltd., at: Sanfod Building, 96 Xianggangzhong Road, Qingdao City.
Legal representative: Teng Haibo, chairman of the board of directors of this company.
Plaintiff: Shandong Sanfod Nissui Co. Ltd., at: North Kunlunshan Road, Qingdao Economic and Technological Development Zone.
Legal representative: Teng Haibo, chairman of the board of directors of this company.
Defendant: Ma Daqing, male, Han ethnicity, born on April 8, 1963, at: Jiangxi Road, Shinan District, Qingdao City.
Defendant: Qingdao SKD Credit Trading Co., Ltd., at: World Trade Center, 6 Xianggangzhong Road, Shinan District, Qingdao City.
Legal representative: Chen Qingrong, general manager of this company.
Shandong Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Shandong Foodstuffs”), Shandong Sanfod Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Sanfod Group”) and Shandong Sanfod Nissui Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Sanfod Nissui”) instituted an action in the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City, Shandong Province for disputes over unfair competition against Ma Daqing and Qingdao SKD Credit Trading Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “SKD Company”).
The plaintiffs, Shandong Foodstuffs, Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui, claimed that: Shandong Foodstuffs had been exporting kelp to the members of the Hokkaido Federation of Fisheries Cooperative Association (hereinafter referred to as “Hokkaido Gyoren”) since the 1970s. Shandong Foodstuffs had achieved annual growth in its kelp export to Japanese companies after 1973 and had maintained its annual export volume at over 600 tons by the end of the 20th century. Upon the establishment of Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui, Shandong Foodstuffs began to assign its kelp business to these two companies. Over three decades, Shandong Foodstuffs, Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui had invested substantial manpower, materials, money and time in the development of this business. As a result, they gradually expanded and consolidated the supply chain and export channels of kelp and maintained a sound and stable business relationship with both kelp farmers and Japanese importers. They also applied for a patent for their invention titled “net-dried kelp.” Shandong Foodstuffs, Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui enjoyed a good business reputation and an unparalleled competitive edge among kelp exporters in the Japanese market, and this business brought an annual profit of about 6 to 8 million yuan to Shandong Foodstuffs.
Defendant Ma Daqing became an employee of Shandong Foodstuffs in 1986, was transferred to Sanfod Group (then known as Shandong Sanfod Trade Co., Ltd.) on August 1, 2000, and was later transferred to Sanfod Nissui on January 4, 2005. During his employment, Ma Daqing participated in and later was charged with the export of kelp to Japan. As a result, he accessed and understood the entire process, techniques and customer information (farmers and Japanese importers) regarding this business. In December 2006, Ma Daqing left the company without undergoing the formal exit procedures. After his exit, Shandong Foodstuffs and Sanfod Nissui discovered upon investigation that: (1) On September 5, 2006, Ma Daqing suggested in writing that “it is no longer necessary for Shandong Foodstuffs to renew the kelp patent,” which was intended to facilitate his own use of the “net-dried kelp” patent without constituting infringement. (2) On September 22, 2006, under Ma Daqing's arrangement, Qingdao University student Chen Qingrong (Ma Daqing's nephew) registered a one-man limited liability company, SKD Company, by contributing 500,000 yuan to it. (3) In December 2006, Ma Daqing left the company along with documentation and materials related to the kelp business. (4) From late 2006 to early 2007, Ma Daqing and SKD Company claimed in the major kelp-producing areas that SKD Company had acquired the right to export kelp to Japan in place of Shandong Foodstuffs. (5) On April 3, 2007, in a written statement, Hokkaido Gyoren would allow SKD Company to take over the kelp business from Shandong Foodstuffs. (6) Since May 2007, Ma Daqing and SKD Company had purchased large quantities of “net-dried kelp” from kelp farmers using the purchase channels of the plaintiffs. (7) So far, Ma Daqing and SKD Company had purchased about 120 tons of kelp for export to Japan soon.
Exporting kelp to Japan was a business opportunity resulting from more than 30 years of efforts of Shandong Foodstuffs, Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui and should be protected by law. To seek improper benefits, Ma Daqing used all the process, technique and customer information regarding this business known during his employment with the plaintiffs and stole the plaintiffs' business opportunity through a series of acts before and after his resignation. His acts violated the good-faith principle in market competition. The entire business of SKD Company under the control of Ma Daqing was derived from and identical with the kelp business that had always been operated by the three plaintiffs. SKD Company was formed solely to snatch the business opportunity from the plaintiffs, in violation of Article 2 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Anti-Unfair Competition Law”), and had caused enormous economic losses to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs requested the court to: (1) confirm that the acts of Ma Daqing and SKD Company constituted unfair competition; (2) order that Ma Daqing should return all documentation and materials regarding the kelp business to the three plaintiffs; (3) order that the two defendants should stop operating their kelp business by using the purchase and export channels of Shandong Foodstuffs and Sanfod Group; (4) order that the two defendants should jointly and severally compensate the three plaintiffs for their operating loss of 6 million yuan; (5) order that the two defendants should jointly and severally compensate the three plaintiffs for their travel expenses, lawyer's fees and other actual expenses of 100,000 yuan for this case; and (6) order that the two defendants should assume all the court costs of this case.
The plaintiffs, Shandong Foodstuffs, Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui, submitted the following evidence:
| | 山東省食品進出口公司、山東山孚集團有限公司、山東山孚日水有限公司訴馬達慶、青島聖克達誠貿易有限公司不正當競爭糾紛案
[裁判摘要]
在既沒有違反競業禁止義務，又沒有侵犯商業秘密的情況下，行為人運用自己在原用人單位學習的知識、技能為其他與原單位存在競爭關系的單位服務的，不屬于《中華人民共和國反不正當競爭法》直接規定的不正當競爭行為。原用人單位依照《中華人民共和國反不正當競爭法》第二條的規定，主張行為人的行為屬于不正當競爭的，人民法院不予支持。
原告：山東省食品進出口公司。法定代表人：滕海波，該公司董事長。原告：山東山孚集團有限公司。法定代表人：滕海波，該公司董事長。原告：山東山孚日水有限公司。法定代表人：滕海波，該公司董事長。
被告：馬達慶。
被告：青島聖克達誠貿易有限公司。
法定代表人：陳慶榮，該公司總經理。
原告山東省食品進出口公司(以下簡稱山東食品)、山東山孚集團有限公司(以下簡稱山孚集團)、山東山孚日水有限公司 (以下簡稱山孚日水)因與被告馬達慶、青島聖克達誠貿易有限公司(以下簡稱聖克達誠公司)發生不正當競爭糾紛，向山東省青島市中級人民法院提起訴訟。
原告山東食品、山孚集團、山孚日水訴稱：自20世紀70年代開始，山東食品即向日本北海道漁業協同組合聯合會(以下簡稱北海道漁聯)的會下企業出口海帶。自 1973年之後，山東食品的對日海帶出口數量逐年上升，至上世紀末，年出口數量穩定在600噸以上。山孚集團、山孚日水成立後，山東食品的海帶業務開始委托山孚集團、山孚日水進行。在三十多年的海帶業務發展過程中，山東食品、山孚集團及山孚日水通過幾代職工的集體努力，投入大量的人力、物力、財力和精力，逐步拓展、鞏固了海帶業務的供應、出口渠道，研發、申請了“網曬海帶”發明專利，與產區養殖戶和日本進口商之間保持了良好穩定的業務合作關系。在對日海帶出口企業中，山東食品、山孚集團及山孚日水始終具有良好的企業商譽和無可比擬的競爭優勢，每年的對日海帶出口業務可以為山東食品帶來大約 600萬元到800萬元人民幣的利潤。
被告馬達慶于1986年進入原告山東食品工作，2000年8月1日調入原告山孚集團(當時名稱為山東山孚得貿易有限公司)工作，2005年1月4日調入原告山孚日水工作。工作期間，馬達慶參與並在後期負責對日海帶出口業務，得以接觸、掌握了海帶業務的全部流程、技術和客戶(海帶養殖戶和日本進口商)信息。2006年12月，馬達慶未辦理正式離職手續即擅自離職。馬達慶離職後，原告山東食品、山孚日水經調查發現：1．2006年9月5日，馬達慶書面形式建議山東食品“海帶專利沒必要花錢再續”，其目的是為了方便馬達慶自己自由使用“網曬海帶”專利而不構成侵權；2． 2006年9月22日，在馬達慶的控制下，青島大學在校學生陳慶榮(系馬達慶的外甥)出資50萬元，注冊成立一人有限責任公司被告聖克達誠公司；3．2006年12月，馬達慶離職時，將公司有關海帶業務的材料一並帶走；4．2006年底至2007年初，馬達慶及聖克達誠公司在主要海帶產區進行宣傳，聲稱聖克達誠公司已經代替山東食品獲得了對日出口海帶業務的經營權；5． 2007年4月3日，日本北海道漁聯書面表示將原山東食品的海帶業務轉由聖克達誠公司經營；6．自2007年5月起，馬達慶及聖克達誠公司利用原告的收購渠道，大量向海帶養殖戶收購“網曬海帶”；7．目前，馬達慶及聖克達誠公司已收購了約120噸海帶，准備于近期向日本出口。
原告山東食品、山孚集團、山孚日水的對日海帶出口業務是經過三十多年的努力經營積累的商業機會，應當受到法律保護。被告馬達慶利用其任職期間所掌握的海帶業務的全部流程、技術和客戶信息，通過其在離職前後實施的一系列行為竊取屬于原告的商業機會而為自己謀取不正當利益，該行為違背了誠實信用的市場競爭規則，是明顯的不勞而獲行為。馬達慶所控制的被告聖克達誠公司所進行的全部業務，都源自三原告一直在經營的海帶業務，並與原告的海帶業務範圍完全一致，聖克達誠公司設立的目的在于攫取原告的商業機會，且已經給原告造成了巨大的經濟損失，違反了《中華人民共和國反不正當競爭法》 (以下簡稱反不正當競爭法)第二條的規定，請求判令：1．確認馬達慶、聖克達誠公司的行為構成不正當競爭；2．馬達慶向三原告返還與海帶業務相關的所有文件、資料；3．兩被告停止利用山東食品、山孚集團的收購、出口渠道經營海帶業務；4．兩被告連帶賠償三原告的經營利潤損失計人民幣 600萬元；5．兩被告連帶賠償三原告為處理本案所花費的交通費、律師費和其他實際支出人民幣10萬元；6．由兩被告承擔本案訴訟費用。
原告山東食品、山孚集團、山孚日水提交下列證據：
|
1. The Business Licenses (Enterprise Legal Person) of Shandong Foodstuffs, Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui; the Certificate of Approval of a Foreign-funded Enterprise of Sanfod Nissui; and the Business License (Enterprise Legal Person), Bylaws and Application for Modification Registration of Shandong Sanfod Trade Co., Ltd., to prove the eligibility as plaintiffs, modifications and investment relations of the three plaintiffs.
| | 1．原告山東食品、山孚集團、山孚日水《企業法人營業執照》、山孚日水《外商投資企業批准證書》、山東山孚得貿易有限公司《企業法人營業執照》、《公司章程》、《變更登記事項申請》，用以證明三原告的主體資格、變更情況及投資關系。
|
2. Company Chronicles; the Notice on Issuing the Allocation Plan in 1980 and other documents issued by the Shandong Food Branch of China National Cereals Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Corporation; China-Japan Trade Contracts from 2000 to 2006 and the notices on issuing kelp export quotas in the corresponding years issued by China National Cereals and Oils Foodstuffs Import & Export (Group) Co., Ltd. (This company first used the name of China National Cereals Oils & Foodstuffs Import and Export (Group) Co., Ltd. and was renamed China National Cereals and Oils Foodstuffs (Group) Co., Ltd. and later COFCO Ltd., hereinafter referred to as “COFCO”); and the Agreement on Commissioned Purchase and Export of Kelp, to prove the history of Shandong Foodstuffs and its continued export of kelp to Japan since 1972 with a steady amount of over 600 tons and the stable business relationships established and maintained with COFCO and Japanese importers, among other facts involved.
| | 2．《公司史志》、中國糧油食品進出口公司山東食品分公司《關于下達1980年調撥計劃的通知》等文件，2000年至2006年度《中日貿易合同》及中國糧油食品進出口 (集團)有限公司(該公司最早使用名稱為中國糧油食品進出口(集團)有限公司，後變更為中國糧油食品(集團)有限公司、後變更為中糧集團有限公司，以下均簡稱為中糧集團)關于下達相應年度海帶出口數量配額的通知、《海帶委托收購、出口協議書》，用以證明原告山東食品的曆史沿革，及其自1972年開始持續承擔對日海帶的出口業務，數量持續穩定在600噸以上，與中糧集團、日本進口商建立並維持穩定的業務合作關系等涉案事實。
|
3. Contracts for the Supply of Agricultural and Sideline Products from 2000 to 2005, to prove that Shandong Foodstuffs, Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui had maintained a steady business relationship with kelp suppliers over years.
| | 3．2000年至2005年《農副產品購銷合同》，用以證明原告山東食品、山孚集團、山孚日水多年來與海帶供應商保持著穩定的業務合作關系。
|
4. The Invention Patent Certificate for a Kelp Processing Method and Equipment as well as the patent specifications and a copy of the patent register, to prove that Shandong Foodstuffs owned the above patent, which guaranteed the quality of kelp and the development of its kelp business.
| | 4．“海帶加工方法及設備”發明專利證書及說明書、專利登記簿副本，用以證明原告山東食品擁有上述專利的專利權，該專利保證了海帶的質量和海帶業務的發展。
|
5. The Officer Resume records, Labor Contracts based on the All-Personnel Labor Contract System and other evidence on Ma Daqing's work experience, to prove that during his employment with Shandong Foodstuffs, Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui, Ma Daqing participated in and later was charged with the export of kelp to Japan and thus accessed and understood the entire process, techniques and customer information regarding this business.
| | 5．《幹部履曆表》、《全員勞動合同制職工勞動合同》等有關被告馬達慶工作經曆的證據，用以證明因工作需要，馬達慶相繼在原告山東食品、山孚集團、山孚日水工作，參與並在後期負責對日海帶出口業務，得以接觸、掌握了海帶業務的全部流程、技術和客戶信息。
|
6. Query Results for the Private Company Registration Information of SKD Company, to prove the industrial and commercial registration of this company.
| | 6．被告聖克達誠公司《私營企業登記信息查詢結果》，用以證明該公司的工商登記情況。
|
7. The Officer Resume and Employee Resume records, the Information from the Permanent Resident Database of Qingdao Population Query System, the Proof issued by Qingdao University, and the Certificate of Cash Payment issued by the Agricultural Bank of China, to prove the identity relationship between Ma Daqing and the only investor in SKD Company as well as Ma Daqing's capacity as its actual owner and investor.
| | 7．《幹部履曆表》、《職工履曆表》、《青島市人口查詢系統常口現實庫信息資料》、青島大學《證明》、中國農業銀行出具的《現金繳款單》，用以證明被告馬達慶與被告聖克達誠公司出資人之間的身份關系以及馬達慶為該公司的實際控制人和出資人。
|
8. The Request for Stopping Payment of Annual Patent Fees drafted by Ma Daqing, the Notice dated May 19, 2007 and the Second Letter of Urging the Completion of Handover Procedures at the Company dated May 30 from Sanfod Nissui, the Minutes of a Meeting between Shandong Food Import and Export Co., Ltd. Chairman Teng Haibo and Hokkaido Gyoren President Miyamura et al., the Notice on Reporting Kelp Business Plans issued by COFCO International (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “COFCO Beijing”), the faxes between Shandong Foodstuffs and COFCO Beijing, the Letter on Requesting Coordination regarding Issues in Kelp Export to Japan from the Shandong International Economic and Trade Federation, and the reply of Hokkaido Gyoren and its Chinese translation, to prove that Ma Daqing used all the process, technique and customer information on this business known in his employment with the three plaintiffs and stole the plaintiffs' business opportunity through a series of acts before and after his resignation to seek improper benefits, which had caused losses to the three plaintiffs.
| | 8．被告馬達慶起草的《關于終止繳納專利年費的請示》，原告山孚日水2007年 5月19日《通知》、5月30日《關于再次督促前往公司辦理業務交接手續的函》，《山東省食品進出口公司董事長滕海波拜訪北海道漁聯宮村會長等的會議紀要》，中糧國際(北京)有限公司(以下簡稱中糧公司)《關于報送海帶經營計劃的通知》，原告山東食品向中糧公司發出的傳真及中糧公司的回函，山東省國際經濟貿易聯合會《關于商請協調對日出口淡幹海帶問題的函》，北海道漁聯複函及中文譯件，用以證明馬達慶利用其任職期間所掌握的海帶業務的全部流程、技術和客戶信息，通過其在離職前後實施的一系列行為竊取屬于原告的商業機會而為自己謀取不正當利益，已經給三原告造成了損失。
|
9. Official letters issued by the relevant government departments and requests submitted to the relevant government departments by the employee representatives of Shandong Foodstuffs, to prove the strong social repercussions of the infringement committed by Ma Daqing and SKD Company.
| | 9．有關政府部門出具的公函及標明由原告山東食品職工代表向有關政府部門出具的申請，用以證明被告馬達慶、聖克達誠公司的侵權行為引起強烈社會反響。
|
10. Invoices for lawyer's fees, translation fees and notarization fees, to prove the expenses of the plaintiffs in this case.
SKD Company argued that: (1) Shandong Foodstuffs, Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui were three independent legal entities with different rights and obligations. In particular, regarding issues directly related with their claims, such as “which company operates the kelp business and controls the business channels” and “which company entered into what kind of labor contract with Ma Daqing and enjoyed what rights,” the three plaintiffs must be treated separately. However, in the claims, the three plaintiffs were commingled. Because of the confusion on litigation parties and unspecific claims, the court should order the plaintiffs to clarify the parties and specific matters in the claims of the plaintiffs. Otherwise, the corresponding claims should not be heard. (2) SKD Company obtained the quota of kelp export to Japan through normal channels, under open procedures and in fair competition and purchased and exported kelp in normal ways, without committing any unfair competition. The kelp exported to Japan required a quota released by Japan. As China's only authorized outlet for kelp export business to Japan, COFCO Beijing distributed the kelp export quotas among Chinese exporters. On January 10, 2007, after receipt of SKD Company's application, COFCO Beijing required the company to submit a written work plan on its kelp export in 2007. On January 25, 2007, COFCO Beijing sent written notices to SKD Company and Shandong Foodstuffs regarding inquiries and investigation about their respective kelp business plans in 2007. After inspection, on February 14, 2007, in a letter to SKD Company, COFCO Beijing decided that this SKD Company would execute the export of Weihai kelp to Japan in 2007. On April 6, 2007, COFCO Beijing issued a public notice on the kelp quotas of all exporters in 2007. As specified therein, SKD Company had a quota of 310 tons for kelp produced in Weihai area. SKD Company then legally obtained the kelp export quota to Japan in 2007, and such a business opportunity was achieved through normal channels, under open procedures and in fair competition, as a result of the comprehensive assessment by COFCO Beijing. SKD Company neither provided any false information to obtain the quota nor denigrated its competitors by any means. It committed no unfair competition. (3) SKD Company purchased and exported kelp openly without infringing upon the rights of Shandong Foodstuffs and without committing any unfair competition. The kelp quota in 2007 obtained by SKD Company was limited to kelp purchase in Weihai area. Another purchaser in this region was COFCO Industrial Food Import and Export Co., Ltd. It was an open business to purchase kelp from farmers in Weihai area, and a number of purchasers usually operated in the region in previous years. Kelp farmers would choose the purchasers based on their offers, services and other factors. Information on kelp cultivation and farmers was not any trade secret, and purchasing kelp in this region was by no means monopolized by Shandong Foodstuffs. Therefore, SKD Company's purchasing kelp in Weihai area did not per se constitute any unfair competition.
Defendant SKD Company obtained the 2007 kelp quota for the purpose of exporting kelp to Japan. Since Hokkaido Gyoren was the sole liaison for this business in Japan, Chinese exporters with quotas would export their products each year through this single channel to Japan without exception. This channel was a necessary channel determined when COFCO Beijing distributed the export quotas and was an open channel in the business of kelp export to Japan. There was no trade secret involved, and this business was not monopolized by Shandong Foodstuffs. Therefore, SKD Company's exporting kelp to Japan did not per se constitute any unfair competition. In summary, SKD Company committed no unfair competition, and the claims of Shandong Foodstuffs were unfounded.
Defendant SKD Company submitted the following evidence:
| | 10．律師費、翻譯費及公證費發票，用以證明原告方為本案支付的費用。
被告聖克達誠公司答辯稱：1．原告山東食品、山孚集團、山孚日水在法律上都具備獨立法人資格，其權利義務也各不相同，尤其是涉及到“哪個公司經營海帶業務、享有海帶業務渠道”、“哪個公司與被告馬達慶簽訂了何種勞動合同、享有何種權利”等與原告方訴訟請求有直接關系的問題，三個原告之間必然是有區別的，在訴訟請求中將三原告混同，訴訟主體混淆，請求事項不具體，屬于請求事項不明，法院應當責令原告方將訴訟請求中各原告的主體和具體事項予以明確，否則相應訴訟請求應不予審理。2．聖克達誠公司通過正常渠道、公開程序、公平競爭的方式取得對日本海帶出口配額，按照正常的方式收購和出口海帶，並沒有構成不正當競爭。中國出口到日本的海帶，需要根據日本發放的配額出口。中糧公司是日本授權的在華海帶貿易的唯一窗口，中國對日出口海帶配額將統一由中糧公司分配。2007年1月10日，根據聖克達誠公司的申請，中糧公司要求聖克達誠公司書面報送2007年度海帶出口工作計劃。2007年1月25日，中糧公司書面通知聖克達誠公司和山東食品將對兩公司就 2007年度海帶經營計劃的相關內容進行詢問和調查。2007年2月14日，經過考察，中糧公司致函給聖克達誠公司，決定將 2007年威海海帶出口日本業務交由聖克達誠公司執行。2007年4月6日，中糧公司下發文件將2007年度各公司海帶配額數量予以公示，其中聖克達誠公司在威海地區海帶配額數量為310噸。至此，聖克達誠公司通過正常合法途徑取得了2007年度出口日本海帶配額，該商業機會是通過正常渠道、公開程序、公平競爭的方式取得，是中糧公司綜合評定的結果，聖克達誠公司沒有提供任何虛假信息騙取配額，沒有采取任何手段詆毀競爭對手，沒有任何不正當競爭行為，所以不構成不正當競爭。 3．聖克達誠公司通過公開的方式收購和出口海帶，並沒有侵犯山東食品的權益，不構成不正當競爭。聖克達誠公司取得的2007年度海帶配額僅限于在威海地區收購，在威海地區收購海帶的還有中糧工業食品進出口有限公司，從威海地區的海帶養殖戶處收購海帶本身是公開的業務，在往年也會有多家公司同時在威海地區收購，海帶養殖戶會根據收購方的價格、服務等各種因素選擇出售給哪家單位，海帶養殖戶養殖海帶的信息並不是什麼商業秘密，更不是山東食品獨家壟斷的業務。所以，聖克達誠公司在威海地區收購海帶的行為本身並沒有構成不正當競爭。
被告聖克達誠公司取得的2007年度海帶配額目的就是出口到日本，在日本方面，是由日本北海道漁聯統一聯系業務，中國國內每年取得配額的公司均是通過統一渠道出口到日本，該出口渠道是在取得中糧公司的配額時就已決定的必然的出口渠道，該出口渠道是海帶出口到日本這一行業中公開的渠道，沒有任何秘密可言，也不是原告山東食品獨家壟斷的業務，所以聖克達誠公司將收購的海帶出口到日本的行為本身並沒有構成不正當競爭。綜上，聖克達誠公司沒有任何不正當競爭行為，山東食品的訴訟請求不成立。
被告聖克達誠公司提交下列證據：
|
1. The Notice on Reporting Kelp Business Plans, Notice on Investigation of Kelp Business Plans, Notice on Adjustment of Kelp Export Rights in 2007 and Notice on Distributing Kelp Export Quotas in 2007, to prove that COFCO Beijing was recognized by Japan as China's only outlet for kelp export and, after inspection of SKD Company and Shandong Foodstuffs at the request of SKD Company, COFCO Beijing decided that SKD Company would execute the export of Weihai kelp to Japan and disclosed the export quota.
| | 1．《關于報送海帶經營計劃的通知》、《關于調查海帶經營計劃的通知》、《關于調整2007年海帶出口經營權的通知》、《關于下達2007年海帶出口數量配額的通知》，用以證明中糧公司是日本認可的在華海帶貿易的唯一窗口，根據被告聖克達誠公司的申請，中糧公司通過對被告和原告山東食品的考察，決定將2007年威海海帶出口日本業務交由被告執行並將配額數量予以公示。
|
2. A Notice on Distributing Kelp Export Quotas in 2005 and a Notice on Distributing Kelp Export Quotas in 2006, to prove that Shandong Foodstuffs also obtained kelp export quotas each year from COFCO and COFCO adjusted the quotas of different exporters according to their actual conditions each year.
Defendant Ma Daqing argued that: (1) In their claims, Shandong Foodstuffs, Sanfod Group and Sanfod Nissui required him to return all documentation and materials regarding the kelp business. However, they failed to specify to which plaintiffs the same should be returned or what specific information should be returned. His employment with Sanfod Nissui terminated upon expiration of his labor contract, without any legal relationship with the other two plaintiffs. He was not obliged to return any documentation or material to them. (2) The disputes over his labor contract with Sanfod Nissui were pending trial by the People's Court of Shinan District, Qingdao City. Since he had terminated the employment under the labor contract without any non-competition agreement with Sanfod Nissui, his job after leaving the company was not improper. Therefore, he requested the court to dismiss the claims of the three plaintiffs.
Defendant Ma Daqing submitted the following evidence:
| | 2．《關于下達2005年海帶出口數量配額的通知》、《關于下達2006年海帶出口數量配額的通知》各一份，用以證明原告山東食品每年也是通過中糧集團有限公司取得海帶出口配額，中糧集團也是每年根據實際情況調整各公司海帶出口配額。
被告馬達慶答辯稱：1．原告山東食品、山孚集團、山孚日水在訴訟請求中要求本人返還海帶的文件和資料，但沒有明確向哪一個原告返還，同時也沒有明確返還資料的具體內容。本人是在勞動合同期滿之後與山孚日水正常終止合同的，與另外兩原告之間沒有法律上的關系，不存在返還文件及資料的事宜；2．本人與山孚日水之間關于勞動合同存在爭議，該勞動爭議案件正在青島市市南區人民法院進行審理，本人是依據勞動合同終止勞動關系的，並且與山孚日水之間沒有簽訂過限制就業的相關協議，因此本人離職後的工作不屬于不當行為，請求駁回三原告對本人的訴訟請求。
被告馬達慶提交下列證據：
|
1. A Notice on Renewal of Labor Contract, to prove that the last term of employment between Ma Daqing and Sanfod Nissui was from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 and the company notified him to negotiate renewal of the contract or the contract would terminate automatically upon expiry.
| | 1．《續簽勞動合同通知書》一份，用以證明被告馬達慶與原告山孚日水之間的最後一個勞動合同期限為2006年1月1日至2006年12月31日，山孚日水告知馬達慶協商續簽合同，如不再續簽就視為自行中止合同。
|
2. The Application for Labor Arbitration, the Arbitration Counterclaim filed by Sanfod Nissui, the Notice of Arbitration Hearing issued by the Labor Dispute Arbitration Commission of Qingdao, the Arbitration Award and a recording of phone conversation between Ma Daqing and an employee of Sanfod Nissui, to prove the handling and initial handling results on the labor disputes between him and the company: Ma Daqing did not leave the company in breach of the labor contract and the Labor Dispute Arbitration Commission dismissed Sanfod Nissui's claim for damages.
At the request of SKD Company and Ma Daqing, the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City legally collected the Notice on Distributing Kelp Export Quotas in 2007 issued by COFCO, according to which Shandong Foodstuffs also obtained a kelp export quota in 2007.
．．．．．． | | 2．勞動仲裁申訴書、原告山孚日水仲裁反請求申請書、青島市勞動爭議仲裁委員會開庭通知、裁決書以及被告馬達慶與山孚日水員工的電話錄音，用以證明山孚日水與馬達慶之間勞動爭議的處理及初步結果，馬達慶不是擅自離職，勞動仲裁委員會駁回了山孚日水要求承擔損失的請求。
根據被告聖克達誠公司、馬達慶的申請，青島市中級人民法院依法調取了中糧集團《關于下達2007年海帶出口數量配額的通知》，主要內容是：原告山東食品也獲得了相應的2007年度海帶出口配額。
青島市中級人民法院依法組織了質證。被告聖克達誠公司、馬達慶對原告山東食品、山孚集團、山孚日水提交的證據1、 2、3、5、7，證據8中除《山東省食品進出口公司董事長滕海波拜訪北海道漁聯宮村會長等的會議紀要》外的其他證據，證據9中除山東食品職工代表向有關政府部門出具的申請外的其他證據，證據12中除山東食品、山孚集團2006年12月1日董事會《會議記錄》外的其他證據的真實性無異議，但認為不能證明原告方的主張；對證據4、6、 10沒有異議。三原告對聖克達誠公司提交的證據1、2的真實性無異議，但不認可其證明目的。三原告對馬達慶提交的證據1、 2的真實性沒有異議，但不認可其證明目的。聖克達誠公司對馬達慶提供證據1、2無異議。青島市中級人民法院認為，三原告提交的證據8中《山東省食品進出口公司董事長滕海波拜訪北海道漁聯宮村會長等的會議紀要》的內容雖然已經證人劉兵出庭作證，但是劉兵與三原告有法律上的利害關系，在參加會談的日本一方相關人員未予確認的情況下，不能單獨作為認定事實的依據；證據9中山東食品職工代表向有關政府部門出具的申請一項，由于材料上的簽字人員並未出庭作證，難以確認其真實性，對該項證據不予采信；對原、被告提交的其他證據的真實性予以確認。
．．．．．． |
Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com
| |
您好：您現在要進入的是北大法律英文網會員專區，如您是我們英文用戶可直接 登錄，進入會員專區查詢您所需要的信息；如您還不是我們 的英文用戶，請注冊並交納相應費用成為我們的英文會員 。如有問題請來電咨詢；
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content
found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright
owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.
Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations
of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language
versions as the final authority. lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly
or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.
We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve
the quality of our materials.
|
|
| |
|
|