|
|
|
No. 9 of the Top 10 Intellectual Property Cases Tried by Chinese Courts in 2020 Issued by the Supreme People's Court: Huizhou City Huanchang Yibai Entertainment Co., Ltd. v. China Audio-Video Copyright Association — Case of dispute over the monopoly of a copyright collective management organization (case of monopoly dispute)
|
|
最高人民法院发布2020年中国法院10大知识产权案件之九：惠州市欢唱壹佰娱乐有限公司与中国音像著作权集体管理协会垄断纠纷案——著作权集体管理组织垄断纠纷案
|
|
【法宝引证码】
|
- Type of Dispute:
IPR--＞Monopoly
- Legal document：
Judgment
- Procedural status：
Trial at First Instance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| No. 9 of the Top 10 Intellectual Property Cases Tried by Chinese Courts in 2020 Issued by the Supreme People's Court: Huizhou City Huanchang Yibai Entertainment Co., Ltd. v. China Audio-Video Copyright Association (case of monopoly dispute) | | 最高人民法院发布2020年中国法院10大知识产权案件之九：惠州市欢唱壹佰娱乐有限公司与中国音像著作权集体管理协会垄断纠纷案 |
| — Case of dispute over the monopoly of a copyright collective management organization | | ——著作权集体管理组织垄断纠纷案 |
| (Civil Judgment No. 780 [2018], First, Civil, 73, Beijing of the Beijing Intellectual Property Court) | | 北京知识产权法院（2018）京73民初780号民事判决书 |
| [Case Summary] Huizhou City Huanchang Yibai Entertainment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Yibai Company") sent three Requests for Signing a Contract for Licensing the Use of Copyright to the China Audio-Video Copyright Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Association"), requesting a use contract to be directly signed with the Association with respect to the relevant music under the management of the Association. The Association replied, making a denial, requesting it to communicate the relevant matters with the non-party, Guangzhou Tianhe Cultural Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Tianhe Company"). Yibai Company sued in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, stating that the Association licensed and signed contracts for the audiovisual recordings or works and music library system under its collective management by means of cooperation with Tianhe Company, that the negotiation between the parties was in vain because Tianhe Company proposed unreasonable conditions for signing a contract, that the Association refused to directly sign a contract with Yibai Company three times, and that the foregoing conduct was conduct of tie-in transaction, which added the Association, a non-profit copyright collective management organization, to the commercial collective management of Tianhe Company, constituted monopolistic conduct of abusing its dominant market position. The court of first instance held that the relevant market in this case should be defined as the service market for licensing the use of quasi-motion picture works or audiovisual recordings in Chinese mainland in KTV operations and that as the Association, currently the only collective management organization in the relevant market, which had a conspicuous advantage in the quantity and scale of quasi-motion picture works or audiovisual recordings it was authorized to manage, strongly represented KTV operations, it should be determined to be in a dominant position in the relevant market, but existing evidence, though establishing that the Association and Tianhe Company was in a principal-agent relationship and that Tianhe Company was not a third party business designated by the Association under paragraph 1(4), Article 17 of the Anti-Monopoly Law, was insufficient to establish that the Association committed monopolistic conduct such as qualified transactions and unreasonably conditioning transactions under paragraph 1(4) and (5), Article 17 of the Anti-Monopoly Law. The court of first instance hence entered a judgment, dismissing the claims of Yibai Company. | | 【案情摘要】惠州市欢唱壹佰娱乐有限公司（以下简称欢唱壹佰公司）曾三次向中国音像著作权集体管理协会（以下简称音集协）发送《签订著作权〈许可使用合同〉要求书》，要求就音集协管理的相关曲目，直接与其签订使用合同。音集协复函均未同意，并要求其与案外人广州天合文化发展有限公司（以下简称天合公司）沟通相关事宜。欢唱壹佰公司遂向北京知识产权法院起诉称，音集协通过与天合公司合作的方式对其集体管理的音像制品或作品曲库系统进行授权签约，因天合公司提出不合理的签约条件导致双方协商无果，而音集协三次拒绝与欢唱壹佰公司直接签约。前述行为系将音集协这一非盈利性著作权集体管理组织引入天合公司商业性集体管理的捆绑交易行为，构成滥用市场支配地位的垄断行为。一审法院认为，本案的相关市场应界定为中国大陆地区类电影作品或音像制品在KTV经营中的许可使用服务市场，音集协目前是该相关市场中唯一的集体管理组织，其获得授权管理的类电影作品或音像制品具有明显的数量和规模优势，从而在KTV经营中具有很强的代表性，故应当认定其在相关市场具有支配地位。但根据现有证据，音集协与天合公司之间系委托代理关系，天合公司并非反垄断法第十七条第一款第（四）项所规定的音集协所指定的第三方经营者，尚不足以证明音集协实施了反垄断法第十七条第一款第（四）项、第（五）项规制的限定交易、附加不合理的交易条件等垄断行为。一审法院遂判决驳回了欢唱壹佰公司的诉讼请求。 |
| ．．．．．． | | ．．．．．． |
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：您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区，如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户，请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员 。如有问题请来电咨询；
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.
|
|
| |
|
|