Liangshan Scenic Area Administrative Committee and others v. Shandong Liangshan Park Tourism Development Company "Shuibo Liangshan" Tourism Place Name Dispute Unfair Competition

Background of 1. case
Since June 2006, the staff of Liangshan Scenic Area Management Committee of Shandong Province and Liangshan County Tourism Corporation, as well as many members of the public in Liangshan County, have found that in the tourism advertisements published in the Qilu Evening News, the neighboring county Dongping County On the signs of tourist attractions, tourist tickets, promotional materials and roads, some tourist companies' publicity boards or windows, there is a phenomenon that Lashan in Dongping County is called "Former Liangshan", Liigong Mountain is called "North Liangshan", and Dongping Lake is called "Liangshanbo. In the following peak tourist season from July to September, the number of tourists visiting Liangshan Scenic spot in Liangshan County also decreased compared with previous years. Relevant personnel in Liangshan County also heard rumors that many foreign tourists could not tell whether the famous Liangshan scenic spot was in Liangshan County or near Dongping Lake in Dongping County.
For this reason, the tourism department of Liangshan County has complained to the Dongping County Tourism Bureau many times, and has also repeatedly negotiated with Shandong Liangshanbo Tourism Development Co., Ltd., which has implemented the above-mentioned unauthorized change of Liangshan tourism place names and its place of business in Dongping County, requesting it to regulate the use of place names in accordance with the law and correct the unauthorized change of Liangshan tourism place names; but they failed to do so. As a last resort, the plaintiff had to prepare to resolve the dispute through litigation and entrust Liu Jienyong, a well-known lawyer who is now the director of the intellectual property department of Zhongcheng Renhe Law Group (Jinan), and Lu Haitao, a local lawyer in Jining City, as his litigation agents.
Influence and enlightenment of the case:
The case has great influence and high social attention. CCTV's "Today's Statement", "China Tourism News", "Qilu Evening News", Qilu TV Station, major websites and other TV stations, newspapers, and Internet media followed and continued to report the case. In the course of the dispute that lasted for nearly three years, the local people in Liangshan County, with simple and strong folk customs, were angry. In order to protect "Liangshan", a precious local tourism resource and cultural heritage, they repeatedly asked the relevant departments to petition. The dispute was settled in accordance with the law, which played a certain role in clarifying the source, distinguishing the true appearance of Liangshan tourism, and promoting social harmony and stability.
In recent years, disputes about tourism and cultural resources such as the hometown of domestic celebrities, tourist place names, and the birthplace of historical legends have occurred from time to time. However, in the process of resolving disputes through legal channels, they often face the dilemma of insufficient legal basis. Therefore, it is necessary for our country to strengthen legislation in the protection of tourism and cultural resources, so that our country's tourism and cultural undertakings can develop well and quickly in an orderly manner in accordance with the law, and avoid disorderly and improper competition.
2. basic case
Disputes caused by the use of tourist place names rarely occur, and there are no clear provisions on this in our country's laws and international treaties that our country has participated in; what kind of right is the right of tourist place names in law, but also has a certain degree of ambiguity. Therefore, how to choose the litigation subject of both the plaintiff and the defendant, how to choose the corresponding rights to be protected by the court, and how to choose the appropriate cause of action, cause of action and legal basis are the key to safeguarding the legitimate rights of the plaintiff in this case.
The Liangshan Scenic Area Management Committee and the Liangshan County Tourism Corporation, which are closely related to Liangshan Tourism, jointly enjoy the rights of tourism management, development, operation and income, including ticket income, over the Liangshan Scenic Area located in Liangshan County; therefore, the two subjects were identified as co-plaintiffs in this case. Shandong Liangshanbo Tourism Development Co., Ltd. specifically implemented the act of changing Liangshan tourism place names without authorization, and Jining Rencheng Travel Agency posted publicity materials for changing Liangshan tourism place names; therefore, the two subjects were identified as co-defendants in this case. After comprehensive consideration, the plaintiff's lawyer finally chose unfair competition as the cause of the case, the right of operating income of tourism in Liangshan Scenic spot as the object of protection, and based on Article 9 of China's Anti-unfair Competition Law and regulations on the Administration of place names, a lawsuit was filed against the above two defendants in Jining Intermediate people's Court in October 2006.
The request in the case was as follows:
1. The two defendants immediately stopped the false propaganda of unfair competition by changing the name of Lashan in Dongping County to "Qialiangshan", Liigong Mountain to "Beiliang Mountain", and Dongping Lake to "Liangshanbo" without authorization;
2. The defendant, Shandong Liang Shanbo Tourism Development Company, compensated the plaintiff for economic losses of 1.5 million yuan;
3. The defendant, Shandong Liangshanbo Tourism Development Company, stopped using the misleading name of the enterprise with the word "Liangshan;
4. The defendant, Shandong Liangshanbo Tourism Development Company, publicly apologized to the plaintiff for its false propaganda of unfair competition in the Qilu Evening News;
The facts and reasons on which the application is based are briefly stated as follows:
The plaintiff Liangshan Scenic Area Management Committee and Liangshan County Tourism Corporation are civil subjects that legally enjoy the management, development, operation and income rights of Shuibo Liangshan Scenic Area. The plaintiff found that the defendant had changed the name of Lashan in Dongping County to "Qianliang Mountain", Liugong Mountain to "Beiliang Mountain" and Dongping Lake to "Liangshan Park" without authorization in the window in front of the defendant's second door, Qilu Evening News, relevant tourist attractions in Dongping County, tourist tickets, publicity materials, etc. False propaganda. The above-mentioned actions of the defendant are sufficient to cause confusion and misunderstanding of the location of the Shuipo Liangshan tourist attraction among the relevant tourist public, infringe on the plaintiff's legal rights, cause serious economic losses and reputation damage to the plaintiff, and constitute unfair competition in accordance with the law.
For this reason, the plaintiff sued your court and requested your court to support the plaintiff's claim in accordance with the law.
3. the focus of controversy in this case
The court of first instance integrated the plaintiff's claim and the defendant's defense reasons, and summarized the focus of the dispute between the original defendant and the defendant mainly focused on three aspects: first, whether there was a competitive relationship between the original defendant and the defendant in terms of the income of the relevant tourist attractions, and whether the plaintiff was a qualified litigation subject in this case; The second is whether the defendant's act of changing the place name of Liangshan tourism constitutes unfair competition according to law; third, whether the plaintiff's claim is legal and reasonable.
The plaintiff won the case in the first instance and the defendant appealed. The focus of the dispute in the second instance is:
1. Whether the appellant's act of renaming Lashan as "former Liangshan", Liugong Mountain as "Beiliang Mountain" and Dongping Lake as "Liangshanbo" belongs to the misleading false propaganda stipulated in Article 9 of China's anti unfair competition law, and whether it constitutes unfair competition according to law.
2. Whether there is sufficient legal and factual basis for the court of first instance to order the appellant to stop using the misleading enterprise name containing "Liangshan.
3. The court of first instance decided whether it was appropriate for the appellant to compensate the appellee for the economic loss of 500000 yuan.
Views and opinions of 4. lawyers
(I) the focus of the dispute in the first instance, the views and opinions of the plaintiff's lawyer.
1, the plaintiff is the case of the appropriate subject of litigation.
The plaintiff submitted the "Charge Permit" issued by the Shandong Provincial Price Bureau to the Liangshan Scenic Area Management Committee regarding tourism tickets and other charges, the Liangshan County Tourism Corporation's business license including tourism business, and the "Liangshan Scenic Area Management Committee" issued by the Liangshan County People's Government The "Certificate" and other evidence show that: the plaintiff Liangshan Scenic Area Management Committee and Liangshan County Tourism Corporation jointly enjoy the right to manage, develop, and operate the Shuibo Liangshan Scenic Area and all the tourist benefits of the scenic area including the tourist ticket income of the scenic area. There is a competitive relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant in terms of the income of the neighboring relevant tourist attractions, and the defendant's false propaganda of unfair competition in changing the place names of Liangshan tourism infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff; therefore, the plaintiff is the qualified subject of litigation in this case.
2. The defendant's behavior violated the provisions of Article 9 of my country's "Anti-Unfair Competition Law", and implemented the renaming of Lashan as "Qianliangshan", Liugong Mountain as "Beiliang Mountain", and Dongping Lake as "Liangshanbo". The misleading and false propaganda behavior that does not regulate the use of place names in accordance with the law constitutes unfair competition in accordance with the law.
Around this focus, the plaintiff's lawyer is divided into two aspects:
1) The defendant changed the name of Lashan to "Former Liangshan", Liugong Mountain to "North Liangshan" and Dongping Lake to "Liangshanbo" without using standard place names in accordance with the law.
In order to confirm this fact, the plaintiff's lawyer submitted four pieces of evidence to the court, one is the "former Liangshan (Lashan) Scenic spot tickets" sold by defendant one, the other is the "Liangshan Park Shuihu Cultural Tourism Scenic spot Traffic and Tourism map" by defendant one, and the third is a group of photos that prove the defendant's false propaganda content, fourth, the Qilu Evening News published on June 15, 2006, July 21, 2006, and August 18, 2006, which contained the defendant's irregular use of place names. The defendant had no objection to the authenticity of the evidence.
Before the prosecution of this case, based on the plaintiff's application for evidence preservation, the Jining Intermediate People's Court posted the "Liangshan Po Shuihu Cultural Tourism Scenic Spot Traffic and Tourism" in the window in front of the defendant No. 2 Jining Rencheng Travel Agency. The implementation of the unauthorized renaming of Lashan as "Former Liangshan", Liugong Mountain as "North Liangshan", and Dongping Lake as "Liangshanbo" did not regulate the use of standard place names in accordance with the law to preserve evidence.
The above evidence and the evidence preservation materials of Jining intermediate people's court prove that the defendant did not use standard place names according to law in the tickets and traffic maps of tourist attractions, in the roads, streets and scenic spots of Dongping County, and in several copies of Qilu evening news, The act of changing Lashan to "Qianliangshan", Liugong Mountain to "Beiliang Mountain" and Dongping Lake to "Liangshanbo" was not used in accordance with the law. The defendant did not dispute this fact.
2) The defendant's above-mentioned act of changing Lashan to "Qianyiang Mountain", Liugong Mountain to "Beiliang Mountain", and Dongping Lake to "Liangshanbo" does not regulate the use of standard place names in accordance with the law. There is no legal basis and it is obviously my country. The misleading and false propaganda behavior stipulated in Article 9 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law constitutes unfair competition in accordance with the law.
In this regard, the plaintiff's lawyer submitted to the court four pieces of evidence of Shandong Provincial Civil Affairs Department Lu Min Han [2006] No. 198 "opinions on the use of place names in external tourism publicity by Shandong Liangshanbo Tourism Development Co., Ltd." Qilu Evening News "on August 21, 2006, Dazhong Daily on July 27, 2006, and CCTV's" Today's statement "program video CD.
Shandong Civil Affairs Department, as the government administrative department of place names, issued Lu Min Han [2006] No. 198 "Opinions on the Use of Place Names in External Tourism Publicity by Shandong Liangshanbo Tourism Development Co., Ltd." clearly pointed out that the defendant used non-standard place names such as "Qianyiang Mountain" and "Beiliang Mountain" that were not approved by the government in the external advertising publicity, it violates the regulations on the use of place names in the regulations on the Administration of place names of the State Council and the measures for the Administration of place names of Shandong Province, and must be corrected. The current "Dongping Lake" and the historical "Liangshanbo" should not be confused, and the restoration of old place names needs to be resolved through legal procedures. The opinion has made a clear qualitative and final conclusion on the illegality and impropriety of the appellant's above-mentioned change of place name, which should be used as the basis for the determination of the case.
Defendant 1 stated in the above-mentioned "Qilu Evening News" that the defendant renamed Lashan as "Former Liangshan", Liugong Mountain as "North Liangshan" and Dongping Lake as "Liangshanbo" as "creative packaging means for tourism products". Zhang Zuo, deputy general manager of Defendant 1, stated in the above-mentioned "Volkswagen Daily" that the defendant changed Lashan to "Qiangliang Mountain", "that was the result of discussion by several experts involved in the planning study". It can be seen that the defendant's above-mentioned acts have no legal basis.
According to the above facts and laws, the plaintiff's lawyer believes that the above-mentioned use of non-standard place names such as "former Liangshan", "Beiliang Mountain" and "Liangshanbo" without the approval of the government violates the provisions of Article 3 and Article 6 of the regulations on the administration of place names issued by the State Council, Article 22 of the implementation rules of the regulations on the administration of place names issued by the Ministry of civil affairs, and Articles 7 and 8 of Shandong Province, it is enough to cause confusion and misunderstanding of the place name of Liangshan and the location of Shuibo Liangshan tourist attractions among the relevant tourism public, and infringe upon the legitimate rights of the plaintiff. According to the provisions of Article 9 of my country's Anti-Unfair Competition Law, it is misleading. The act of false propaganda constitutes unfair competition in accordance with the law.
The expert opinion in the video CD of CCTV's "Today's Statement" submitted by the plaintiff's lawyer also believes that the defendant's use of non-standard place names such as "Former Liangshan", "Bei Liangshan", and "Liangshanbo" that have not been approved by the government is illegal. The name of Liangshanbo in the defendant's name is improper and should be corrected. This expert opinion is worthy of the Court's reference.
With regard to the defense raised by the defendant and the following six pieces of evidence submitted, the plaintiff's counsel held that:
The first evidence submitted by the defendant, the Shandong provincial government document (Lu Zhengfa [1985] No. 106) only shows that Dongping Lake and La Mountain are in Shuibo Liangshan Scenic Area, and does not mean that La Mountain can be renamed "Former Liangshan" and Dongping Lake "Liangshanbo". On the contrary, the document indicates that within the Shuibo Liangshan Scenic Area, Lashan and Dongping Lake should maintain the normative names of standard place names.
The second evidence submitted by the defendant, the No. 7 tourist area map of the "Master Plan for Tourism Development of Shandong Province", still retains the name of La Mountain, and there is no name of "Beiliang Mountain"; although there is a planned "Liangshanbo", it is only For planning, it cannot be used without the approval of the relevant place name management department; only after the plan and the name change in the plan are approved and announced by the government management department, it can it be renamed.
The third piece of evidence submitted by the defendant, the "Shuipo Liangshan Scenic Area Master Plan Manual" did not have the seal or signature of the signatory. The source of the evidence is unknown, lacks objective authenticity, and cannot be used as the basis for the final decision.
The evidence is only for planning, in which the so-called "Dongping Lake is the relic of 800 miles of water" cannot be the basis for the defendant to change his name according to law. On the contrary, in the planning manual, the standard place names of Lashan, Liogong Mountain and Dongping Lake are still maintained, and there are no place names of "former Liangshan", "Beiliang Mountain" and "Liangshanbo" used by the defendant.
The fourth evidence submitted by the defendant, Liangshan scenic spot tickets only said that Dongping Lake is the remains of Liang Shuibo, and did not call Dongping Lake Liang Shuibo.
The fifth evidence submitted by the defendant, Song Jiang inscription is not the original, the source is unknown, the lack of objective authenticity. Moreover, the evidence only has the information of "Li Liangshan", which is not the place name involved in this case and has no relevance to this case.
In the sixth piece of evidence submitted by the defendant, the information recorded in the "Twenty-Four History" has nothing to do with the standard place names currently used in our country in accordance with the law, and has nothing to do with this case.
Therefore, the relevant evidence submitted by the defendant cannot prove or support the defendant's defense, and cannot prove that the defendant's false propaganda behavior of renaming Lashan as "Qiangliang Mountain", Liigongshan as "Beiliang Mountain", and Dongping Lake as "Liangshanbo" has legal basis. The defendant's so-called "not to change the place name, just to mark", this behavior is not illegal claim can not be established. The labeling of place names is also a way of using place names, and standard place names should also be used in accordance with the law and must not be changed without authorization.
3. The plaintiff's claim is legal and reasonable, and the court is requested to support it in accordance with the law.
1) Article 2 of China's Anti-Unfair Competition Law: Operators shall follow the principle of good faith and abide by generally recognized business ethics in market transactions. The term "unfair competition" as used in this Law refers to the acts of business operators that violate the provisions of this Law, harm the legitimate rights and interests of other business operators, and disrupt the social and economic order. The term "business operator" as used in this Law refers to a legal person engaged in the business of commodities or for-profit services (hereinafter referred to as commodities including services).
Article 9 (Prohibition of False Advertising): Business operators shall not use advertising or other methods to make misleading publicity of commodities.
Article 9 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, to which China is a party, stipulates:(2) Any act of competition in industrial and commercial activities that violates honest practices and constitutes unfair competition. (3) In particular, the following are prohibited: 1. All acts that, by whatever means, are of a nature that cause confusion to the business premises, commodities or industrial and commercial activities of competitors; 3. The use of representations or statements in the conduct of commerce that would make the public susceptible to misunderstanding as to the nature of the commodities.
According to the above facts and legal provisions, the plaintiff's lawyer believes that the above-mentioned illegal and misleading false propaganda behavior carried out by the defendant infringes upon the plaintiff's legitimate rights and constitutes unfair competition in accordance with the provisions of Article 9 of China's Anti-unfair Competition Law. According to law, the defendant shall bear the legal responsibility for the false propaganda of unfair competition by changing Lashan to "former Liangshan", Liugong Mountain to "Beiliang Mountain" and Dongping Lake to "Liangshanbo" without authorization.
2) The relevant financial information submitted by the plaintiff shows that the defendant's illegal and false propaganda of changing Lashan to "Qianliangshan", Liugong Mountain to "Beiliang Mountain" and Dongping Lake to "Liangshanbo" is enough to cause confusion and misunderstanding of the location of Liangshan place names and Shuibo Liangshan tourist attractions among the relevant tourist public. This has resulted in the diversion and reduction of the plaintiff's tourist source and the serious consequences of tourism revenue and reputation. According to preliminary statistics, since the defendant implemented the above false propaganda in June 2006, the plaintiff has reduced its direct tourism income by about 1.5 million yuan. In order to safeguard his rights according to law, the plaintiff paid a reasonable lawyer's fee of 31600 yuan for this case. The registered capital of the defendant is 20 million yuan and has strong compensation ability.
Article 20 of my country's Anti-Unfair Competition Law stipulates that if an operator violates the provisions of this law and causes losses to the infringed operator, he shall be liable for damages. If the losses of the infringed operator are difficult to calculate, the amount of compensation is The infringer's profit from the infringement during the infringement period; and bear the reasonable expenses incurred by the infringed due to the infringement.
Article 13 of the opinions of the Supreme People's Court on comprehensively strengthening the judicial work of intellectual property rights to provide judicial protection for the construction of an innovative country, issued on January 11, 2007, stipulates that the intensity of tort compensation and civil sanctions shall be increased in accordance with the law, the principle of comprehensive compensation shall be implemented, efforts shall be made to reduce the cost of safeguarding rights, increase the deterrence of civil sanctions, and appropriately reduce the burden of proof of compensation of right holders in accordance with the law.
According to the above facts and legal provisions, the plaintiff's lawyer believes that the plaintiff's request for defendant one to compensate the plaintiff for the economic losses of 1.5 million yuan has sufficient legal and factual basis, and the court is requested to support it.
3) Article 39 of the Measures for the Administration of the Registration of Enterprise Names in China: The use of names by enterprises shall follow the principle of good faith. Article 41: If a registered enterprise name causes deception or misunderstanding to the public in use, or damages the legitimate rights and interests of others, it shall be deemed as an inappropriate enterprise name and corrected. Article 42: If an enterprise has a name dispute with another person, it may apply to the administrative department for industry and commerce for settlement, or it may bring a suit in a people's court.
According to the above-mentioned legal provisions, the plaintiff's lawyer believes that the defendant's use of the enterprise name of Shandong Liangshanbo Tourism Development Co., Ltd. violates the principle of good faith and will make the relevant tourism public or the public mistakenly think that the defendant is the developer of Liangshanbo Tourism, and then misunderstands whether the Dongping Lake tourist area currently developed by the defendant is Liangshanbo tourist area, deceiving the public and damaging the plaintiff's legitimate rights and interests. Defendant 1 shall, in accordance with the law, stop using the misleading name of the enterprise with the word "Liangshan.
4) The defendant illegally renamed Lashan as "Qianyiang Mountain", Liugong Mountain as "Beiliang Mountain", and Dongping Lake as "Liangshanbo" false propaganda, which caused confusion and misunderstanding of the location of Shuibo Liangshan tourist attractions among the relevant tourism public. It not only caused serious economic losses to the plaintiff, but also caused great damage to the plaintiff's tourism reputation.
Article 134 of China's General Principles of Civil Law stipulates that the infringer shall bear civil liability such as compensation for losses, apology, elimination of influence and restoration of reputation. Therefore, the plaintiff requires the defendant to publicly apologize to the plaintiff for its false propaganda of unfair competition in the "Qilu Evening News", which has sufficient factual and legal basis.
(II) the focus of the dispute in the second instance, the views and opinions of the plaintiff's lawyer.
In response to the focus of the dispute summarized by the court of second instance, the appellee's agent, Liu Jianyong, and other lawyers believe that (the same content as the first instance agent's opinion is omitted):
1. The appellant's act of renaming tourist place names belongs to the misleading false propaganda stipulated in Article 9 of China's Anti-unfair Competition Law, which constitutes unfair competition in accordance with the law.
1) The evidence submitted by the appellee in the first instance has proved that the appellee belongs to a legal person or other economic organization engaged in profit-making services of Liangshan tourism as stipulated in the Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The appellee and the appellant are both business entities in the same industry that develop and operate tourist attractions and benefit from it. The Liangshan Scenic Area operated by the appellee is only ten kilometers adjacent to the Dongping Lake and Lashan Scenic Area operated by the appellee; therefore, The appellee and the appellant have a competitive relationship in the operation and income of relevant tourist attractions, which falls within the scope of the "Anti-Unfair Competition Law. The appellant's unfair competition behavior of misleading and false propaganda infringed on the legitimate rights and interests of the appellee. The two appellees are the eligible litigation subjects in this case.
2) The appellant's unregulated use of place names by changing Lashan to "Former Liangshan", Liugong Mountain to "Beiliang Mountain", and Dongping Lake to "Liangshanbo" is an illegal false propaganda act and constitutes an act in accordance with the law. Unfair competition.
First, the Shandong Provincial Civil Affairs Department Lu Min Han [2006] No. 198 "Opinions on the Use of Place Names in External Tourism Publicity by Shandong Liangshanbo Tourism Development Co., Ltd." has already dealt with the illegality and impropriety of the appellant's act of changing the name of a place. A clear conclusion has been made and should be used as the basis for the determination of this case.
Second, in history and the current understanding of the public, especially foreign tourists, Liangshan and Liangshan are connected together. At the foot of Liangshan is Liangshan, and the mountain in Liangshan is Liangshan. The appellant's use of non-standard place names such as "former Liangshan", "Beiliang Mountain" and "Liangshanbo" without the approval of the government violates the regulations on the management of place names in China and belongs to the illegal use of place names. His behavior violates the provisions of Article 9 of China's Anti-unfair Competition Law that "operators shall not use advertising or other means to make misleading publicity of goods" and constitutes unfair competition in accordance with the law.
2. The court of first instance ordered the appellant to stop using the misleading enterprise name containing "Liangshan", which has sufficient legal and factual basis.
The judgment of the first instance conforms to the provisions of Articles 39, 41 and 42 of China's Measures for the Implementation of Enterprise Name Registration Administration. As the developer and operator of Dongping Lake and Lashan tourist areas, the appellant uses the name of the enterprise containing "Liangshan", which obviously makes the relevant tourism public or the public mistakenly think that the appellant is the developer of Liangshan and Liangshan Park tourism, and then mistakenly think that the Dongping Lake and Lashan tourism areas currently developed and operated by the appellant are Liangshan and Liangshan Park tourism areas, which are confused with the real Liangshan scenic spots operated by the appellee, causing deception and misunderstanding to the public, damages the legitimate rights and interests of the appellee.
3. The above-mentioned false propaganda carried out by the appellant has caused the appellee a direct economic loss of more than 150 million yuan, and the loss is still expanding. The court of first instance ruled that the appellant should compensate the appellee for the economic losses of 500000 yuan, which was not enough to make up for the actual economic losses caused by the appellee. The amount of compensation is not more, but less. Therefore, the appellant's claim that the amount of compensation awarded in the first instance is too high cannot be established at all.
5. case results
In July 2007, the Jining Intermediate people's Court made a judgment of first instance on the case: it fully supported the plaintiff's claim and ordered the defendant Shandong Liangshanbo Tourism Development Co., Ltd. to 1. and stop using the names of "Qianliangshan", "Bei Liangshan" and "Liangshanbo" for false propaganda of unfair competition; 2. to stop using the enterprise name with the word "Liangshan; 3. in the" Qilu Evening News "on its unfair competition behavior published to prove, eliminate the influence. The 4. compensated the plaintiff for economic losses of 500000 yuan.
The defendant, Shandong Liangshanbo Tourism Development Co., Ltd., appealed to the Shandong Higher People's Court against the judgment of first instance. In April 2009, the judgment of the second instance of the case was served on the parties. The court of second instance adopted the opinion of the appellee (plaintiff)'s lawyer, rejected the appellant's appeal and upheld the original judgment.