Original title: Haidian Court concentrated judgment of Sogou input method hijacking three major search engine traffic unfair competition cases Source: Beijing Haidian Court
In the first instance, the court found that Sogou Company constituted unfair competition, and should stop unfair competition behaviors. The plaintiffs of the three cases were publicly eliminated, and the economic losses of 5 million yuan were paid to Qihoo Company and Baidu Company to the company and the company. A total of more than 20 million yuan was compensated.
Three plaintiffs: Search candidate word jump is unfair competition
Qihoo company operates 360Mobile phoneBrowser and 360 search engine, Baidu company operates Baidu search engine, Jingjing company manages UC browser, Shenma company manages Shenma search engine, 360 mobile browser top bar provides 360 search engine by default, UC browser top bar provides by default Shenma search engine. Sogou Company operates Sogou input method and Sogou search engine.
The three plaintiffs found that Sogou launched the search candidate service from the Android version of the Sogou mobile phone input method launched in December 2015. The search candidate words are arranged above the input candidate words on the input method interface, and the user clicks on the search candidate word to jump directly into the Sogou. On the search results page, the three plaintiffs claimed that Sogou Company constituted unfair competition, and the economic losses for compensation were more than 100 million yuan.
Defendant: This behavior is a technological innovation
Sogou Company argued that its search candidates only appear in the browser environment. The combination of input method and search engine belongs to technological innovation, and has respected the user's right to know and choose.
The disputes in the third case are mainly reflected in two situations: one is to log in to the Baidu search engine website and the 360 search engine website in the browser environment. When the user searches in the search box, he directly enters by using the Sogou input method and clicking the search candidate words. Sogou search website; Second, when the user searches in the top bar of the 360 mobile browser and the UC browser, he directly enters the Sogou search website by using the Sogou input method and clicking the search candidate. The focus of the dispute is mainly on the search user traffic attribution in the browser environment, whether the search candidate words cause confusion to the user's service source, and the influence of technological innovation, user choice and other factors on the nature of the complaint behavior.
Haidian Court held that
The user has selected the search engine under the foregoing circumstances. Sogou Company intends to create user confusion. In the case where the input method interface does not add a clear identifier associated with the search operator, the user is guided to the same unmarked by searching for candidate words. Sogou search results page, hijacking the search user traffic belonging to the plaintiff in the third case, should be identified as the use of technical means, by affecting the way users choose, hindering the normal operation of the plaintiff's business activities in the three cases, constitutes unfair competition.
Since the case has been continued since 2015, the court has applied the statutory compensation limit to the two cases in which Baidu and Qihoo are suing, based on the evidence of the case, considering the market size of the plaintiff's products and the subjective malice of Sogou. The case against the company and the Shenma company is based on the discretion of the search user traffic from the UC browser home page directly from the UC browser to search for candidate words. Sexual compensation calculates Sogou’s illegal profit and determines the final amount of the award.
The third case is a typical case of hijacking user traffic in the era of mobile Internet; among them, the case of the company and the company of Shenma sued Sogou, which is the highest intellectual property case ever made by Haidian Court, reflecting the improvement of the hospital. The cost of intellectual property infringement and the attitude of increasing judicial protection of intellectual property rights. In addition, the court also pointed out that the free market allows operators to compete for user traffic under the principles of voluntariness, equality, fairness and integrity, and encourages operators to develop different products and services, but not in the name of technological innovation to enhance consumer welfare. Name, improperly seize the legitimate business interests of other operators. Only in this way can we build an orderly and balanced Internet market order.